Bozeman v. Pickens Court Documents, Minutes, Correspondences, Depositions (Redacted)

     

I . S 6714

I further
and voting.

(Mrs. I-IAvnnNsi. would vote “yea".

Mr. ROBERT C.
that the Senator
Bunsen. the
(Mr. Bram). the Senator irom Oklaho-
ma (Mr. Boar‘s).

New Jersey

tor irom North

CIA-”STOP! ).

necticut (Mr. Donn).

Colorado

Learn).

(Mr.

Sussex). are
I further
and voting.

see (Mr. Sassca).
Rhode Island (Mr.
ator from North- Dakota (Mr. Bo'a-
prcn). would
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Coca-nah). Are there any other Sena-
tors in the Chamber wishing to vote?
The result was
nays o. as follows:

(Mr. Barr).
lrom South Carolina (Mr. Homes).
the Senator from
the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. mm). the Senator from Maine
MW).
Rhode Island (Mr. Prat). the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Raoul. the Sena-
tor {rom Maryland (Mr. SM).
and the Senator from

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

moment. it is the intention of the lead-
ership to ask the Senate to continue
the debate on this motion aslong as
necessary today. ‘

Mr. STENNIS.
we have quiet?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator’s point oi order is well taken.
Will the Senate please be in order?

The majority leader. ‘

Mr. BAKER- It is my understanding
that. by reason of a unmumouscon-
sent order which was entered into pre-
viously. 11 I file a. cloture motion
today. the. vote will occur on tomor-
rovr. is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.

WIDTION

Mr. BAKER- Mr. President.

motion to the desk and

announce that. if present
the Senator from Florida

BYRD. I announce
from Texas (Mr.
Senator from Delaware

Mr. President. may

the Senator from
(Mr. 3mm). the Sena-
Dakota (Mr. Bmxcx).
from Calliornia (Mr.
Senator from Con-
the Senator from
the Senator

Vermont (Mr.

the Senator from
I send 2.
ask the clerk

Tennessee (Mr. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
necessarily absent. clerk will state the cloture motion.
announce that. 11 present —- The assistant legislative clerk read
the Senator from Tennm- as follows:
the Senator from Wamoa run
Pm). and the 5911- We. m. undersigned Senators. in accord-
ance with the provisions of Rule XXII oi
the Standine Ruled oi the Senate. hereby
move to bring to a close debate on the
motion to proceed to the consideration oi S.
1992. a bill to amend the Voting Rights Act
or 1965 to extend the eiiect oi certain provi«
sinus. and for other purposes.

Howard Baker. Ted Stevens. Arlen Spec-

vote “yea".

announced-yeast 75. .

111 Lani

(Balkan V“! “0- tot. Slade Gorton. William Proxmire.

m, u m, Cheri fig mugeu 3131213?

. a t as. h. .
find,"- “a; - “$23.1... Lugar. John C. Danicrth. William V.
Armstrong Glenn menu Roth. Jr. Dan Quayle. Robert Dole.
3:83 60‘6““! Nunn John E. Chatee. Edward M. Kennedy.
33““ 50"“ mm Robert C. Byrd. Roger W. Jensen.
mm“ 3;" :2," The ransmmcs omens; The
337:. Hatfield Fromm mlOth leader. '

Hairy 1.1:. Sanka“ rryor Mr. BAKER. It is still my hope. Mr.
31:1“uflc- 3‘“: 9;?" a Bresident. that this matter can be re
cmfi" 33w”: m” sou-ea: I mm: the issues that divide
cum. Humphrey Rudman the parties on this measure are not
as” m is.“ rsess earner;

. ’ gsent en: te enae. t'
353:. ion,“ 2...... bill should be passed and that the pas-
DeCJnanl. Kennedy Symon sage should occur promptly. There are
33:3" 3:“ 33°“ honest dliierences of. opinion as to the
3,”, W Tun“ final form this measure should take.
hummus Mums Wallop There are some Senators who have
Eli-web?“ mmums! Warn" amendments that they may wish to
322m: fig‘fif 212:: otter. .The amendments are not frivo—
3,. mg... lous. The concerns that they exprem

HAY“ are genuineand real. and I urge Sena-
v01. vorrmo—z; \ tors to constder that there should still
3mm ‘ am ”when be negotiations on tiff matter bot
,. to resolve the ferences e-
a“; 23;” gym“ tween the parties on this measure.
Bradley Honing Riegle Mr. President. this is a cloture
3:33 3%“ Sum motion to procegfi 1It tiling. aI clean-Les
m I I ' 5““ motion on the ’ tse . c.0ture
Dodfl mu: 331%: invoked. oi course. the Senate will

So the motion was agreed to.

VOTER} RIGHTS ACT
MD

The PRESIDING OFFICES. The
question recurs on the
ceed to S. l992.

The majority leader is

Mr. BAKER.
have the attention oi the Senate for a

then proceed to the consideration of
this measure and there will be ample
time to engage in whatever negotia-
tions may be desirable and necessary
in order to expedite the Senate’s con.
sideration 01 this measure. ‘
serum scamms

I anticipate that in addition to this
measure this week. it may be possible
to consider other measures. For in-
stance, the conlerence report on the

’—

ms 01“ l982

motion to pro-

recognized.
Mr. President. ii I may

_.—-____.——————_._,_.._.

June 1.4, 1.982 .

urgent supplemental appropriations
bill may be available to the Senate
this week. It is my hope that the»
voting rights bill will be finished in
time to proceed to the consideration of
that measure as well. i! it is received
from the Reuse of Representatives.

I will repeat very briefly what I said
at the Opening at the Senate today.
We have a heavy schedule before us
between now and July 2. when the -
Senate is scheduled to goon its 4th of.
July break.

In addition to the Voting Rights Act
and the urgent supplemental appropri-
ations conference report. it is the in-
tention o! the leadership to ask the
Senate to turn to the consideration of
a constitutional amendment dealing
with a balanced budget.

In addition to that. Mr. President. it
is very likely. almost certain. that we

“ will have to deal with a. bill to increase
the debt limit. Also. I anticipate that
we will have before us a conference
report on the budget resolution. _

I am advised now by the dlst‘ -
guished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and others that a crime
package consisting of two bills that are
now on the calendar may perhaps
have been cleared for action. When
and it we can find a window for consid~
oration of those measures. it would be
the intention of the leadership to ask

‘the Senate to do so. There may be
other matters that can be taken up
this week as well. including perhaps a.
jobs Mg bill oiiered by the Sena-
tor irom Indiana and others.

Mr. DOLE. Will the maiority leader
yield? .
- Mr. BAKER. Yes. I yield.

Mr. DOLE. I see the Senator from
Arizona on the floor. We have an in-

2000. the bankruptcy

believe could be
so. We oer.
tainly would like to find a window for
that somewhere between now and July

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. DECONCINI. Will the Senator
yield 101' Just a moment?

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator
from Arizona.

Mr. DECONCL‘II. Mr. President. this
is very important. and I do not know
of any hold on the bill. There may be
a little debate. but this is something
the Senator from Kansas and myself
have been working on
hall. I would appreciate it if we could
grind this out beiore the Fourth oi
July recess.

Mr. BAKER.
from Arizona.

Mr. Presidan I. too. want to see
that measure addressed and dealt with
in the Senate. and I assure both the
Senator from Kansas and the Senator

. from Arizona that I will make every
effort to find a window for that so
that we can take it up and dispose oi
t.

