[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 32138-32140]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            SENIORS ARE LOSERS IN MEDICARE BILL SIGNED TODAY

  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. First, just a moment to my friends from New 
Mexico just to indicate my deepest sympathy for the loss of Joe Skeen.
  I believe that there is an opportunity in this Congress to work 
together. I am disappointed that what we have done today clearly 
indicates that we have missed our chances on some occasions, missed a 
chance to come together as a House and Senate; and certainly over the 
last couple of weeks the story that will be written in history will be 
one that will raise a question as to whose interests have been promoted 
in this body.
  As I look at this article from Robert Novak, ``GOP Pulled No Punches 
in Struggle for Medicare Bill,'' even without reading the entire text, 
it tells the story. My concern about the Medicare bill that was signed 
today is the fact that seniors are the losers. Seniors in my district 
when I came home during the Thanksgiving break, not understanding what 
we had just done, were looking for relief. They did not understand that 
this bill does not take place for financial reasons until 2006. They 
did not understand why hundreds of thousands, or at least tens of 
thousands of seniors in Texas would lose their retirement benefits. Or 
some of the seniors that use the Medicaid resources will also lose 
those resources.

[[Page 32139]]

  They did not understand why they could not have a guaranteed 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. They did not understand why 
they would be forced ultimately to go into a privatized HMO. And they 
certainly did not understand why the government would be forced to not 
negotiate the lowest price for prescription drugs which makes common 
sense. In this time of friendly Christmas shopping and holiday 
shopping, everybody is looking for a deal. They cannot understand why 
we have a law that says that the government cannot look for a deal. And 
so it saddens me that a bill was signed that really does not help our 
seniors and that we have captured the essence of a disregard for House 
rules with a 4-hour vote open almost and that in essence the GOP 
decided to pull no punches. Whether it means putting up another Member 
against a wall, whatever it meant, it meant that the interests of our 
seniors was not handled.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will come back in January in 2004 and we 
will get down to work and we will actually put on the table a reform, a 
revision to what has been signed. Because, frankly, I believe that we 
are digging ourselves a deep hole. And 2006 will not come soon enough 
for that hole to get bigger and bigger and bigger. This is not a good 
bill. Good intentions, but certainly not a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I said that there were several things that I wanted to 
mention this evening, and I briefly want to mention the fact that a 
Texan, certainly somebody that we all know and certainly we know of his 
great expertise, Jim Baker, has been asked to help in the Iraqi debt. I 
will be sending out a letter and asking my colleagues to join me that 
we have a similar envoy to help relieve the debt of the nation of Haiti 
that in the early years of our historical beginnings fought in the 
revolution against the French. Haiti is almost crumbling under the 
weight of debt. I believe what you can do unto one you can do unto 
another, particularly one that is in this hemisphere. We cannot 
tolerate any longer the kind of burden that Haiti is facing, and it 
seems inequitable that you would help Iraq and not help Haiti. And so I 
hope the President will join me and welcome that opportunity and be 
able to do so.

                              {time}  1830

  Let me just briefly say that in Texas today we funeralized a very 
great Federal judge, and I want to give my deepest sympathy to the 
family of Judge John Hannah for his great service and leadership, and I 
hope to pay him tribute in the days to come when we return back to 
Washington.
  I want to finish, Mr. Speaker, on something that is really very 
devastating. We fought very long and hard all the way to the Supreme 
Court to preserve the understanding that affirmative action was not 
quotas, it simply was an outreach, and we were affirmed by a United 
Supreme Court in the Michigan case that race can be a factor in helping 
to diversify in this Nation and give opportunity. Lo and behold, Texas 
A&M decided in the last couple of days in the face of the Michigan case 
to slap the face of the United States Supreme Court and eliminate the 
element of race in their decisions for admissions. This is a university 
that has 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3 
percent Asian American in a State that is increasingly diverse, the 
State of Texas. My challenge to Dr. Gates, the chancellor, is to reform 
this misdirected policy, come back to the 21st Century, engage those of 
us who understand what affirmative action is, an outreach and not a 
handout, and begin to accept the law of the land that affirmative 
action is the law, and that we can use race as an element. It is time 
to address the question of these outrageous numbers: 2 percent black, 9 
percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Asian American. I hope that we will 
resolve this crisis in Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in dismay, disappointment, and ashamed as 
an American and as a Representative of the State of Texas--the ``Lone 
Star State.'' As a Member of the House Judiciary Committee and as 
Representative of Texas' 18th Congressional District, I must remark at 
the proposal made by Texas A&M University President Robert Gates last 
Thursday to remove race as a factor in granting admission or 
scholarships to the institution. I am extremely disappointed that Texas 
A&M voted to adopt this policy change and that it even considered not 
following the landmark precedent set by the Grutter v. Bollinger 
[University of] Michigan decision. Refusing to follow the positive 
precedent of this case marks the maintenance of a de jure racially 
imbalanced system, which is the wrong kind of message to send.
  This large and prominent university already suffers from a 
significantly disparate racial student body ratio--for Fall 2003, the 
ratio was 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3 
percent Asian-American. Changing its admissions policy to remove race 
as a factor will almost certainly yield even lower diversity. it would 
take a tremendous amount of outreach and quite a few ``special 
scholarships'' to correct this trend. When this Nation's highest court 
pronounced that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions 
and scholarships, the University of Texas, Rice University, and several 
other Texas institutions quickly implemented this policy because of its 
clear beneficial effects on equality in education. Given that Texas A&M 
Board of Regents has opted to incorporate President Gates' proposal, 
the university will stand in a minority position with respect to its 
express commitment to creating a more diverse student body.
  It took some time for this nation to advance the principles that came 
from the great Brown v. Board of Education decision to the clear 
statement set forth in the University of Michigan case. To ignore the 
forward progress made by this court is a slap in the face of the Civil 
Rights Movement.


