[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 29, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1721-H1724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             ENDING OF DEI PROGRAMS THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Fields 
of Louisiana was recognized for 30 minutes.)
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about something that 
happened on January 20.
  On January 20, the President of the United States took the oath of 
office at this Capitol. Shortly thereafter, he signed several executive 
orders.
  One executive order was Executive Order No. 14151. That executive 
order ended all DEI programs. The argument that DEI initiatives 
constitute reverse discrimination fundamentally misunderstands both the 
history and the purpose of these programs.
  DEI initiatives emerged as thoughtful, evidence-based responses to 
documented inequities suffered by rural communities, minorities, women, 
the poor, and the disabled. These programs represent America at its 
best, acknowledging our Nation's shortcomings and tireless work to 
overcome them.
  The ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 codified equal 
protection as a constitutional principle. Yet, Americans soon 
discovered that simply declaring equal protection didn't automatically 
create it.
  The real challenge was in translating these legal guarantees into 
everyday justice through their implementations. When the landmark 
Supreme Court decisions in 2023 and 2024 further restricted race-
conscious university admissions and workplace policies, they 
accelerated a retreat from this understanding.

                              {time}  1930

  The history of DEI efforts in America is not some partisan agenda. It 
is part of our Nation's ongoing work to ensure that America's promise 
extends to every American. In 2025, as we face renewed attacks on these 
principles, we must renew our commitment to this work.
  Let me be clear: Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not about 
guarantees and preferences; they are about removing barriers. They are 
not about lowering standards; they are about ensuring that the 
standards we apply don't inadvertently favor some groups while 
disadvantaging others who are equally qualified.
  When our military, for example, embraced diversity and inclusion, it 
didn't become weaker. It became the most formidable fighting force in 
human history.
  When our businesses embraced diverse talents and perspectives, they 
didn't become less competitive. They gained access to broader markets 
and built the strongest economy in the world.
  When our universities created more inclusive learning environments, 
they didn't sacrifice excellence. Instead, they became global leaders 
in research and education.
  The world is always watching us to see what we will accomplish, but 
now more than ever before, they are watching us to see who we will 
become.
  I still believe in an America where a child's potential isn't limited 
to his ZIP Code, the color of his skin, their gender, or other factors 
beyond their control.
  I believe in an America where we can acknowledge our imperfect past 
while working together toward a more perfect future.
  Most of all, I believe in the fundamental goodness and fairness of 
the American people.
  When we move beyond slogans, when we truly see each other as fellow 
citizens on one shared journey, we find that what unites us is far 
greater than what divides us.
  While the temptation is great, we cannot let this moment divide us. 
We were never meant to be the divided States. We were created as and 
have thrived for over 250 years as the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), 
the chairman of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable 
Congressman

[[Page H1722]]

Cleo Fields from the Sixth District of the great State of Louisiana for 
yielding.
  I would like to read for you, Mr. Speaker, a speech that the 
Honorable George W. Bush gave at the inauguration of the African 
American history museum. I was proud to be in attendance there, and I 
must say I was not a big fan of the Presidency of Mr. George Bush, but 
now, looking back over the times from which we have entered, I have to 
give him credit where credit is due. He gave a speech that day that I 
wish my Republican colleagues would take the time to listen to, and I 
will summarize it. Mr. Bush was the person who granted the land rights 
on behalf of African Americans.
  He said: ``This museum is an important addition to our country for 
many reasons. Here are three.
  ``First, it shows our commitment to truth. A great nation does not 
hide its history; it faces its flaws and corrects them. This museum 
tells the truth, that a country founded on the promise of liberty held 
millions in chains . . . that the price of our Union was America's 
original sin. From the beginning, some spoke the truth--John Adams 
called slavery `an evil of colossal magnitude.' Their voices were not 
heeded, and often not heard, but they were always known to a power 
greater than any on Earth, one who loves His children and meant them to 
be free.
  ``Second, this museum shows America's capacity to change. For 
centuries, slavery and segregation seemed permanent parts of our 
national life--but not to Nat Turner or Frederick Douglass, Harriet 
Tubman, Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King, Jr. All answered cruelty 
with courage and hope. In a society governed by the people, no wrong 
lasts forever. After struggle and sacrifice, the American people, 
acting through the most democratic of means, amended the Constitution 
that originally treated slaves''--Americans that had been enslaved--
``as three-fifths of a person to guarantee equal protection of the 
laws. After decades of struggle, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts 
were finally enacted. Even today, the journey toward justice is still 
not complete, but this museum will inspire us to go farther and get 
there faster.''
  These are the words of George W. Bush.
  ``And finally, the museum showcases the talent of some of our finest 
Americans. The galleries celebrate not only African-American equality 
but African-American greatness. I can't help but note that a huge 
influence in my teenage years is honored here, the great Chuck Berry; 
or my baseball idol growing up in far West Texas, the great Willie 
Mays; and of course, something I never really mastered, the ability to 
give a good speech, but Thurgood Marshall sure could.''
  He concludes by saying: ``Our country is better and more vibrant 
because of their contributions and the contributions of millions of 
African Americans. No telling of American history is neither complete 
nor accurate without acknowledging them. The lesson of this museum is 
that all Americans share a past and a future. By staying true to our 
principles, righting injustice, and encouraging the empowerment of all, 
we will be an even greater nation for generations to come. I 
congratulate all those who played a role in creating this wonderful 
museum.''
  These are the words of George W. Bush.
  I thank Mr. Bush for having helped erect that magnificent museum now 
that the current administration is trying to take out its materials.
  Earlier today, I wished Mr. Hegseth, our Secretary of Defense, could 
have shown the honor and the decency to come into the Capitol Visitor 
Center to acknowledge the women of Six Triple Eight. There, Speaker 
Johnson was present, and the leader of the Senate, Mr. Thune, but 
notably absent was our Secretary of Defense.
  Someone made the remarks, Mr. Speaker, today that people were hidden, 
there were hidden figures in American history. I know the message that 
they are sending, referring to the movie ``Hidden Figures,'' the 
African-American women who did the math to put man on the moon but 
somehow were unceremoniously removed from all the accolades and all the 
parades, these women who were called human calculators. It came to my 
mind that they are really not hidden. Hidden is to be made inconvenient 
to the dominant narrative, shuffled to the footnotes or left on the 
cutting room floor of America's memory. It is dishonest, yes, but it 
leaves room for some discovery.