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr.
the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator

President. will

 

 

 

June 14, 1.982

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator
lrom Idaho.

Mr. McCLUI-ZE. Mr. President. as
the Senator knows. I have been urging
ior some time that we find the time to
consider the amendments to the 1902
Reclamation Act. There is some urgen~
cy on that.

As Senators know. there is a court
orderwhichishindotinsuspense
now. It is not being iollowed by the
Department oi the Interior. as it was
not by the last administration. al-
though Secretary Andrus in the last
administration moved not just to en-
force the court order but to go beyond
it. There is a court order which at
sometime somebody will seek to use to
force some change in the administra-
tive procedures. Action on the part of
the Congrm ought to precede that
push. so I hope that at sometime in
the not too distant future we would be
able to schedule the time. Although
we have not had any success as yet in
reaching unanimous consent on time. I
am hopeful that we will. But with or
without that unanimous consent. we
simply must act on that legislation
this year. and I hope earlier rather
than later.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. I agree
with the Senator from Idaho. and I
assure him that I will cooperate with
him and other Senators in finding the
appropriate time to deal with that.

I will be periectly happy to do that
beioretheJulerecemitwecaniind
the time in which to do it.

Once again. these five items are
urgent and must be dealt with. and I
expect that most Senators will agree
that they should have priority in the
time that remains to us before the
Fourth of July break.

Mr. DeCONCIN'L Mr. President. will
the Senator yield?

Mr. BAKER. I yield.

Mr. DeCONCINI. Does the leader
have any idea about Friday. Monday.
Saturday?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. I an-
nounced earlier today. when the
Senate convened that it is the hope oi
the leadership that we can stick as

. close as possible to the regular sched-

ule for concluding the business of the
Senate. which we have abided by for
some time—that is. on weekdays. other
than Thursdays. the Senate would
conclude its activities around 6 or 6:30.
and that Thursday would be the late
evening. i1 necemary.

But in view oi the potential for a
great amount oi time that may be nec-
essary to deal with these Ilve items. it
would be my intention to ask the
Senate to convene earlier than usual
in the morning. in order to provide a
maximum opportunity to deal with
these matters.
cum roe amass om ms us. or: mar.

mamas. mason. In mm“ or ms

was

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today. it
stand in recess until 9:15 am. on to-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE ' .

marrow. Wednesday. Thursday. and
Friday.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? The Chair hears
none. and it is so ordered.

Mr. BAKER. Once again. Mr. Presi-
dent. it is not my intention to ask‘the
Senatetoremaininlaterthanneceso
aary. or course. it may not be possible
to abide by the 6' or 6:30 hour on days
other than Thursday. but that will be
the intention oi the leadership. to the
extent that the schedule will permit.

I do not anticipate a'smsion this Sat-
urday. but Senators should be on
notice that alter this Saturday. there
is the possibility of a Saturday session
in the time between now and July 2. i:
that seems indicated in order to com-
plete the agenda of business I have de-
scribed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. will
the maiority leader yield?

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the Senator
Irorn Massachusetts. .

Mr. Y. Mr. President. I an-
preciate the announcement of the
schedule.

I believe it is important to recognize
that since Wednesday last. we have
had what I would all a desultory dis-
cussion about whether the Voting
Rights Act extension measure. which
is cosponsored by 78 Member: oi the
Senate. Republican as well as Demo-
crat. and supported by the President
of the United States. will be permitted
to be before the Senate. ‘With the ex—
ception at a law moments during the
debate. there has been relatively little
that has had anything to do with
whether or not we should proceed to
consider the proposed legislation.

We have taken a great deal of time
debating the motion to proceed debate
01 a bill which the House has passed
by a 389-24 vote. As I have mentioned.
there is very broad agreement on this
measure. I think the majority leader
has pointed out that some aspects or
this legislation are controversial. Most
of those provisions. whether they deal
with section 2 or section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. have been exam—
ined in considerable detail in the sub!
committee chaired by the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Emma) and before the
full Judiciary Committee. where we
voted upon a series of amendments. In
the final vote. all but one member or
the Judiciary Committee voted in
favor of the legislation.

I certainly want to accede to the
leader’s proposed schedule. and I want
to cooperate with him in every way.
But I think it is important. as I have
stated previously. to point out that the
delay that is being imposed upon the
Senate is not being imposed by any or
those who support or oppose -the other
piece of legislation to which the ma.-
jority leader has reierred. but by a
handful oi Senators who are not per-
mitting the Senate to worir its will.

The acting majority leader. Senator
Srrvmls. showed his good faith and
his intention to have the Senate ad-
dress this issue by making the unique

 

 

S 6715

request that should the majority
leader file a cioture motion today. we
would be able to vote on it tomorrow.

I believe that Senator Rooter C.
Bran. the minority leader. even indi-
catd that it the majority leader was
not prepared to file a cioture motion
today. he would be prepared to tile it.-
It was not even included in the unani.
mans-consent request that the minor-
ity leader would be given the courtesy
of a vote on Tuesday. it he were to file
a cioture motion. so we would have
had to have been voting on Wednes-
day oi this week on the motion to take
up. and that it would have meant ‘an-
other delay period beiore we could
consider cioture on the bill itselz. A

We have a considerable agenda. as
the majority leader has outlined. We .
are going to have before us the matter
at raising the debt limit. which will
take some time: there will be very
strenuous debate on that. as I know
the majority leader is aware.

I consider this to be the most impor-
tant and successml civil rights bill this
Congrm has ever passed. The issue
beiore the Senate is one which I
thought we had resolved some 17
years ago. in 1965. once and for all.
Now we are back debating it again for
the iourth time. The issues are not
new.

I had hoped that the negotiations
would be carried out on the floor oi
the Senate in the form oi amend- ‘
ments. so that we could debate and
consider them openly. as we did with
the amendments in the full Judiciary
Committee and in the subcommittee. I
hope we will not postpone considera~
tion of this piece of legislation. I think
I speak for other Members. those who
are supporting this bill. such as the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. MA-
rn'nsl—I see the Senator from Kansas
here. and he can speak for himseli—
the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
Raoul. and a number of my other
colleagues who have indicated that we
would not be prepared to move 01: this
legislation should there be any at-
tempt to do so. .

I mention this with some reluctance. ‘
because I have great respect for the
prerogative of. the majority leader in
establishing the agenda for the
Senate. I believe he has acted in com-
plete good faith in scheduling this
matter and he has demonstrated his
good faith today by filing this cioture
motion and indicating—by virtue of
his announcement of. the schedule—
that he is rather hopeful that we will
be able to dispose of this legislation
this week So I take him at his word.
But I also want to indicate that.
should these conversations not be suc-
cesiui. I hope he will understand our
reluctance to sidetrack this legislation.

I am aware that the leader has a va-
riety of parliamentary measures he
can take advantage of in order to post-
pone consideration oi the bill. But it is
my personal belie! that he is strongly
committed to the legislation. I have

‘L W'M

 

S 6716

spoken to him about it over a period of
time. and he has shown his willingnes
to put it on the agenda and to take the
action he has taken today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Presidentnrill
the Senator yield for a question?

MnKENN'EDY. The maiority leader

has the floor.

Mr. mom. I ask the majority
leader and the distinguished Senator

tram Mamchusetts whether they are-

awareaslthinktheymaybethat
themanagers oithisiegislationinthe
otherbodyhavelndlatedthatifwe
will adopt the measure as reported

tion: the Judiciary Committee. there-

will be no need {or a conference. The
House will simply adopt it. and this
matter will be beyond us. .

