[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 119 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3216-H3217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I will address one of the very important 
Supreme Court decisions which came down in the last couple weeks and 
some of the comments that have been made critical of that decision. I 
am talking about the one that dealt with a policy now known in the 
United States as affirmative action.
  What that policy does is it gives, as a practical matter, preferences 
both on

[[Page H3217]]

the basis of race and gender in university admissions. Actually, the 
public debate should go beyond that because in this country not only do 
we have a policy in which we try to have certain groups jump ahead of 
other people based on test scores or grade point average, we also have 
preferences, or encourage, as a practical matter, preferences in hiring 
for government jobs as well as hiring in jobs working for a private 
organization, if that private organization has at least 50 employees 
and does business with the Federal Government. There are also 
preferences with regard to government contracting.
  As a practical matter, we have had these preferences since 1965. We 
are talking about things that are 67 years old.

  I will point out that sometimes with regard to government 
contracting, it encourages lying. I have talked to people in my 
district who talk about their colleagues putting businesses in the name 
of their wives so they can get the preference for a woman-owned 
business even though the guy continues to run the business.
  My friend doesn't like it because he is an honest person and he 
refuses to lie. He doesn't like the fact that people who are lying move 
ahead of him. He is in the construction field.
  There are two ideas put forth as to why we need these preferences: 
One is to undo past injustices from years ago, going all the way back 
to slavery in the 1860s; and, secondly, the idea that somehow we should 
ask businesses or government to have a more diverse task force. I am 
going to deal with each of one of these separately.
  First of all, with regard to past injustices, the benefits in 
universities and the benefit in government affirmative action goes to 
people who were never even in this country. We have to ask ourselves, 
why, if my ancestors came here from Peru in the 1990s and never 
experienced a period in this country, assuming there was such a period 
in which there was a lot of prejudice, why would we be giving 
preferences to people who moved here in the 1990s?
  Also, Madam Speaker, Black people who moved here from Jamaica or the 
Bahamas in the 1990s, well past the era of Jim Crow, much less well 
past slavery times, why would we be giving them preferences?
  The Biden administration, most recently, is trying to add another 
group to get preferences, people from the Middle East or northern 
Africa. Why, if someone moves here from Algeria or Syria today, they 
may not even be citizens, why would they be given preferences? What is 
the underlying rationale?
  The other thing to point out here is that we are hypothetically 
giving preferences to people who are doing better than the native-born 
population. This is something people should remember before they 
advocate for this or if they have children or grandchildren making the 
pitch for this.
  Right now the ethnic group in America that is doing the best 
financially--and money is not the most important thing in life, but 
nevertheless, that is frequently what we look to when we determine 
these programs--are Indian Americans who are the most successful group 
in America today. Behind that, we have people from China. I think the 
number two group right now is from the Philippines. People from Cuba 
are doing better than the native born.
  According to Thomas Sowell--this is a book somewhat dated--according 
to Thomas Sowell, the second generation after people move here from the 
West Indies, Jamaica, and the Bahamas do better than the average 
American.
  Given that, like I said, we are dealing with people who came here 
well past the time of prejudice. Why in the world would we be giving 
preferences to these people?
  The next thing I will point out is that some people fall back on the 
idea that we need a diverse group of students or a diverse workforce. 
This is kind of a bizarre argument, and it is something people should 
have to defend.
  Let's say I am one-quarter Peruvian--I am not, but let's say for the 
sake of argument I am one-quarter Peruvian. I have never been to Peru. 
I don't know a word of Spanish. I have never been to a Spanish-speaking 
country. Why in the world would we be giving me preferences to bring 
the Peruvian viewpoint to an engineering firm, let's say?
  It makes no sense at all. I have no connection other than DNA with 
people that are Peruvian.
  These are some of the ideas that I think people should have to 
respond to before they are critical of that decision, or people who 
want this sort of policy to continue.

                          ____________________