[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 118 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3198-H3203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SUPREME COURT DECISION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WILL HAVE DEVASTATING 
                                EFFECTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-
McCormick) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special 
Order hour.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I 
rise today to coanchor this CBC Special Order hour along with my 
distinguished colleague, Representative Jackson.
  For the next 60 minutes, members of the CBC have an opportunity to 
speak directly to the American people on affirmative action, an issue 
of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the 
constituents we represent, and all Americans.
  I rise today in the wake of the consequential U.S. Supreme Court 
decision on affirmative action, which will have devastating ripple 
effects and exacerbate inequities for years to come.
  I am a Congresswoman, but one of my other most important jobs is 
being a mother to two amazing college students. Supporting our children 
through their admissions process was a frank reminder of my own 
personal journey. I remembered the blanket of anxiety I experienced 
when pondering my options for higher education.
  Even with excellent grades, would the pronunciation of my last name 
work against me?

[[Page H3199]]

  Would someone see my volunteer work and judge keywords such as Urban 
League of Broward County or Black student union?
  Would I be accepted? Would I be enough?
  Last month, SCOTUS delivered a crushing and unnecessary setback to 
the promise of higher education and its ability to provide economic 
mobility to communities of color. I could not stop thinking about every 
high school senior who is now worried that they won't have a fair 
chance to go to college and who fears they won't have the same shot at 
the American Dream.
  As Americans, we are better than this. We must live up to the ideals 
of this Nation. We cannot ignore the invisible advantages embedded in 
our society. The alternative to so-called neutral indicators of merit, 
like standardized test scores and extracurricular activities, are far 
from neutral. They are often influenced by unfair and devastating 
disadvantages that fall along racial lines.
  Here is what I know for sure: the grit and grind ingrained in the 
heart of one who has to push twice as hard for many Black students and 
minorities who are trying to actually raise the bar for their families 
and for their communities and who don't have access to legacy networks 
or rich family members who are donors.
  We must fight so that every student, regardless of their race, has an 
equal opportunity for higher education.
  Let me be clear. We will not stand by silently as extremists attempt 
to turn back the clock on civil rights. We must live up to the ideals 
of equality in our country. We must have the congressional body and the 
Supreme Court think about this decision and how it will affect 
generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my 
coanchor.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable 
Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the chorus of those who 
are mortified and offended by the recent and misguided Supreme Court 
decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
  Today, I stand in unity with the thousands of Black and Brown 
families I represent in the First Congressional District of Illinois 
and the millions across this Nation who have personally endured the 
harsh realities of racism in America and deserve to be respectfully 
heard on this significant matter.
  What the Supreme Court has done flies in the face of what African 
Americans have been working to achieve in this country for over 250 
years.
  Black people in America have never asked this country for special 
treatment, but what we have rightly asked for and demanded is that 
there be policies put in place that do not intentionally and 
unrepentantly exclude us from participating in the benefits of the 
American Dream.