Wemndispose oithisinveryshort
order.

Mr. ham. Mr. President. I am
aware of that.

I am sure my friend from New York
and my friend from Massachusetts
both would be the first to acnowledge
I also have a responsibility. however.
to Senator: who have a genuine and
real concern about certain aspects of
the bill.

I support this bill. Iwill vote for it in
its present form. But I recognize the
merit oi the contention of other Sena-
tors and I acknowledge and respect
the concerns exprmed by some Sena-
tors. Their concerns are not irivoloua.
and the amendments that they have
proposed are not without meaning and
importance.

I think that we will proceed now in a

way that will give all Senators an op-«

portunity to expm their views and to
make their points and perhaps even to
urge their point or view in terms or an
amendment. and what the Senate db
cides to do with those amendments, or
course. is up to the Senate.

But what we have done at this point
is I think in keeping with the tradi-
tions of the Senate to do lustice to
every Member. and that is provide
that we will proceed to the matter and
to the bill in good time. which we have
done: to file cioture to limit debate on
the motion to proceed. which has now
been done: to amine the Senate that
we are going .to dispose of this matter
as promptly as possible. which I have
done: and try to protect the rights of
Senators who have points of view that
they wish to elaborate and perhaps
even amendments that they wish to
ofru.

’ But I think altogether the Senate is
now in a position procedurally to see
that no rights are trampled and that
the opportunity to present the argu-
ments on this bill or any amendments
to it have been adequately provided
for and to expedite its passage within
the limits of prudence and equity.

I expect. Mr. President. that it may
be possible to dispose of this matter
this week. I sincerely hope so. ‘

With that. I am prepared to yield
the floor.

Mr. President. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Clerk will call the roll.

The anistant legislative clerx pro-
ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MOY‘NIEAN. Mr. President. I

at unanimous consent that the order-

for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. it is so ordered.

Mr. MOYN’EAN. Mr. President. I
thank the Chair.

vo'rnro ucn'rs AC! mun-rs or I’ll

Mr. President. we have in eflect
begun consideration of legislation to
extend the Voting Rights Act 0! 1965
which is a momentous occasion for it

‘provides us an opportunity once again

to reaffirm this Nation‘s commitment
to that most basic and fundamental
guarantee embodied in the Constitu-
tion which is the right of every citizen
to exercise his or her right to vote for
those who would represent them in
Government. It is the right that ulti-
mately remedies all other wronzs-

And the distinguished senior Sena-
tor from Massachusetts could not‘ have
been more correct. in my view. than
when he observed that this had proved
the most summiul civil rightsmeu-
are in the history it the Republic. .

I have a small history of involve
ment with this issue. In 1965 I was a
member 01 the administration of
Prsident Johnson and it fell to me to
write the first drait of the address on
civil rights that the President delivo
cred at Howard University on June 4.
1965. Just 17 years ago.

That speech wu entitled “To Fulfill
These Rights." and it recounted the
struggle for civil rights in this Nation.
paid tribute to progress that had been
made. and called attention to obstacles
that were yet to be overcome.

Illustrative of this progress was the
enactment of the Civil Rights Act of

' 1957 under President Eisenhower. the

first of its kind since Reconstruction.

Lyndon Johnson was then majority

leader in this body. Then there were
Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and l964.

The Prmident then turned to the
question of the Voting Rights Act
which was at that very moment being
debated in this Chamber. and he
stated in his address that he consid-
ered passage of the Voting Rights Act
to be as fundamental as any measure
we would ever adopt or consider.

In addressing that measure Presi-
dent Johnson said and I quote him:

No act of my entire administration will
give me greater satisfaction than the day
when my signature makes this bill. too. the
law of the land. The voting rights bill will
be the latmt and among the most important
in a long scrim of victories. but this victory.
I: Winston Churchill said—of another tri-
umph for Ireedom—"is not the end.” But it
is. perhaps. the end of the beginning. That
beginning is freedom; and the barriers to
that ireedon are tumbling down.

.He went on:

Freedom is the right to'share. share fully
and equally in American society-to vote. to
hold a job. to enter a public place. to go to
scnooLItistherighttobetreatedinevei-y

June 1.4, 1.93;?

part oi our national life as a person equal in
dignity and promise to all othen.

Shortly after this addrem Congress
passed and President Johnson signed
into law the Voting Rights Act of
1985.

As Congrem assembled for the lst

session of the 97th Congress in Janu- .

cry of last year. a major concern 33s
that on August 6 of this year certain
important provisions of the Voting
Rights Act would expire. Many of us
thought they ought not to expire. and
that important improvements ebuld be
made in the legislation. given the ex-
perience of some 17 years. I was proud

to join my distinguished colleagues. -

Senator Mamas. Senator Kmrmr.
and Senator WEICKEL in concert with
Representative Roomo and other: in
the House at Representatives. propos-
ing on April 7. 1981. now more than a
year ago. legislation to extend the
maior provisions of the Voting Rights
Act.

Our goal was to achieve enactment
of the strongest possible bipartisan
measure. This has always been‘ a bi.
partisan measure. as was the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. which the distin-
guished memorable father in-law at
our present majority leader helped to
bring into being

We would have thought this exten-
sion of the measure was not simply
beyond party but in some significant
sense beyond politim. It was some-
thing we had agreed to in our Nation
and had agreed to most especially as
our judgments were confirmed that it
would work. it would have great and
good consequences in the Nation.

However. we encountered‘not only
outright opposition to the measure we
had proposed. but we also faced the
very real prospect that amendments
would be adopted which. in our view.
would have sharply diminished the el-
fectiveness of the Voting Righm Act as
it had come to be after a series of
reenactments. the first being in 1970.

Another difficulty about which I
would wish to be candid but not to
press as a point was the administra-
tion‘s conflicting and often tentative

expressions in this matter. The fimt‘

real progress toward achieving our
goal came in the House of Representa-
tives where. after extensive hearings
by the Judiciary Committee through.
out the better part of 1981. the com-
mittee voted overwhelmingly to report
3.3.. 3112. a measure which was simi~
lar to the Voting Rights Act extension
measure which we troduced in the
Senate. .

On October 5 of last year the Rouse
passed that bill by the extraordinary
vote of 389 to 23.

In the Senate. however. we contin-
ued to encounter resistance to the con-
sideration of the legislation we had
proposed. Indeed. I. at one point.
feared it would prove impomible to
reach agreement in the Senate on any
measure. and I do not thin: I was
alone in that apprehension.

 

June 14. 1.982

Accordingly. on December 16. I
joined again with Senators MAW
no my in introducing S. 1992.
which was indenticol to the votint
rights extension measure as passed by
the House.

WehadoverSOcosponsorsonthe
day S. 1992 wu introduce.

Over the next 5 months extensive
negotiations took place in an effort to
reach agreement on a measure that
could-be brought to the Senate floor.
On May 3 such an agreement was
reachedandonMayzs.theSenate
Judiciary Committee voted 17 to 1 to
report 3. 1992 to the full Senate. It is
that measure that is before us today.
andnopraisecouldbetoogreatfor
Senators Mas-ans. Kimmy. and Don:
for'their efforts in reaching this com-
Promise. for I am convinced it will
allow us to realize the objective we
have all had in mind from the begin-
ning of this Congress. the enactment
of a strong extension of this most fun-
damental of American laws.