  Erasure is more sinister. Erasure says that we were never here. 
Erasure digs into the archives with red ink and crosses out our lives, 
achievements, and sufferings. The women in Six Triple Eight have 
suffered erasure. It removes their names from the rolls and gravestones 
from the earth. It doesn't just forget. It forbids remembering.
  These 885 women who put together 17 million pieces of mail that kept 
the morale of our troops high were given no recognition until today, 
after 80 years. I thank Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune for their 
contribution.
  When we talk about erasure, ask the descendants of Tulsa's Greenwood 
District, who for decades lived with silence where there should have 
been national mourning, and ask the generations denied their roots by a 
system that said their past wasn't worth recording.
  We see it now in the battles over school curriculum, in sanitized 
histories where the enslaved become mere workers and civil rights are a 
footnote to a fabled color-blind dream.
  When we allow erasure to masquerade as reform, we not only assault 
those who live the truth but endanger the consciousness of a nation 
already prone to moral amnesia.
  To hide history is cowardice, I would say. To erase it is cruelty. 
America must choose neither because when we forget what we were, we 
forfeit the right to know who we are.
  Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the issue today of diversity, equity, 
and inclusion. I would like to speak on this matter because it is an 
urgent matter, one that touches the very soul of our Nation's promise 
and its founding ideals of equality, justice, and the pursuit of 
liberty.
  We are at a crossroads, a critical juncture where the direction we 
choose will define the future of this Nation. I speak today about the 
persistent and harmful attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion 
policies and how these attacks, particularly under the leadership of 
the President of the United States, are undermining the values upon 
which this Nation was built.
  More profoundly, these attacks are not merely political, but they 
represent a direct assault on civil rights. Specifically, they started 
by targeting African Americans, and they threaten to undo the hard-
fought progress that has been made over generations.
  DEI, at its core, is not just a set of policies but an embodiment of 
American values, values that ensure every citizen, regardless of race, 
gender, or background, has the opportunity to thrive.
  It reflects the notion that our strength as a nation lies in our 
diversity, that our success is drawn from the breadth of our collective 
experiences, and that our unity can be found not in the erasure of 
differences but in the celebration of them. Today, this fundamental 
belief is under siege.
  When President Trump and his allies launched their attacks on DEI, 
they were not merely engaging in political rhetoric. They were 
dismantling policies designed to correct historical inequities and 
promote a more just and inclusive society.
  These efforts, cloaked in the language of ``merit'' and ``individual 
responsibility,'' are, in fact, a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate a 
system that continues to privilege a select few while marginalizing the 
very communities that have fought the hardest for their rightful place 
in the American story. The deep scars of racism and inequality are not 
erased by wishful thinking or by policies that deny their existence.
  The attack on DEI is an attack on civil rights, the idea of an 
egalitarian democracy, and the constitutional ideals that undergird the 
very idea of America.
  This rhetoric is dangerous because it fundamentally misrepresents the 
mission of DEI and, in doing so, misrepresents the broadest civil 
rights movement that has shaped this Nation. It was, after all, the 
civil rights movement that won the battles to dismantle segregation, 
that fought for voting rights, and that created the foundation of a 
more inclusive society. The very principles of DEI stem from these 
victories.