                              {time}  2015

  Affirmative action was not a way for Black people to be given special 
privileges but was rather a very conservative solution to attempt to 
atone for the legacy of generational bigotry and systemic injustice.
  I dare anybody to justify the logic that would compel someone to 
believe that giving people who have been excluded from the game an 
opportunity to get on the field is somehow racist or an affront to 
White people.
  If the game were fair, we wouldn't need affirmative action in 
America. If the rules were transparent, we would not need affirmative 
action in America. And if the playing field was even, and everybody was 
judged by their character and merit, we would not need affirmative 
action in America.
  But when has this ever been the case? And it is not the case today. 
There has never been a time in this Nation when favoritism didn't tip 
the scales at the expense of other equally deserving individuals.
  You see, this formation of the middle class in the United States is 
not a tale of self-made success alone, but a story profoundly 
influenced by government policy.
  It is a narrative indelibly marked by historical reality: The U.S. 
Government, through a combination of Federal programs, played a pivotal 
role in creating an exclusively White middle class.
  Beginning with the Homestead Act, followed by the G.I. Bill, and the 
provisions of the Federal Housing Administration and VA loans, a triad 
of Federal programs was established. These programs were instrumental 
in allowing Whites to extricate themselves from poverty and achieve a 
modicum of the American Dream. It is crucial to understand that middle 
class White Americans did not solely pull themselves up by their 
bootstraps. The G.I. Bill emerged as an historic opportunity for wealth 
creation, unprecedented in world history.
  Homeownership, once an elusive dream for many, became a reachable 
goal. Car financing expanded its reach. Higher education became a 
feasible ambition for a broader population.
  The government acknowledged that empowering people to be self-reliant 
is not the same as bestowing unearned advantages. These programs 
systematically excluded African Americans from reaping the legal 
benefits that they had rightfully earned through their military service 
and their ancestors' enslavement. Thus, while these programs shaped a 
burgeoning White middle class, they simultaneously perpetuated an 
insidious racial wealth gap.
  During our previous Memorial Day commemoration, I stood here and 
recounted the stark reality of how earlier administrations diligently 
undermined the legal rights of Black veterans. The number of Black 
individuals granted land or qualifying for the Homestead Act was 
woefully low, even though their ancestors were promised 40 acres and a 
mule--a promise explicitly made, endorsed by the full faith and credit 
of the United States of America, yet a promise unfulfilled.
  While Black Americans descended deeper into poverty, the White middle 
class began to flourish.
  Now the Supreme Court would like us to believe that after 50 years of 
trying to level the playing field, that somehow miraculously and 
fundamentally our Nation has been transformed. The Supreme Court would 
like for us to believe that what took 300 years to destroy has now been 
completely resurrected in 50 years.
  Show me a single instance where reconstruction outpaces destruction. 
To make matters worse, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment, an 
amendment that was designed to ensure equality, to strike down a 
Federal program that permitted race as an acceptable consideration for 
admission opportunities.
  Does anyone else perceive the irony?
  The very amendment utilized to reach this flawed decision was 
designed to incorporate race as a lasting constitutional consideration 
at every level of American life.
  How can one justify using a law created to safeguard a certain race 
as the basis for undermining fundamental aspects of their protection?
  But what this decision shows us is that conservative members of the 
Supreme Court are not strict constructionists, as they would like us to 
believe. What this decision shows us is that the Supreme Court doesn't 
actually believe in the furtherance of a meritocracy in America. We 
know this because while the Court eliminated race as a viable 
consideration, it did not, however, do anything about legacy 
admissions.
  According to Forbes Magazine, approximately 42 percent of the 
applicants accepted into Harvard University, our Nation's oldest 
private institution, founded in 1636, were donor-related applicants, 
while another 34 percent of the admissions were legacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the other side to explain 
to me how this qualifies as meritocracy.
  Plainly stated, it does not. If you are wealthy, if your family has a 
legacy of attending a certain school, you will be given favorable 
attention with respect to the consideration of your application.
  What the Supreme Court has told us is that money and nepotism are 
completely acceptable for choosing who should be educated at the 
selective enrollment universities.
  The Supreme Court would have us believe that racism has ended, and 
everybody is equal. However, if you are fortunate to come from wealth 
and your family has a tradition of attending a specific school, you can 
receive preferential treatment.

[[Page H3200]]