Moments ago Mr. President. I ob-
served that the managers of the legio-
lation in the House have indicated
that if we will adopt the bill reported
from the Senate Committee on the Ju-
didaryitwilLintumbeadoptedby
the House of Representatives. There
need be no conference. There is much
we must do this year and the prowect
of finding time for the agenda ahead
of us must daunt the majority leader—
it daunts me—so then how more im-
portant is it'that the Voting Rights
Act an be disposed of by a. direct vote.
If there are some amendments that
Senators wish to offer. let them be of-
fered. but first we must proceed to the
bill so that they may be offered.

How can we not address ourselves di-
rectly to this matter? How an we not
think of it as a matter of the first pri-
ority and of essential simplicity? We
have agreement. We are for this legis-
lation. Overwhelmingiy the House has
adopted it. overwhelmingly the Senate
will adopt it. .

If we should allow procedures to ob-
struct the will of the Senate. the will
of the people in this matter. what will
be said of us?

1 was in this city in 1965 when you
could argue this was an issue unre-
solved in the minds of the Congress
and of the people. But that was a po-
lltial generation ago. We have accept-
ed this measure'and incorporated it
into our lives. as no single event of this
century since the 19th amendment
provided that women as well as men
should vote. These are the two great
acts of the 20th century. They have
made fundamental changes in the ex-
panding of the franchise and strength-
ening the democracy. the Republic

On the floor of-the House the major.
ity leader. Mr. Warm. spoke so well
when he said. spoke such truth when
he said. "We have never made a mis-
take when we have extended the fran-
chise." Never. never. The franchise of
the 19th century was a very limited
one. Property qualifications were the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

first to go: racial qualifications in
theory the next; gender qualifications
finally. The 27th amendment provided
for 18-year-old voting. Certainly not
an unimportant event. But the great
issues have been gender and race.

And the great fact was the constitu-
tional guarantees of the 15th amend-
ment to the Constitution after a ceno
tury—one century. 1865 to 1965-had
not been upheld. There were people
across this land whose constitutional
rights were not protected and in par-
ticular the right to vote. And so at

long last we passed the Voting Rights.

Act and we settled an issue that had
been with us a century.

Ltorepeatwasinthiscity.partof
the administration. working. on state-
ments for the President on the matter.
I would have thought that. once this
was resolved. the issue would never be
before us as more than a
technical or where experience suggest-
ed a specific improvement.

We are not new to this issue. The
15th amendment. in its first section.
states than '

The right of citinns of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State on ec-
count of race. color or previous condition of
servitude.

Section 2 provides that:

The Congress shall' have the power to
enforce this article by appropriate leg-
islation.

Arid it was to the exercise of that
power in the pursuit of that guarantee
that President Johnson spoke at
Howard University on the 4th of June.
17 years ago. . .

And is there" not an extraordinary
record of achievement—and how
proud he would have been of that
record—in the aftermath of enact
ment? Just slightly less than 100 years
after the Constitution was amended.
the legislation was put in place to give
the guarantees to the Constitution
force. And what force. they have
shown

in the seven fully covered States
under the act. there were. in l965. 100
elected black officials. and only 100.
By 1980. the number had increased
twentyfold to over 2.000. And it was
with this significant progress in mind
that Senators Mamas and Kama!
and I and the others of us. introducing
the Voting Rights Act in April a year
ago. observed that there is a tendency
now to suppose that the objectives of
these great enactments have been ob-
tained and that they have served their
purposes and therefore they are no
longer needed.

But to the contrary. you could not
have had such an extraordinary
change in the composition of our
elected officials in this period of some
17 years without indicating. without
demonstrating. the extraordinary
depth and duration of the problem to
which the legislation was addressed.

General dc Gaulle once observed
that no great issue is ever solved in a
single generation. And it would not be

— SENATE

S 6717

difficult to point to a halbdozen issues
on this floor which are not going to be .
resolved in this generation. either.

But the issue of voting rights is an
issue that was with us over four or five
generations and now into a sixth one.
scarcely precipitous in our conduct
and not altogether admirable in our
willingnes to be patienneThere are
some thing concerning which pa-
tience is scerceiy a virtue and after a
point concerning which patience be-
comes a form of avoidance.

Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield
for a question?

Mr. MOYNIEAN. I am happy to
yield to my friend from Taxas.

Mr. TOWER. 1 do not find disagree-
ment with the things the Senator has
just said. There is one thing that com
cerns me. and that is that our objec-
tive should not be just to elect more
members of various ethnic minorities
but to make. sure that the ethnic mi-
norities have a franchise. have vote to
be fairly counted and have some
impact on the electoral process. Be-
cause I can remember instances where
the Republican Party in my State has
run black candidates of predominantly
black constituents only to be defeated
by a white with 90 percent of the
black vote. And this kind of thing can
occur.

I have seen Anglos predominate over
Mexican Americans and predominant-
ly Mexican American constituents.
which is the same sort of thing. be-
cause of the traditional allnement. of
course. of the blacks and the Mexican
Americans in the Democratic Party.
That is understandable. It is not a
phenomenon of any kind.

But I think that we should make
this very clear: That the objective is
not to try to seek quotas of elected oi-
flcials. Because if that is the case. then
I think that actually runs against the
spirit and the letter of the Constit' -
tion.

Mr. MOYNIEAN. Would my friend
from Texas allow me to agree with
him? He is entirely correct.

It is possible. however. to measure
certain effects of legislation. And we
do know that there were some parts of
our country in which this was the case
with respect to all matters. and all
parts of our country with respect to
which this was the case regarding
some matters. in which a particular
group was effectively disfranchised.
And a measure of the normal workings
of the political process is to observe
what was the condition prior to the
enactment of this legislation and what
came about naturally in the after-
math.

The great cities of the South began
to elect black mayors, typically did so
from majority white constituencies
and typically have gone back to white
mayors and randomly across the wide
ethnic spectrum of America

The point is a random outcome asso
ciated with ability, energy. and issues
independent of race. independent 0.

 

S 6718

gender. We do not have random out»
comes independent of gender. If we
did. 48.6 percent 0! this body would be
male and 51.4 percent would be
female.

We do not have random outooma
withrespecttoraceorwewouldnot
bethebodyweareButwearemoving
in that direction. and certainly this
legislation has nothing to do. as the
sponsors have said so carefully. with
proportional representation. with
quotas. with anything of the kind.
Were it to do so. it would-be as much a
violation oi the principle of the 15th
amendment as the previous refusal to
eniorce those guarantee and protect.
those guarantees.

Anyone who is familiar with the rich
tapestry oi American life as is the Sen-~
atortromTemwhohaaaxterall.
taught government as well as prac-
ticed it. knows that we have had a long
and enduring and quite intelligible
practice of seeking representation tor
all the various ethnic religious. and
regional groups at this country in the
electoral system. It Is a natural aspect
of diversity. It was as present in the
days of Andrew Jackson as it was in
the days of Lyndon Johnson. There is
nothing the matter with that. Indeed.
although it began in in iirst appear-
ance as an aberration from some ideals
of a republic led by platonic aristocrar
cy. when people started to say, "Well.
you have. to have a German on the
ticket in Philadelphia." it has provod
an enduring source of stability and a
sense of shared reward and shared re»
sponsibillty.

