[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H2921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  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 think it is important after 
the conclusion of today's debate on the Higher Education Act and 
specifically the debate that we had on both the Riggs and Campbell 
amendment to assess where we are and what that means. I am very pleased 
that the debate was not acrimonious but it was truthful. It expresses, 
I think, the overall commitment of this House to what really is equal 
opportunity and particularly in higher education.
  Many times as we have debated the questions of affirmative action and 
equal opportunity, many voices would raise in citation of the words of 
Dr. Martin Luther King, that we should be judged not by the color of 
our skin but by the character within. Those words distort the value and 
the purpose of affirmative action and equal opportunity. For there is 
no doubt that we all strive to an even playing field. That even playing 
field has not arrived, for those who would argue that an amendment that 
would eliminate the ability to outreach and affirmatively act upon 
recruiting and soliciting minority students and women to institutions 
of higher learning deny the existence of past discrimination and 
existing discrimination.
  The Riggs amendment and the Campbell amendment were likewise 
misdirected and distorted. My good colleague from California rose to 
the floor of the House and cited an example of the SAT scores. He 
started with a score in an Asian student that may have had a score of 
760. He cited the score of a white student, an Hispanic student, and he 
concluded with a score of an African-American student of 510 on the 
SATs. With that pronouncement, he proceeded to discuss the fact of why 
there should be any extra special effort to ensure that those students 
who did not have the higher scores be able to attend institutions of 
higher learning. I have an answer for him. What is the high moral 
ground? What does this country stand for? Does it suggest that students 
who do not have the money to pay to go to institutions of higher 
learning should become or remain uneducated, foolish, untrainable, the 
door of opportunity should be closed? Does it mean those students who 
live in rural America who might have a hard time getting transportation 
to institutions of higher learning, the door should be closed? In every 
instance, we reach out to try to help those who need the extra help, to 
get the promise of what America stands for. Both the Riggs amendment 
and the Campbell amendment missed the boat on what is right and what is 
the high moral ground.
  We will continue to have these debates. We have an election in 
Seattle. We recently had an election in Houston, Texas where they were 
attempting to eliminate the affirmative action provisions in minority 
and small and women-owned businesses. We have had one in California. 
Unfortunately it was, I think, misconstrued by the voters and 
Proposition 209 passed. But the tragedy of Proposition 209 is evidenced 
by the sizable diminishing of those students from Hispanic and African-
American backgrounds going to institutions of higher learning. We 
defeated Proposition A in Houston recognizing that once you understood 
what affirmative action actually stands for, affirmatively acting, 
affirmatively reaching out, affirmatively ensuring equal opportunity, 
that most Americans will join hands united in recognizing that this is 
the right way to go. I, too, join in the words of Dr. Martin Luther 
King. I wish for a society in which all of us are judged by the content 
of our character. But I do not believe that because you come from a 
Hispanic background, an African-American background, because you are a 
woman, because you come from a rural background and you need an extra 
measure of help that that in any way diminishes your character, 
suggests that you are not being judged by your character but in fact 
the color of your skin is negative and so you are being reached out to 
because of something negative rather than something positive.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply hope that time after time these kinds of 
amendments reach the floor of the House, we will recognize that the 
right way to go is to some day to reach a point in America where there 
is no discrimination against Native Americans and Hispanics, African-
American, Asians, whites, women, but we have not reached that point.
  These amendments take away from what the full promise of this country 
stands for. I will always stand against them, I will argue with my 
colleagues and respect them for their difference, but each day I will 
demand that this House do the right thing.
  As I do that, Mr. Speaker, let me also simply conclude by saying I 
want to join very briefly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in 
his opposition and concern finally for what I think have been misguided 
efforts and directions in investigations dealing with both Webb 
Hubbell, Ms. McDougal and the whole proceedings investigating the 
President.

                          ____________________