  This was not a decision based upon precedent. This was not a decision 
based upon history. Nor was this decision rooted in the current 
realities of America. Yet, we will not be deterred by this setback. We 
will not quietly allow the victories of our past to fade into the 
obscurity of the night or let the spark of our conviction be 
extinguished.
  We refuse to watch helplessly as the new America, the America that 
Dr. Martin Luther dreamed of and indeed gave his life to birth, becomes 
threatened.
  The scales of justice have tipped in favor of those with privilege 
for too long. It is high time we redress this imbalance.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues: Let us rise to the occasion. It 
is not enough to express outrage; we must challenge it into action. Let 
us wield the power vested in us by the people to enact legislation that 
ensures liberty, justice, and equal access to education for all.
  This is not an insurmountable task, but a duty we owe to our 
constituents, and indeed, to the generations to come after us. Let us 
strive to create an America that truly stands as a beacon of justice 
and equality, an America that fulfills its promise to all of its 
citizens, not just a privileged few.
  Only then can we truly say that we have honored the legacy of those 
who fought for equality and justice before us. Only then can we ensure 
that their struggle was not in vain. Only then can we look into the 
eyes of our children and promise them a brighter and fairer future. 
This is about the kind of Nation we want to be and the kind of future 
we want to leave for those who come after us.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as both a representative of the people and 
a humble servant in the enduring journey toward equality, justice, and 
civil rights.
  Today, I stand in this chamber, in the aftermath of the Supreme 
Court's decision on overturning affirmative action, a fundamental 
pillar of our relentless pursuit of racial equity.
  Over a century ago, on this very day in 1905, an assembly took place 
near the precipice of Niagara Falls, Ontario. But it wasn't convened to 
marvel at the natural wonder of Niagara Falls. Instead, it was driven 
by the pressing issue of civil rights for all, irrespective of skin 
color.
  This assembly was led by none other than W.E.B. Du Bois and the 
esteemed journalist William Monroe Trotter. The group of more than 50 
African American men gathered on the Canadian side of the falls after a 
white hotel proprietor refused them lodging. Their meeting birthed the 
Niagara Movement, the precursor to the enduring organization we know 
today as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, or the NAACP.
  The members of the Niagara Movement developed a Declaration of 
Principles. This declaration called for ``every single right that 
belongs to a freeborn American, political, civil and social,'' and they 
vowed that ``until we get these rights we will never cease to protest 
and assail the ears of America.''
  Today, the words in the Declaration of Principles resonate with even 
more urgency in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision on 
affirmative action. Three principles outlined in the declaration 
particularly underline the issue at hand:
  First, Economic Opportunity: The Niagara Movement members decried the 
denial of equal opportunities, particularly in economic life. They 
understood as we do today, that systemic discrimination in the economic 
sphere can amount to a form of modern peonage, crushing the aspirations 
and potentials of minority communities.
  Second, Education: The Niagara Movement championed universal and 
compulsory common school education, and access to high school training 
for all, and opposed the monopolization of college training by any 
class or race. They pushed for federal education aid, particularly in 
the South, and an increase in public high school facilities. They 
advocated for trade and technical schools for training artisans, 
emphasizing the necessity of higher education. These principles echo 
the aims of affirmative action--to level the playing field, ensuring 
that every American, regardless of race or, class, has access to the 
same opportunities.
  Third, the Courts: The Niagara Movement called for upright judges in 
courts, the abolition of color-based jury selection, equal punishment, 
and equal reform efforts for both black and white offenders. Now, we 
find ourselves in a moment when these principles seem to reverberate 