                          tamu admissions memo

  In a memo dated December 7, 2003, the University's new admissions 
policy is summarized. Instead of using the standards that have been set 
forth by the nation's highest Court--responsible for pronouncing the 
law of the land, Texas A&M claims that:

       [g]ains in minority enrollment will come through enhanced 
     outreach, not changes in admission policies, requirements and 
     standards. Every student now and in the future can be 
     confident he or she arrived at Texas A&M on his or her own 
     individual merits.

  Furthermore, the University promises that

       [it] will work aggressively to increase the number of 
     minorities from all backgrounds who apply to Texas A&M, and . 
     . . [intends] to be far more aggressive in trying to persuade 
     those [they] admit actually to enroll--to join the Aggie 
     family. And, [they promise to] continue [their] efforts to 
     ensure that once they arrive, they find a welcoming campus 
     and remain [there] to graduate.

  I find it interesting that while this University has promised to do 
all of the above things to create a welcoming environment and to ensure 
that minorities who are admitted will actually enroll, it has sat idly 
while its current student body has done just the opposite--students 
hold campus-wide ``bake sales'' where they give disparate prices to 
ethnic minorities--``brownies, 25 cents for whites, $2.00 for negroes--
however, you can receive a rebate by way of outreach and special 
scholarships.''
  Its plan to increase its minority enrollment profile from the paltry 
ratio of 82 percent white, 2 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 3 
percent Asian-American consists of outreach programs, identifying 
former students from targeted high schools, and a scholarship for 
first-generation college students whose family income is $40,000 or 
less. Again, it shocks me that such a non-aggressive strategy is chosen 
when the highest Court in America has made the statement that 
affirmative action is the most effective way to correct the banes of 
disparate enrollment percentages. The problem and the ugly imbalance 
that we see today was caused, in part, by the very philosophy that 
disagrees with the benefits of using race as a factor in admissions.
  Ironically, the clearest case of ignoring this Nation's efforts to 
eradicate racial injustice in education has occurred in the State of 
Texas. In Orlando, Florida, Governor Bush's ``One Florida'' plan, an 
admissions policy program that eliminates quotas for minority college 
enrollment, fell short of being an effective replacement for race-based 
admissions, according to a study conducted by Harvard University. The 
study showed that the number of minority students enrolled in Florida's 
colleges and universities had mostly stayed the same or increased 
slightly since the 1999 initiative went into effect.
  At Harvard College, the Class of 2007 is comprised of: 65.1 percent 
Caucasian, 17.4 percent Asian-American, 8.4 percent African-American, 
3.0 percent Hispanic-American, 3.6 percent Mexican-American, 0.8 
percent Native American, 1.2 percent Puerto Rican, and 0.5 percent 
Other. Of the 5,300 undergraduates at

[[Page 32140]]

Yale College, 30 percent are students of color. Its 2002 class profile 
was: 74 percent Caucasian, 13 percent Asian, 7.5 percent African 
American, 5 percent Hispanic-Latino, and < 1 percent Native American. 
These Ivy League institutions, which have historically had lower 
percentages of minority enrollment, can boast improved numbers and can 
say that these numbers will continue to improve with the legal 
precedent set by Grutter v. Bollinger. These institutions have not 
abandoned this country's commitment to establishing diversity.
  Historically, Texas public universities have fallen behind in issues 
of racial segregation. For example, the Texas Constitution mandated 
segregated schools until 1954 and the UT Law School had scholarships 
``for whites only'' until 1969. Similarly, this State has struggled to 
comply with legislative attempts to correct the negative trend. In 
1950, the Court in Sweatt v. Painter ruled that Texas could not satisfy 
its Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities by creating a separate law 
school for blacks. These developmental shortcomings led to an 
investigation by the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 1973 as to 
the State's efforts to eliminate all vestiges of a de jure racially 
dual education system.
  Unfortunately, the Texas A&M policy marks a return of the vestiges of 
de jure educational discrimination consistent with Hopwood v. Texas. We 
now must form a new Civil Rights movement to ensure that the de facto 
contravention of a Supreme Court decision does not hinder the progress 
of this Nation.

                          ____________________