ItissaidthatattheParisPeane
Conference at Versaillm in 1919.
Samuel Campers. the head of the
American labor movement. was trying
to describe to a European audience the
plans for the International Labor Or~
ganization that Resident Wilson had
brought with him. He made a state-
ment to that skeptical audience which.
it seems to me. could hardly be im-
proved. He said. “You do not’know
how safe a thing Ireedom is." And the
Ireedom of the franchise. I would like
to suggest. and I am sure the Senator
from Texas would agree. while at some
level is seen as giving access to the re-
wards of society. sooner or later com-
mits individuals and groups to the re-
sponsibilities of society as well. That is
the enduring part and the enduring
consequence. That is what we have
done with this legislation.

That is why I so very much hope
that we will not delay. that the Senate
will work its maniimt will. and that
legislation oi the highest ethial pur-
pose. ethical and governmental pur-
pose. will be adopted beiore the coun-
try for a moment gets the impremion
that we have any doubts about what
we should do and what we will do.

The country has the right to expect
of us that seeing our duty we will pro-
ceed to perform it. and not for irivo-
lous or unworthy or allow inconse—
quential purposes to avoid that duty.

1 thank the Chair.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -— SENATE

Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield
for a brief comment?

Mr. MOW. I am happy to
yield.

MLTOW'ERIhope I willbe able to
overcome my somewhat ethnic or reli‘
glous backacund to say that that
would make no difference. that people
would be selected on the merit at their
political pbflosovm. and the ability to
reflect the needs and aspirations of
people. I hope that day will sometime
come. As a practical politician. I am
aware that it is not here. and. as the
Senator From New York has suggest-
ed. it may not come for a generation
or perhaps two. .

I remember back in New York City
being some balance
Leikowiiz and certain
others on the ballot. but the eifort
lost.

Mr. MDYNEHAN. Would the Sm
tormindiiIreportedthatitlosttoan
almost identical combination on the
other side. ,

Mr. TOWER. I am sure the combi-
nation on the other side was some-
what similar.

But I think we should not ignore the
fact that we‘ have made great progrms.
and with the progress initiated
through the courts. I think ultimately
the courts must be the guardians oi
the rights of people to their tranchise
with unimpeded restraint. I know that
in my own State there was a day when
nomination in the Democratic primary
was tantamount to election. because
we were a oneparty State. andblacks.
were not permitted to vote in the
Democratic primary. There was the
classic use at Smith against Cole in
the Supreme Court in 1944. which
forced the Democratic Party to open
its primaries. That was a landmark de-
cision. From that point we have made
great progress in my State and I would
say generally speaking that discrimi-
nation has been confined largely to
certain local areas. We have been
going in the direction of assuring that
everyone. not just the black Ameri-
cans but Mexican Americans as well.
have woes to the Iranchise and are
not in any way deterred in asserting
their privileges and responsibilities
through unreasonable gerrymandering
or through administrative antics de-
signed to prevent them Irom exercisa
ing their iranchise. ‘

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Could I thank the
Senator iron-i Texas for calling atten-
tion to the aspects of this legislation
that deal with Hispanic Americans. of

whom there is the greatest diversity.

ranging from the Mexican subjects
overrun during the American expan-
sion to emigrants from a whole range
of the Western Hemisphere. to Ameri-
can citizens from the island of. Puerto
Rico. who are protected by this legisla-
tion. who have a second language.

In the State oi New York. the three
countim oi New York County. King:
Caunty and Queens County are cov-
ered by the voting Rights Act. This is

June 14, 1.982

in part having regard to the language
provisions.

There are wrong: that had to be
remedied—the all-white primary. the
requirement 0! people with one native
language to know another in order to
vote. These are not new to America. It
is not the last 0! it. But what we have
always shown is a capacity to respond.

It is not where you are in these mat,
tern. it is where you are going. Where

may be those
some different thought. who have so
mistaken the temper oi the Senate
itself and the unquestioned desire and.
I should say. will oi the people that
they think this could be obstructed or
delayed. that. somehow. other matters
will intervene. They will not. Mr.
President. We will pass this bill. There
is no way it can be prevented. And it
will not be.

When it is done. and I hope it will be
done with expedition and such grace
such that~ in the aftermath we do not
look back and wonder. did we cast a
shadow on that shining moment: did
we dim the achievement of Lyndon
Johnson and the Congress that adopt,
ed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. and
that of the men and women who died
to bring it about? Because there were
those who did.

We are dealing here with an Ameri-
can tradition. Mr. President. one we
can be proud of. every bit as much as
we are dealing with the extension oi a.
statute.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that President Johnson's com-
mencement address at Howard Univer.
sity on June 4. 1965. :‘To Fulfill These
RightS.’ in which he talked of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. be printed
in the Racoan.

There being no objection. the ad-
dress was ordered to be printed in the
Banana. as iollow: ‘
Comm Annams AI Howm Garm-

“19.65. “To Pm "ms. Rmn-rs"-Jm 4.

Dr. Nabrit. my fellow Amerimns: I am ‘ie-
lighted at the chance to speak at this impor-
rant and this historic institution. Howard
has long been an outstanding center for the
education oi Negro Americans. Its students
are of every race and color and they come
trom many countries of the world It is truly
a working example oi democratic excellence

Our earth is the home of revolution. In
every corner oi every continent men
charged with hope contend with ancient
ways in the pursuit o! Justice. They reach
{or the newest 0! weapons to realize the
oldest of dreams. that each may walk in.
ireedom and pride. stretching his talents.
enjoying the traits oi the earth.

Our anemia may ocmsionally seize the
day of change. butlt Ls the banner of our
revolution they take. And our own future is
linked to this process oi swift and turbulent
change in many lands in the world. But
nothing in any country touches us more
profoundly. and nothing is more ireighted
with meaning for our own destiny than the
revolution oi the Negro American.

In far too many ways American Necoa
have been another nation; deprived of {ree-

 

June 14. 1.982

dom- cit-spied by hatred. the doors of oppor-
tunity closed to hope. .
in our time change has come to this
Nation. too. The American Negro. acting
with impremive restraint has peacefully
protemed and marched. entered the court-
rooms and the seals at government. do-
manding s histice that has long been
deniedThevoiceoitheNegi-owaathemll
to action. But it is a tribute to‘Ameria that.
once aroused. the courts and the Congress.
the President and most of the people have
been the sills of progress. '
tun. rumor m noun axons-a

Thnswehaveceenthehighcourtofthe
cotmn-y declare that discrimination based
on race was repugnant to the Constitution.
and therefore void. We have seen in 1951.
andim.andlzflnm19«.theilmtclfll
rights legislation in this Notion in almost an
entire century.

As maiority leader of the United Stats
Senate. I helped to guide two of these bills
through the Senate. And. as your President.
Improudtongnthethirdltndnowvery
soon we will have the fourth—e new law
guaranteeing every America the right to
vote.

No not of my entire commutation will
give me greater musfaction than the day
whenmyngnatanmshathhbmmmn-
law of this land. -

The voting rights bill will be the latmt
and smoog the most unoortant. in I. long
series of notoria. But this victory—es Win-
ston Churchill said of another triumph for
freedom-“is not the end. It is not even the
beginningofthe cndButltmperhapmthe
end of the beginning.”