with even more urgency, as our Supreme Court appears to have lost its 
compass with a conservative-leaning and recent scandals of corruption. 
This decision on affirmative action serves as a sobering reminder of 
our Nation's ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality, and the 
urgent need for our institutions to uphold the very principles our 
Nation was built upon.
  Rather than surrender to this setback, we must draw strength from our 
past and press forward. We must reaffirm our commitment to equality, 
continue our struggle for justice, and remember that the purpose of 
affirmative action always has been, and must remain, to mitigate the 
disadvantages that systemic discrimination imposes on our citizens. The 
quest for equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of their race, 
is a battle that we must not abandon.
  Indeed, our fight is formidable, and the road to equality can often 
seem daunting. But as we stand here today, honoring our past, we must 
remember--we are not the first to undertake this mission, and we 
certainly won't be the last. The struggle for civil rights, equality, 
and justice, represents our collective pursuit to form a more perfect 
union.
  Let us find fortitude in our history and the legacy of movements and 
individuals that fought before us. From the courageous voices of the 
Niagara Movement and the NAACP to pioneers like W.E.B. DuBois and 
William Monroe Trotter, we find our inspiration. Armed with their 
legacy, let's continue their work, imbued with hope and resilience, to 
ensure our journey toward justice remains unyielding.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my colleague from Virginia's Third District.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. I also thank her and the gentleman from Illinois for talking 
about the importance for opportunity and a recognition of the history 
of discrimination in the United States.
  The Supreme Court has long held that our Nation has a compelling 
interest in creating racially diverse college campuses.
  Holistic college admissions practices that narrowly tailor the use of 
race as one of many factors in evaluating prospective students are a 
key to fostering such diversity in a college campus environment.
  Such admissions policies not only help the historically underserved 
students, research confirms that diverse campuses also provide all 
students with a better quality, well-rounded education.
  Last month, the Supreme Court decided, with little regard for 
precedent, that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's 
pursuit of these compelling interests is unconstitutional.
  Regrettably, the Supreme Court's decision is a setback in our effort 
to eliminate invidious disparities in access to higher education and an 
effort to ensure diverse learning environments for all students.
  Now that it is done, it is imperative that we review all other facets 
of college admissions that research shows may be racially 
discriminatory and have a disparate impact and determine if they, too, 
need to be eliminated, given this ruling.
  Now, there are admissions factors to take into consideration: 
Racially inequitable K-12 schooling opportunities, racially biased 
admissions tests, the legacy admissions that have been mentioned, and 
other factors that may have a discriminatory impact.
  Now, race-conscious affirmative action provides a counterbalance to 
these discriminatory practices, but since the Court has invalidated 
that balance, we must now review all current admissions practices to 
see if they, too, have disparate impact so that we can see whether or 
not they are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act.
  To facilitate that review, we must pass the Equity and Inclusion 
Enforcement Act. This bill that has been pending for several years 
would hold federally funded programs, including schools, accountable 
for providing students with equal access to education by restoring a 
private right of action for students and parents to bring disparate 
impact claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
  Because of a Supreme Court's interpretation about 20 years ago, there 
is no longer a private right of action in Title VI cases. Those cases 
based on disparate impact must be brought by the Federal Government. So 
if there is discrimination going on, the Federal Government has to run 
around the country and find it. If it is going on in your community and 
you know it, you can't bring that individual case.

