[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H9990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SUPREME COURT WRONG IN LETTING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BAN STAND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate my remarks 
with that of the gentleman from Illinois in raising concerns about the 
recent Supreme Court decision that allowed to stand Proposition 209 in 
California.
  I think it is very clear that many have misinterpreted the concept of 
affirmative action. Affirmative action simply provides an opportunity 
for those qualified. It is unfortunate that the proponents of 209 and 
the Supreme Court now in its refusal to hear the decision have denied 
the rights of women and minorities to address discriminatory practices. 
And so as we see in California, with the initial impact of Proposition 
209, a decided decrease in the schools of medicine and law with respect 
in particular to Hispanics and African Americans.
  We have seen as a result of 209 a chilling effect on qualified 
minority students leaving in droves the State of California because 
they find no opportunity for civil rights or the opportunity to be 
educated in their own schools because they have been denied those 
opportunities through the biased and unfair implementation of 209.
  The question becomes, well, these individuals are not qualified. 
Evidence shows that graduate students in law and medicine who may have 
come in under an affirmative action program and scholarship program 
passed their medical boards and law boards equal to those who were 
admitted in another manner.
  Additionally, I come from the State of Texas, and in particular 
represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX. It is very 
clear that the Hopwood decision in Texas has been extremely chilling. 
In fact, I would say to you that Cheryl Hopwood, the petitioner in that 
case, which has now eliminated any opportunity for minority students to 
be accepted on what we call affirmative action goals-directed programs 
in the State of Texas, should have gotten into the University of Texas. 
In fact, she was far more qualified than many white males who got in 
under normal circumstances. So, in fact, I would have supported the 
admission of Cheryl Hopwood.
  Unfortunately, her challenge was misdirected. It was directed at a 
program that sought to diversify a school system that had been born in 
segregation. Texas Southern University is a school that was organized 
in the State of Texas because Herman Sweat was not allowed to go to the 
law school at the University of Texas. Now we find ourselves having 
come full circle to deny now the best and the brightest of Texas from 
particularly Hispanic, African-American, and women populations along 
with Asians because of the implementation of the Hopwood decision. Now 
we find ourselves with a clone of 209 on the ballot as I speak in the 
city of Houston.
  First I would like to thank all of those who worked in good faith to 
maintain the diversity and the international persona of the city of 
Houston. Mayor Bob Lanier was one of the leaders in this effort. I 
would suggest to Members that the people of good will know what is best 
for Houston, and that is to remain with an open door policy.
  In this instance, proponents of the elimination of affirmative action 
directed their hostility toward the city's NWBE Program. Let me share 
with my colleagues the irony of such a rejection or opposition to the 
program. Our program was started in 1984, simply a goals aspiration 
program, simply saying to the majority community, which heretofore took 
95 percent of city contracts, again paid for by city tax dollars of 
which all citizens pay for. After 1984, when the NWBE Program was 
carefully carved not to be a quotas program, not to be a preference 
program, we began to see 20 percent of the contracts going to women and 
minorities, 17 percent in construction and another percentage in 
professional services.
  Now, the proponents of a clone of 209 say that that, in fact, is too 
much, say that Houston has preference, says that Houston has quotas. 
Absolutely absurd. What Houston has is the opportunity to promote 
minority businesses and women-owned businesses that have created jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me simply say the Supreme Court was 
misdirected and unfortunately wrong in their opinion. I would encourage 
those who will be seeing these particular mechanisms on their ballot to 
fight hard to oppose allowing individuals to have a remedy for 
discrimination. That is all that affirmative action is, and we should 
join with colleagues of good will to likewise defeat any effort by the 
United States Congress to pass Federal legislation on affirmative 
action. That certainly will be the commitment that I offer, and I ask 
my colleagues to join me as well.

                          ____________________