Thatbeginnlngiafreedomznndthebar-
riers to that freedom are tumbling down.
F‘reedomistherighttosharesharefully
end equally. in Amerimn society—to vote. to
hold a Job. to enter 1 public place. to go to
schooLItisther-ighttobetreatedinevery
partofournational ilieessperson eoualin
dignity and promise to all others.

rumors is not mood:

But freedom '1 not enough. You do not
wipe away the scan at centuries by saying:
Now you ere free to to where you want. and
do as you desire. and choose the leaders you
please. -

You do not take a person who. for years.
has been hobbled ‘cy chains and liberate
him. bring him up to the starting line or a
race and then say, “ you are free to compete
with all the others." and still imtly believe
that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the
gata of opportunity. All our citizens must
have the ability tr calls through those

nice.

This is the next and the more profound
stage 0! the battle for civil rights. We see:
not Just freedom but opportunity. We seek
not iust‘ legal acuity but human ability. not
Just equality u I right md a theory but
equality Is a fact and equality u a result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes
the same chance as every other Amerimtn to
learn and grow. to work and share in sod-
etY. to develop their abilities—physicaL
mental and SDLl’lZIltL and to pursue their in-
dividual happinem

To this end equal opportunity is ssential.
but not enough. not enough. Men and
woman of all races are born with the tame
range of abilities. But ability is not Just the
product of birth. Ability is stretched or
stunted by the family that you live with.
end the neighborhood you live in—by the
school you go to and the poverty or the
richness of your surroundings It is the
product at a hundred unseen forces playing
upon the little infant. the child and finally
the man.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

Hm YO! to“

This mounting class ct Eoward Universi-
1:7 is wither to the indomitable determina-
tionottheNegroAmericantow‘inthway
in American lilo.

The number of Negroes in schools of
higher learning has almost doubled in is
years. The number of nonwhite prolessional
workers has more than doubled in 10 years.
The median income of Negro college women
tonight exceeds that a: white college
women. And there are also the enormous ec-
complisbmcnts of distinguished individual
Rem—many of them mounts of this.
institutionsndoneoftbemthenrstlady
smbassador in the history of the United
States.

Thme are proud end imprmsive achieve
memtaButtheyteilonlythes-wryofs
growing middle class minority. studily nar-
rowing the gap between them end their
white counterparts.

swim-macaw

But for the great maiorlty of Negro
Amerimns—the poor. the unemployed. the
uprooted. end the dispensed—there is a
much grimmer story. They still. as we meet
here tooizht. are Another nation. Danika
the court orders and the laws. despite the
legislative victories end the speeches. for
them the walls Ire rising and the gulf is
widening. ' v

Here are some of the facts of this Ameri-
can failure. -

Thirty-ave years ago the rate of unem-
ployment for Negrom and whites was about
thesameTonlghttheNegrorateistwiceas

in 1948 the 8 percent unemployment rate
for Negro teenage boys was actually la:
thanthatofwhitmaylastyearthatnte
hsdgrowntoflpercenttsagainstuper-
cent for whites unemployed.

Between 1942 and 1959, .the income 0!
Negro men relative to white men declined in
every section of this country. From 1952 to
1963 the median income of Negro families
compared to white sctuslly dropped from 57
percent to 53 percent.

in the years i955 through 1957. 22 percent
of experienced Negro workers were out 01
work at some time during the year. In 1951
through 1963 that proportion had soared to
29 percent

Since 1947 the number of white familia
living in poverty has deceased Tl percent
while the number of poorer nonwhite fami-
lies decreased only 3 percent. ‘

The infant mortality of nonwhitu in l940
was 70 percent greater than whites. Twenty-
two years later it was 90 percent greater.

Moreover. the hoistinn o1 Negro from
white communities is increasing. rather
than decreasing is Negro: crowd into the
central cities and become a city within a
city.

Of course Negro Americans as well Is
white Americans have shared in our rising
national abundance. But the harsh fact at
the matter is that in the battle for true
equality too many—far too many—ere losing
ground every day.

:3: caosts or mourn-r

We are not completely sure why this is.
We know the causes are complex and subtle.
But we do know the two brood basic rea-
sons. And we do know that we have to act.

Hm Negro-n are trapped-4s many
whites are trapped—in inherited. gateleu
poverty. They lacs training and skills. They
are shut in. in slums. without decent medl.
cal care. Private and public poverty combine
to cripple their mpacitim.

We‘ve trying to attach these evils
through our poverty program. through our
educstion program. through our medial

..-_._._ -- .. -_.-. m . _ .

S 6719

care and our other health programs. ind a
dozen more oi the Great Society programs
that are aimed st the root causes of this
poverty.

We will increase. and we will accelerate.
sndwewillbroodenthisattachinyeamto,
come until this most enduring of loan finally
yields to our unyielding will. ‘

But there is a second mine—much more .
dilflcuit to explain. more deeply grounded.
more desperate in its force. it is the devas—
tating heritage of long years of slavery: and
a century o1 opprmsion. hatred and inius—r
‘ mu. rams or mo rovutr'r

For Negro poverty is not white poverty.
Msnyofitamusmandmanyofitscurmare
the same. But there are difference—deep. .
corrosive obstinate differences—radiating
painful roots into the community. and into
the family. and the nature a! the individual.

Thus differences are not rscial diner-
ences. They are solely and simpiythe conse-
quence or indent brutality. put iniustice.
and praent prejudice. They are snguishing
to observe For the Negro they are a con-
stant reminder of oppression. For the white
they us I constant reminder of guilt. But
they must be {sad and they that be dealt
with and they must be overcome. L! we are
ever to reach the time when the only differ- ~
ence between Negroes and whites is the
color of their skin.

Nor an we find a complete answer in the
experience of other America minoritia
They made a valiant and a largely sum
2111 eflort to emerge from poverty and prelu-

ce.

The Negro. like then others. will have to
rely mostly upon is own efforts. But be just
an not do it alone. For they did not have
the heritage of centuries to overcome. and
they did not have anulturai tradition which
had been twisted and battered by- endless.
years of hatred and hopelemnem. nor were
they excluded—thus others—because of
race or color—e feeling whose dark intensity
is matched by no other preludice in our soci-
ety.

Nor can these differences be understood
as isolated iniirmitiee. They are a seamies
web. They muse each other. They result
from each other. They reinforce each other.

Much of the Negro community is buried
under a blanket oi history and circum-
stance. It is not a lasting solution to liit Just
one corner of that blanket We must stand
on All sides and we must raise the entire
cover 11 we are to liberate our fellow citi«
ten;

1'33 ROOTS 07 1'11qu -

One of the differences is the increased
concentration of Negroes in our cities. More
than 73 percent of all Negroes live in urban
areas compared with less than '70 percent at
the whitu. Most of these Negroes live in
slums Most of thme Negroe live together—
a separated people. . '

Men are shaped by their world. When it is
a world of deny. ringed by an invisible wall.
when escape is arduous and uncertain. and
the saving premures of a more hopeful soci-
ety are unknown. it can cripple the youth
and it an desolate the men. ‘

There is also the burden that 1 dark skin
can odd to the search for a productive place
in our society. Unemployment strike most
swiflly end broadly at the Negro. and this
burden erodes hope. Blighted hope breeds
dapalr. Despair brings indifference: to the
learning which offem a way out. And de-
spair. coupled with indiiferencm. is often
the source of destructive rebellion against
the fabric of society.