[[Page H3201]]

  Mr. Speaker, Justice Sotomayor said it best in her dissent when she 
said that: ``Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially 
unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: 
Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.''
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight, and I also 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's 
horrible decision to reject affirmative action in college admissions.
  Last month, the Court ruled that affirmative action programs and 
college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that ruling opposes decades of 
Supreme Court decisions that said just the opposite. They said that the 
use of race as an admissions factor was consistent with the 14th 
Amendment.
  In 1978, the Court said that institutions of higher learning had the 
right to pursue a diverse student body to advance academic freedom, and 
they could consider race as a factor to evaluate college applications 
if it was one of many factors.
  In 2003, the Court reaffirmed this ruling because student diversity 
is a compelling interest in education. In addition, these policies 
helped counter the historical racism that denied educational 
opportunities to African Americans and other minorities, and it was 
working.
  In public universities nationwide, minority enrollment increased when 
race was one factor of admissions. These minority students equaled or 
exceeded the successes of their White peers in a variety of academic 
fields when they graduated.
  Today, these policies help foster a rich and diverse environment for 
all Americans in higher education, and they help minority students 
secure higher paying jobs in STEM fields such as engineering and 
science.

                              {time}  2030

  However, the Supreme Court has decided that this type of equality is 
bad for America. It wants to reject the fact that race has been a 
factor in college admissions for decades. Unfortunately, it was used as 
the only factor to reject candidates and not one of many factors to 
consider when accepting them.
  I am outraged that the Supreme Court has rejected a successful policy 
that has helped millions of Black and other minority students receive 
the quality education they deserve.
  At one time, they weren't allowed to enter these schools. What was 
the reason? Was it because of many factors that they could not attend 
these schools? No. It was one factor--their race.
  It is yet another indication of how our country is slowly returning 
to a time when equal opportunities were not afforded to all Americans. 
The Court said that race-related admission standards violated the Equal 
Protection Clause, but where was that Equal Protection Clause during 
slavery and Jim Crow? Where is that equal protection today in housing, 
workforce hiring, and voting rights?
  Conservative Justices and politicians want to pretend that our 
country has no racial issues. They are not connected to reality in that 
thinking.
  This decision is yet another roadblock to success for Black Americans 
in this country, but we have overcome them before, and we will overcome 
them again. I will continue to fight to help us overcome these 
roadblocks wherever we find them, and I will not stop until we have 
racial justice and equality for all Americans in this country.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bowman).
  Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Cherfilus-McCormick 
for her leadership and for bringing together the CBC this evening to 
once again discuss racism in America.
  How long are we going to have to have this conversation? It seems 
like day after day, month after month, year after year, since 1619, we 
have had to have this conversation in some context.
  The Supreme Court's decision, unfortunately, is not surprising 
because three of our Court Justices were chosen by one of the most, if 
not the most, racist Presidents in American history, former President 
Donald Trump. He chose three of the Supreme Court Justices. His slogan 
is to Make America Great Again, take America back to a time when 
African Americans did not have the rights that we have fought for and 
died for throughout American history.
  Here we go again. This Supreme Court has now become a Supreme Court 
that legislates as opposed to a Supreme Court that simply implements 
the pillars of our Constitution, the same Supreme Court that rolled 
back Roe v. Wade not too long ago, that is now making it easier to 
carry concealed weapons in Democrat-led States with strong gun laws 
like New York, the same Supreme Court that says it is okay to turn away 
LGBTQ customers if you do not want to do work for that particular 
demographic.
  This Supreme Court has gone rogue, and this Supreme Court has lost 
its legitimacy. Look at the reports: members of the Supreme Court 
receiving gifts from billionaire donors over the course of their 
careers, members of the Supreme Court allowing billionaire conservative 
donors to pay for their children's tuition as they attend private 
schools.
  This is unacceptable. This is unethical. There are members of the 
Supreme Court who should immediately resign or be impeached because of 
taking these gifts from conservative billionaire donors.
  These recent decisions rolling back Roe v. Wade and definitely the 
one as it relates to affirmative action are in alignment with MAGA 
Republicans and extreme conservative Republicans in our country. Notice 
the hypocrisy. Notice the disgusting decision to use the 14th 
Amendment, which was designed to protect the civil rights and 
citizenship of newly freed slaves. They use that argument to now take 
away rights from African Americans as it refers to entry into our most 
prestigious institutions.
  This decision is going to prohibit millions of African Americans 
across this country who are brilliant from receiving the same access 
and opportunity as their White peers.
  I think all of that is captured in this chart behind me when we look 
at the issue of wealth inequality in America. Look at this chart and 
the median family wealth gap. The average White family median wealth is 
$171,000. Compare that to the average Black family. The median in an 
average Black family is $17,409. The average Hispanic family is 
$20,920.
  It is the consistent attack on Black and Latino communities that 
contributes to this wealth gap. It is not just the affirmative action 
decision in terms of the higher education institutions of America. It 
is also as it relates to employment opportunities, to career 
opportunities, to private investment in Black and Latino businesses, to 
the Federal budget, and where our money is allocated toward right here 
in this body, the United States House of Representatives.
  It goes back to the issue of globalization and blue-collar jobs 
leaving Black and Brown communities as part of a race to the bottom for 
profit based on low-cost labor in other countries. When those factory 
jobs left our country and left Black and Latino communities, nothing 
replaced those jobs. As a matter of fact, I have misspoken. Something 
did replace those jobs: heroin, the numbers game, and crack cocaine 
replaced those jobs. Do you know what else replaced those jobs? Law 
enforcement.
  You take away access and opportunity from a jobs perspective, from an 
economic perspective, from a higher education perspective--also, by the 
way, because of our support of redlining Black communities, the White 
middle class in the 1930s and 1940s was able to buy homes at very low 
interest rates, very low cost, move to the suburbs, out of public 
housing, and build their wealth. Do you know who was forced to stay in 
public housing? African Americans and Latinos. Those communities were 
considered devalued, less valuable because of the race of the people 
who lived there.