[[Page H1723]]

  When we attack diversity, equity, and inclusion, we erode the gains 
made through blood, sweat, and tears from the marches in Selma to the 
legislative victories in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, 
and beyond.
  To push to eliminate DEI policies is a dangerous step backward in 
this ongoing fight for justice and equality. It is no accident that 
this movement to undermine DEI coincides with the resurgence of racism 
and hatred, and this rhetoric and these policies are un-American.
  These policies also coincide with the banning of books. I ask, when 
does a society move forward banning books? When we talk about 
restraining freedoms on women's bodies, when has that ever been good 
for society?

                              {time}  1945

  We talk about xenophobia when most people in this country have come 
from other lands. It is as if society has never moved forward. It is 
not a coincidence when I tell you, under the guise of fairness and 
colorblindness, these policies have disproportionately harmed the 
African American and the marginalized communities all while maintaining 
a status quo that favors the privileged few.
  While it is true that the Black community created the pathway that 
led to greater diversity in America, the reality is that Black people 
are not the only community that benefits from it. Women are a part of 
DEI. Veterans are a part of DEI. People with different abilities are a 
part of DEI. American workers are a part of DEI. Even women and 
families that need IVF, in vitro fertilization to build strong American 
families, are all communities that benefit from DEI initiatives.
  Here is a news flash: Diversity does not mean Black. Diversity can 
mean making sure people who use wheelchairs are not discriminated 
against and get equal consideration for housing and employment 
opportunities. It can mean making sure that senior citizens have the 
same protection as young people. To say nothing of the fact that 
ensuring the right of young people to be in leadership is what 
diversity and inclusion is all about.
  The move to get rid of these policies is not theoretical; they are 
real. They are felt and they have consequences. Take, for example, the 
recent span of book bans across the Nation, particularly those 
targeting African-American authors, targeting our history, and 
targeting our lived experiences. Books like ``The Hate U Give'' by 
Angie Thomas, ``Beloved'' by Toni Morrison, ``Between the World and 
Me'' by Ta-Nehisi Coates have been removed from classrooms and 
libraries not because of their literary merit but because of the 
discomfort they cause to those who wish to ignore the brutal realities 
of race in America.
  These bans are not merely an affront to academic freedom; they are an 
assault on Black identity and an attempt to stifle the critical 
conversations necessary for a truly inclusive society.
  Moreover, the policies that aim to ban discussions of race and racism 
in the classroom directly undermine the very spirit of education. It is 
no secret that Black students--especially those attending public 
schools in underserved communities--are already facing systemic 
barriers to educational opportunities. When DEI programs are 
eliminated, when history is whitewashed, and when Black experiences are 
rendered invisible, the message sent to our children is clear: Your 
history, your experience, and your potential does not matter.
  These policies contribute to a culture of exclusion, a culture that 
denies the very existence of our humanity as a people, and by 
extension, the humanity of all people.
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I think that many people 
have with DEI programs--which is one of the same problems they had with 
affirmative action, if you recall--they viewed it as two parallel 
lines, where you took a person who was less qualified and you elevated 
him to the level of somebody who was more qualified.
  That is not DEI. That was not affirmative action. Instead, people 
should look at it as a circle and every single person within the circle 
are all qualified to do the job, but there is just one single problem: 
There are folks in the circle, although they are qualified, they never 
get chosen. There are women in the circle who never get chosen simply 
because they are female. Hispanics, Blacks in the circle don't get 
chosen simply because of the color of their skin. People need to view 
it as: Everybody in the circle is qualified, but DEI comes in and grabs 
people who are not chosen only because of the color of their skin or 
because of their sex.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting when we 
started this conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion, I 
invited some of my other colleagues to participate. One person asked 
me: Is it legal for you to discuss DEI, diversity, equity, and 
inclusion?
  As coequal branches of government, we do not work for the DOGE. We do 
not work for the Presidency. We fundamentally disagree with the way the 
Nation is going under the Presidency. Mr. Pete Hegseth, our Secretary 
of Defense, needs to understand, if he would take the time to read it, 
that diversity is legal according to the United States Supreme Court in 
the Students for Fair Admissions.
  Mr. Speaker, the generals that have written the amicus brief said: 
``Growing and maintaining a highly qualified, diverse officer corps 
remains a U.S. national security imperative.''
  We had discussed this at one point. Further on, they go on to say: 
``The U.S. military's commitment to diverse and inclusive leadership 
derives from decades of experience.'' This is exponential.
  ``The U.S. military's international presence and engagement abroad 
with foreign military and civilians requires diversity in this officers 
corps.''
  In part C, they say: ``U.S. military diversity initiatives have led 
to significant progress in growing a highly qualified and racially 
diverse officer corps, but this work must continue.
  ``Invalidating universities' modest race-conscious admissions 
policies would seriously impair the military's efforts to maintain 
cohesion and effectiveness.''
  Mr. Speaker, Members can read the entirety of the amicus brief at the 
following link: https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/
uploads/sites/6/2022/08/Amicus-Brief-Military-Brief72.pdf.
  When they say they are anti-DEI and then they take down the statues 
and remove the gravestones of Jackie Robinson, that does not help with 
military cohesion. If there is one of our colleagues that is watching 
us in the Chamber, we invite you down so we can have a debate, a 
discussion on DEI and stop the polarization and racializing this. They 
find it okay.
  Mr. Pete Hegseth finds it okay to resurrect the name of Ku Klux 
Klansman General Bragg, Fort Bragg, but yet you take down the name of 
Jackie Robinson. And you are not done with improper ideology? Then you 
resurrect the names of so many others. There are six military bases 
that have some of these Confederate generals on there, but then you 
take down the names of Medgar Evers and Harriet Tubman? That is 
shameful and hypocritical.