There is also the lacerating hurt of early
collision with white hatred or preludim. dis-

 

S 6720

'tasto or‘ condescension. Other groups have

ielt similar intolerance. But m and
adilovemont could wipe it away. They do
notchaogothocoloroiaman‘suinJhavo
seen this uncomprehending pain in the eyes
oi the little. young Mexican-Amman
choolchildron that I taught many years
ago. But it an be overcome. But. ior many;
tho wounm are always open.

thnmouoiamwbitsomericamustaccept
responsibility. It ilowo irom centuneo oi op-
Mandpaseoutionoithefiecoman.
Itilowsirom the longyearsoi degradation
dininlnatiomwhichhave attachedhia
dignity and amuited‘his ability to produoo
iorhlaiamily.
Thiamunotpleuanttoloohupon.
Butit mustboiaced by those whose serious
intentistoimprovethellieoiallAmeri-
a minority—lea than hall-oi all
children reach the age oi 13 having
vedailtheirllveowithbothoitheirpar-
ts At this moment. tonight. little la

5

childhood. _

The iamlly is the cornerstone oi our soci-
ety. More than any other iorce it shapa tho
attitude. the hopes. ‘the ambitions. and tho
values oi the child. And when the iamily
collapsositisthechildrenthatarousually
damaged When it happens on a massive
sale the oomrnunity itseli is crippled.

So. unis we wort to strengthen the
iamily. to create condition: under which
most parents will stay together—ell the res:
schools. and playgrounm. and public ISM
ance.a.ndpriroteconcern.willneverbo
enough to out completely the circle at de-
spair and deprivation. . -

ro nuns. ma non:

Thereisoosingleessyanswertoalloi
these problems.- _ ~

Jobo are part oi the answer. They bring
the income which permits a man to provide
ior his iamily.

Decent homes in decent surroundings and
a chance to learn—an equal
learn—are part oi the answer.

Welfare and social programs better de-
signed to hold iamilles together are part oi
the answer.

Care ior the sick is part oi the answer.

An understanding heart by all Americans
is mother big part oi the answer.

And to all oi these fronts—and a dozen
more—I will dedicate the expanding eiiorts
oi the Johnson administration.

But there are other answers that are still
to be found. Nor do we fully understand
even all oi the problems. Thereiore I want
to announce tonight that this (all I intend
to all a White House conference oi schol-
an. and experts. and outstanding Negro
leaders—men oi both rang—end oiiicials oi
Government at every level.

This White House conference's theme and
title will be “To Pulilll ‘niese Rights.‘

Its object will be to help the American
Negro iuliill the rights which. alter the long
timeoiiniusticebelsilnallyaboutto

secure. - .

To move beyond opportunity to achieve
meat.

To shatter forever not only the barriers oi
law and public practice. but the walls which
bound the condition oi many by the color oi
his skin.

To dissolve. as best we can. the antique en-
mitieo oi the heart which diminish the

,landoi

chanooto‘

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

holder. divide the great democracy. and do
wrong—great wrong—to the children oi

God.
Andeledgoyoutonightthatthiswillbo
achieigoaloimyodmlnisn-ationandoimy
Drommnoxtyear.aodintheyeanto
comaAndIhoomanderay.andIbellevo.
Sillboapartoithoprogramoiallhmer-

_..wlas'nsomcs?
Porwhatisiusticof‘
Itistorulilllthoiairexpectationsoiman.
Thus. American iusticoiaaveryspecial

thins-Por.h'omtheiix!f.thishubeena

toweringexpectationsltwastobea
nationwheroeochmancouldberuiedby
the ammo consent oi all—enshrined in
law. given lilo by institutions. guided by
menthamoolves sublecttoits rule. And all—
an oi every nation and origin—would be
touchedeouallyinobligation andinllberty.

Beyondtholawiaythehndltwuarich
land. glowing with more abundant promise
thanmanhadeverseenzernimiiheany
placoyethnowmallweretosharethehan

'81.

Andbeyondthiswuthedlgrityoiman.
Each could become whatever his qualities oi
mind and spirit would permit—to strive. to
seek. and. ii he could. to iind his happiness.

This is American justice. We have pursued
it iaithiully to the edge oi our imperieo-
tionuadwohavoiailedtoiinditiortho
American Negro.

So. it u the glorious opportunity oi this
generation to end the one huge wrong oi
the Ameriun Nation and. in so doing. to
Iind Ameria. for ourselves. with the same
immense thrill oi discovery which grinned
thosowhoiirstbegantorealizethathere.
at last. was a home ior freedom.

Allitwilltaseisioralloiustounder-
stand what this country _is and what this
country must become.

The Scripture promises: "I shall light a
candle oi understanding in thine heart.
which shall not be put out.“

Together. and with millions more. we can
light that candle oi understanding in the
heart oi all America.

And. once lit. it will never again go out.

(Note: The Praident spoke at 6:35 pm. on
the Main Quadrangle in iront oi the library
at Howard University in Washington Liter
being awarded an honorary degree oi doctor
oi laws. Bis opening words reierred to Dr.
James M. Nabrif. Jr. President oi the Uni.
versity. During his remarks he reierred to
Mrs. Patricia Harris. US. Ambassador to
Luxembourg and former mutate ptoiessor
oi law at Howard University.

(The Voting Rights Act oi 1965 was ap-
proved by the President on August 6. 1965
(see Item. 409).}

(See also Items 5-18. 613.)

Mr. MOYNEAN. I thank the Chair
for its courtesy.

Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I can
recall an article written by the distin-
guished Senator from New York a few
years back in the publication. Public
Interest. on the subject oi what do I
do ii the Supreme Court is wrong, or
something along that line. It was an
excellent article and. ii my recollec-
tion serves me correctly. I put excerpts
oi it into the Recon.

Mr. MOYNIEAN. Mr. President.
may I interject to say the Senator
most certainly did and it was a distinct
sense oi honor that I ielt at the time.
The article was entitled “What Do
You Do When The Supreme Court Is
Wrong?”

June 14, 1.982

Oi course. Mr. President. the distin-
guished Senator will recall that I de-
fined that word "wrong." as meaning
wrong in the sense that the Court sub-
sequently declam itseli to have been
wrong.

Mr. HATCH. That is‘ correct. Mr.
President. That was an excellent arti-
cle. I commend the Senator ior it
again

I might say. however. Mr. President.
that I do not _reall that one oi the
suggestions made by my distinguished
colleague irorn' New York was that
Congrm statutorily overrule any con.

stitutionally based decision that it be--

lieved to be “wrong."

I ask the distinguished Senator from '

New York. does he believe today that
overruling a constitutionally based de-

cision is an appropriate response to a.

“wrong" Supreme Court decision?

Mr. MOYNIEAN. I: I can recapitu-
late the article. Mr. President. I said
that those persons who are oi the view
that the Supreme Court has interpret-
ed the Constitution in a way that is in-
appropriate should iollow what 1 dis-
cerned u a pattern oi “Debate. legiso
late. litigate." the simple proposition
being to bring beiore the Court fur-
ther opportunities to make decisions.

In emtly that pattern. the decision
in Lochner against New York was re
versed. Inchner decided in 1905. cm-
bodied the notion oi substantive due
proces and said that the State oi New
York could not enact labor legislation.
Despite Mr. Justice Holmes' observa-
tion that the “14th amendment does
not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s social
statistic. it became the law." There
followed a period of debating Lochner.
oi passing “hours oi‘woris" legislation.
and finally. cases came to the Court
and the Court said. “We no longer
hold as we held in Lochner."

Just 2 weeks ago. in United States
against Ross that presented a question
oi police search and seizure. the Court
reversed its holding handed down but
a year ago. and why? Because the
Court had another case come beiore it.