  This is historic. This is not just the enslavement of Africans, not 
just Jim

[[Page H3202]]

Crow, not just the Black laws, not just the Homestead Act. This is 
redlining, the Iran-Contra scandal, and drugs in our community. Now, in 
2023, we continue to have these conversations because of the Supreme 
Court's recent decision.
  I am also here to say that to us in the Congressional Black Caucus 
and to African Americans across this country, these setbacks are only 
that. They are only setbacks. Each setback makes us stronger, makes us 
more powerful, makes us more united, and gives us a deeper sense of 
commitment and self-determination as we work to reclaim our Black 
sovereignty not just here in America but throughout the African 
diaspora, in the Caribbean, on the African Continent, and in Central 
and South America.
  We don't die; we multiply. We will continue to multiply exponentially 
as we weather this storm, grow our enrollment in historically Black 
colleges--a shout-out to HBCUs for doing the great work that they do so 
that is going to grow.
  We also are going to let our voices be heard as we vote with our feet 
and go to the polls next year because we have to bring transformational 
change to the United States of America. We have to build a nation that 
works for everybody, and right now, we do not have that nation.
  I will close with this: The Supreme Court has not only revealed its 
illegitimacy through receiving gifts from billionaire conservative 
donors. We have to look at complete Supreme Court reform as it relates 
to ethics reform and ending lifetime appointments.
  We also need to look at the size of the Supreme Court. It is time to 
expand the Court beyond the nine members. This nine-member Supreme 
Court has been in place since 1869. America was 30 million people in 
1869. It is now 330 million people, over 10 times the size.
  There are 7,000 cases presented to the Supreme Court every single 
year. They hear only 80 of them. They do not have the capacity to 
respond to the complexity, diversity, and nuance that is American 
society today.
  It is time for democracy reform, and it begins with the Supreme 
Court. It also begins with the electoral college. It also begins with 
ending the filibuster. We change all that by voting the right people 
into office and getting the wrong ones out of office.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Foushee).
  Mrs. FOUSHEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Florida 
for her leadership and this opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in condemning the 
Supreme Court's decision to roll back decades of judicial precedents 
and strike down race-conscious admissions efforts.
  Since 1978, the Supreme Court had consistently held that race-based 
admission policies in colleges and universities are in the best 
interest of educational institutions, but this recent radical decision 
will dismantle efforts to ensure higher education is accessible to all 
students, further questioning the legitimacy of this politicized 
Supreme Court, which seems more eager to protect legacy admissions than 
providing students who are historically disadvantaged with equal 
opportunity to a quality education.