  Diversity makes the Nation stronger. Being committed to truth and 
justice about our paths only serves as a benefit. It doesn't take 
anything away. The false narrative that people are unqualified simply 
is not true. We know from these Halls of Congress right here that 
people whose parents have been here before can teach their children how 
to run for office, how to raise the funds, and you will see children of 
those that have been in power following in that tradition.
  We are talking about creating an on-ramp for greater inclusiveness, 
for greater cohesion amongst the troops. Lastly, if it is good enough 
for the war room, isn't it good enough for the boardroom and classroom?
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  What is interesting is when the President signed that executive order 
to do away with three words: diversity, equity, and inclusion, it sent 
universities in a tailspin. They didn't know what to do. In fact, the 
President himself ended a program--and I am glad the gentleman from 
Illinois serves on the Agriculture Committee. I am glad that you and 
others wrote letters and he restored the program that gave

[[Page H1724]]

young scholars scholarships to go to college, 1890 universities. He 
said that it was a DEI program, and then later he reversed it. It was a 
program where these kids had to score high scores on the ACT in order 
to qualify. They had to have high GPAs.
  Not to mention the impact it has had on businesses. There are 
businesses that have ended their DEI programs simply because of that 
executive order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, if I could jump in on that for 
just a moment.
  These are voluntary programs. These are aspirational programs, as you 
have shared with me. There is no DEI law. No DEI law has been passed by 
the Congress. How can you outlaw something that never was a law?
  When we go into the Senate, just at the other end of this Chamber, 
you see ``E Pluribus unum'' over the Speaker, which means ``out of 
many, one.'' That is the call for diversity.
  When we talk about equality in the 14th Amendment, equal protection 
under the law, we only had that once the Nation could confront its 
history and tell the truth. We wouldn't have had to have the 13th 
Amendment abolishing slavery, and the 14th Amendment that was meant for 
equal protection for those Americans that had been enslaved for 246 
years from 1619 to 1865. And it was 346 years from 1619 to 1965 before 
the Voting Rights Act was even passed. Then the 15th Amendment came 
around to make sure that everyone had equal access to the ballot, and 
that wasn't fully enacted until 1965.
  Yes, this has been a long journey and we cannot be cowards and not 
confront the history and the truth of our past.
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Fields for 
the privilege of standing here beside him. I thank him for his 
commitment to justice, for his commitment to the American way, and I 
thank him for making America better.
  His case right now before the United States Supreme Court, Louisiana 
v. Callais, is taking into account, once again, the maxim of equal 
protection under the law. We want to make sure that America stays 
strong and America gets better.
  I tell those that say ``Make America Great Again,'' I tell them that 
this is the greatest America has ever been. This body now has more 
female Senators, has more people of ethnicities, more diversity, and I 
am proud of the culture that this great country has.
  I hope other people would step forward to find the courage to come 
and join us on this floor so we can have a conversation.
  Do not live in fear of the President primarying you. Do not live in 
fear of the President taking words out of your mouth. You can be a 
major law firm. Don't lose the ink in your pen because you have fear. 
You can be a major university. Don't give up your academic freedom 
because of fear. You have a major corporation. You have the right to 
align yourself with the interests of your shareholders and the 
interests of your future marketplace. Hold on to the DEI.
  Members of this body, as coequal branches of government and the 
United States, fundamentally disagree with President Donald J. Trump.
  Mr. Speaker, I want Mr. Pete Hegseth to know that diversity is legal 
in the United States military. Colin Powell was an affirmative action 
general. We should tell the truth about it. He came through under the 
Carter administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Fields for this Special Order.
  Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________