                              {time}  2045

  Diversity makes our Nation stronger, and the repercussions of this 
decision will be felt for generations.
  Members of the Congressional Black Caucus stand united in our fight 
for a more equitable society, and we will continue to push for equal 
opportunity admissions for students across this country.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), my colleague.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
for hosting this important topic.
  I rise today to call out the corruption and the hypocrisy of this 
Supreme Court. The affirmative action ruling is a total sham.
  Justice Clarence Thomas is good at accepting gifts. One gift he 
received was the gift of going to Yale Law School, thanks to 
affirmative action. He said: ``God only knows where I would be today'' 
if it were not for affirmative action.
  Yet, in this last ruling, he opined that affirmative action was bad 
for African Americans because if they got into these institutions, they 
would be unable to thrive.
  Elite institutions remain the gateways into government, into big 
industry, into C-suites. Eight of the nine sitting Justices on this 
court either attended Yale or Harvard Law School. In fact, three of the 
Justices on this bench are beneficiaries of affirmative action and have 
stated it.
  Allowing themselves to get into college because of affirmative 
action, they got on to the bench because of affirmative action. Both 
Democrat and Republican Presidents considered race when selecting them 
as nominees for the Supreme Court, appropriately so.
  It is about representation. It is about diversity. It is about making 
sure that all voices are seen and heard. Affirmative action is more 
than just about admissions. It is also about economic progress. But 
this ruling has cut generations of students from this critical benefit.
  The Court is facing a legitimacy crisis. The Supreme Court is out of 
step with reality.
  In States that have actually banned affirmative action, schools in 
those States have seen a 20 percent reduction in Black applicants and 
in Black students. Talk to an admissions counselor. Heck, talk to a 
biologist, and they will tell you that homogenous environments do not 
thrive. They do not survive.
  In an orchestra, you need all kinds of musicians playing all kinds of 
instruments in order to make music.
  In movies, you need all kinds of characters to tell a story.
  On college campuses, you need a diverse campus, of all kinds of 
students, to stimulate growth, research, economic development, 
innovation and survival.
  This ruling goes beyond admissions. It is about the hiring of 
faculty. It is about how companies recruit, hire, and retain, and it is 
about procurement.
  This ruling is divisive. It is hypocritical, and it is out of step 
with the American people, just like the Supreme Court.
  You know what this ruling does? This ruling says to Black students, 
this ruling says to Black children like yours and like mine, that this 
Supreme Court doesn't see you and that this Supreme Court doesn't care 
about you.
  But to our students, to our children, to our students and our 
children who are Black, I am here to tell you on behalf of the 
Congressional Black Caucus that we see you. We hear you. We are 
fighting for you, unlike this Supreme Court. We are not going to stop 
fighting, nor will we stop telling the truth about the history of this 
country, about this Supreme Court, about this ruling, and about what is 
ahead.
  Color blind is an aspirational state of mind, but it is not yet 
reality. So let's live in reality and talk about what our students are 
facing and the hypocrisy that is coming out of this Supreme Court.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my 
distinguished colleagues about affirmative action and issues of great 
importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, our constituents, 
Congress, and all Americans tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, African Americans were 
systematically denied the opportunity to pursue a higher education, 
build wealth, and achieve financial independence, leaving behind a 
painful legacy of discrimination that persists to this day.
  Let us not forget. It was in 1963--only six decades ago--when Black 
students were finally allowed to enroll alongside their peers at the 
University of Alabama.
  Almost half of the members serving in this be today were alive at 
that time.
  Make no mistake--we have made tremendous progress since then. For the 
past four decade colleges and universities across this nation have had 
the freedom to build student bodies that reflect the diversity of our 
great nation.
  With the blessing of the Supreme Court, these schools have used 
affirmative action policies as a tool to break down educational 
barriers for students who would otherwise be left behind.
  Tragically, two weeks ago, in an extreme reversal, this Republican-
controlled Court has

[[Page H3203]]

once again chosen to ignore our history and roll back our progress.
  By banning affirmative action in college admissions, the Supreme 
Court has deprived us of a critical tool in our continued fight for 
equality and justice for all.
  Not only is this decision a blatant attack on educational 
opportunity, it also upends nearly 40 years of precedent, undermining 
the sacred trust that the American people have placed in the Court.
  From voting rights, to reproductive freedom, to educational 
opportunities, this Court has demonstrated time and time again that it 
is willing to ignore history, ignore precedent, and ignore common sense 
in order to strip away our freedoms and roll back our progress.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that ignoring our past will not make it go away. 
In the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, ``deeming race 
irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.''
  If we are going to address the injustices of the past, we must be 
intentional about leveling the playing field and providing 
opportunities to those who have been left behind.
  After all, our entire nation benefits when talented students of 
diverse backgrounds get a fair shot at success.
  Despite this shameful decision, we must not be deterred. Let this 
decision serve as a reminder that progress is elusive, and every 
generation must fight to preserve the progress of the past and advance 
it.
  Now is the time to redouble our efforts and to hold this nation 
accountable to its highest ideals of equality and justice for all.
  Until every American can enjoy the full promise of our democracy, our 
work continues.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-
McCormick and Congressman Jonathan Jackson, for co-chairing tonight's 
Special Order Hour.
  I rise today with my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus to 
address the recent Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions 
v. Harvard and UNC.
  The Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 vote that race-based 
affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violated 
Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Equal 
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  The Supreme Court's decision to strike down decades of precedent set 
in the Bakke case in 1978, which gave students--regardless of their 
race or ethnicity--a better chance at equal admissions to our nation's 
top schools was a needless blow to America's promise of equal and fair 
opportunity.
  We have to be clear on what this decision means for the legacy of the 
Court and what this decision will mean for race-conscious admissions 
policies across our country.
  By delivering a decision on affirmative action so radical as to deny 
young people seeking an education equal opportunity in our education 
system, the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy.
  By imposing these radical changes to college and university race-
based admission policies, the Court has made clear that it does not 
stand on the side of dismantling barriers to give our young people the 
opportunity at a better life, which will only stand to benefit the 
wealthy and well-connected.
  Unfortunately, we have seen backlash to progress many times 
throughout our Nation's history. During Reconstruction, we had a mere 
12 years of Black achievement in policy, politics, the arts and 
sciences, and education that were followed by 70 years of state-
sanctioned Jim Crow.
  We didn't stop fighting for equality then and we won't stop now 
because too much is at stake to allow extremists to turn back the clock 
on progress or to use Affirmative Action as a cultural wedge issue.
  That is why the CBC is proud to work alongside our Tri-Caucus 
colleagues to make clear that we will not be divided because our 
Nation's diversity is our greatest strength.
  I want to thank my colleagues of the CBC, including Representative 
Bobby Scott, Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee for their work on this issue and for being united in making 
clear that decision does not take the responsibility off of colleges 
and universities to do all they can to expand access to educational 
opportunities for students coming from underrepresented communities.
  The CBC is calling for colleges and universities to not only work 
towards diversifying their campuses to more closely reflect America, 
but also to reevaluate their legacy admissions programs because while 
the Court went so far as to eliminate race-conscious admissions 
practices, it did nothing about other determining factors such as 
legacy status.
  In fact, a lawsuit has been filed against Harvard University, saying 
that the legacy admissions programs that give preferential treatment to 
the children of wealthy donors and alumni discriminates against 
students of color who have the academic merit to attend the school.
  As such applicants with donor relationships, athletic recruitments, 
employee relationships, and other special recommendations will continue 
to receive preferential treatment.
  Giving unequal opportunity to an education for legacy admissions 
starkly contrasts the message we need to send our young people and 
threatens any progress we have made in providing equal access and 
diverse learning environments for students across our country.
  And while no Nevada institutions of higher education implemented race 
consideration in admissions, Nevadans of color who want to attend 
schools out of state, like Harvard, MIT, Georgia Tech, or other 
schools, will suffer as a result of this decision.
  Let me be clear--our students have the merit, academic credentials, 
knowledge, and drive to succeed at these schools. But we cannot turn a 
blind eye to the history of our nation that has prioritized wealth and 
access. At the same time, families of color have battled generations of 
discrimination and racism that limited their access to quality 
education and wealth building.
  This decision specifically exempted military academies. Why?
  Race can be a factor when police stop someone on the streets. Why?
  But race cannot be a factor in deciding whether someone can pursue a 
higher education. Why not?

                          ____________________