But. Mr. President. I should like to
ask in what sense is there any aspect
oi this legislation whatever that re-
verses a finding oi the Supreme Court
with respect to a constitutional right?

The question the Senator asks—may
I read irom page 41. section (i). oi the
committee report. ii the Senator will
bear with me. and I am sure he will.
and he has a copy. We appear to be in
chapel here together. I read the fol-
lowing passage:

It has been suggested that the Committee
bill would overturn a constitutional decision
by the Supreme Court. in spite oi the stren-
uous opposition oi some oi the bill's propo~
nents‘to unrelated Congreslonai eiiorts to
override Supreme Court decisions in other
areas by statute rather than by constitu-
tional amendment.

This argument simply misconstrum the
nature oi the proposed amendment to sci.~
tion 1 Certainly. Congress cannot overturn
a substantive interpretation oi the Constitu-

tion by the Supreme Court. Such rulings

 

 

 

June Ll, 1.982

anonlybealteredunderourlormoigov-
ernment by constitutional amendment or by
a subsequent decision by the Court.

I: I may point out to the Senator
from Utah. my friend (Mr. Earns). the
point I made in the article in Public
Interest fouowed that o! Abraham
Lincoln in the debate with Douglas—
Lincoln said that a Supreme Court de-
cision is not a “thus saith the Lord.“
that the _Court is human and can
choose. '

IiyouareaUSSenator.youhave
the right to vote your judgment oi the
Constitution. Mr. President. I have re
peatedly said that we have no obliga-
tion to agree with the Supreme Court.
Our obligation is to obey it.

To continue:

Thus. Conn-u annot alter the iudlcial
interpretations in Bolder: oi the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments by simple-stab
ute. But the proposed amendment to section
2 doe not sees to revene the Court's consti-
tutional interpretation. Bathe. the propos-
alhaproperstatutory exerciseoICongress‘
enforcement power declined above and it is
not a redefinition oi the scope or the Consti-
tutional provisions. As Ameriun Bar Associ-
ation President David R. Brink emphasized:

“Under this amendment. the Supreme
Court's interpretation of the proper consti-
tutional standard would be left intact. Cull
the section 2 statutory standard would be
c‘hxan-ged to reinstate the prior legal stand-

As Protaor Cos noted. the proposed
amendment to section 2 is clearly distin-
guishable irom proposals pending in the
97th Conn-em . to ottset substantive Su-
preme Court interpretations oi the Consti-
tution by simple statute. -

Unlike legislation proposed in other areas.
8. 1992 doe not attempt to restrict the fed-
eral court's Jurisdiction in any way. It does
not direct the rauit or the remedy that
courts may reach with rapect to claims
brought under the Pttieenth or Fourteenth
Amendments Nor doa it purpose to rede-
ilne terms in either amendment for pur»
poses oi constitutional adjudication '

That is the view of the committee.
and it is precisely my view. and I hope
it is. consistent with my observations.
in Public Interest. But I am happy to
hear the Senator from Utah. who is
my friend and counsel in these mat-
ters. too.

(Mr. SYM'MS assumed the chair.)

Mr. HATCH. I am aware that this is
the majority view. Although section 2
oi the Voting Rights Act has always
been considered a restatement or the
15th amendment to- the Constitution.
it is. of course. true that Conm‘ess may
choose to amend section 2 to achieve
some other purpose. In other words. I
recognize that section 2 need not be
maintained indefinitely as the statu-
tory embodiment of the 15th amend-
ment. To the extent. however. that
the Supreme Court has construed the
15th amendment to require some demo
onstration oi purposeful discriminao
tion in order to establish a constitu-

tional violation and to the extent that.

section 2 was enacted by Congrem
under the constitutional authority of
the 15th amendment. I do not believe
that the Congrm is empowered to leg-
islate outside the parameters set by

. .7 ‘ ‘7 _-.—-_.J—..-___.._e_.—c.-»~- -_.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

the Court. indeed by the Constitution.
Section 2 at the 15th amendment pro-
vide that Congress shall “eniorce”
the provisions 0! this article by appro-
priate legislation.

Congress however. is not empow-
cred here or anywhere else in the Con-
stitution to “define" or to "interpret"
the provisions of the 15th amendment
but simply to “eniorce” those substan-
tive constitutional guannteee already
in existence. To allow Congrm to in-
terpret the substantive limits of the
15th amendment in a more expansive
manner or indeed in a disparate
manner than our Court is to sharply
alter the apportionment of powers
under our constitutional system or
separate powers.

What has intrigued me is that many
oi those who argue that that can be
done through the new language in sec-
tion 2 have a very diillcult time with
the question at the constitutionality
oi the so-celled Human Lite Statute.
which would overturn Roe against
Wade by redefining the term “person"
in the 14th amendment.

I should like to briefly dismiss some
of the interesting things relating to
the Voting Rights Act which have
happened in New York very recently.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that several articles be placed in
the Recon at this point.

There being no objection. the arti-
cles were ordered to be printed in the
Rncoan. as follows: _

[From the New York Times. June 9.1932]

Com Gus Mnsrn' s Dis-rump has

(By Maurice Carroll)

A plan by a Federal Court master to revise
New York's political boundaries-«scram-
bling districts and pitting incumbents
against each other-was made public water

1.

Drawn as an alternative to line: voted by
the State legislature. the plan will be
weighed tomorrow by three Federal Judges.

“it the Justice Department approves the
Legislature's plan. that probably would be
the plan." the master. Robert P. Patterson
Jr- said alter sending his maps and docu-
ments to the court. But he noted that Fed-
eral approval had not yet come.

In Washington. a Justice Department
spokesman Arthur P. Brill. deputy director
of public aifalrs. said the department was
“still actively reviewing" the lines submitted
by the Legislature. “There is no way at esti-
mating when the decision will be made." he
said.

woa puma: m rwo runs

Mr. Patterson was appointed by a special
Federal court panel that was convened
under a Federal law that provides for con-
sidering constitutional challenges involving
reapportionment. '

As legislators studied the relatively small
Assembly districts in Mr. Patterson‘s plan.
the thick black lines on the maps made de-
tailed iuda'ment diiiicult.

“It'll take a while to 1181:." out who'd run
agains: who." said.

But the Congresional districts. beinz
bigger. were easier to sort out. and it was
clear that Mr. Patterson's version would
make major changes irom the Legislature‘s.
including these:

Brooklyn-Queers: The district represent-
ed by Jams E. Scheuer. which taka in

S 6721

parts of both boroughs. vanished. M at
Brooklyn's tour districts seemed heavily
black. The district represented by Frederick
W. Richmond—which the legislature would
link to two predominantly Hispanic slices of

. Manhattan—would merge instead with the

Platbush section represented by Stephen J.
Solarr. It also would include the conserv-
ative community oi Bay Ridge. which the

split up the middle. ior-min: two full dlsp
triers. with a third Harlem based district now
repraented by Charla B. Rangel joined to
the Bronx. Representative Jonathan B.
Bingham‘a Bron: area would be Joined to
Westchater. not to Manhattan as on the
Legislature‘s map. -
w cum :1 coup-ran

Drawn by computer with deliberate disre-
gard of political factors. the Patterson plan
still would have immense politiul impact
For example. in watern New YorL Repre-
sentative Jan: P. Kemp. one oi the nation's
most prominent Republians. would be put
into a heavily Democratic district in Buiialo—
rent-genteel by Henry J. Nowah a Demo-
m .

The three Judas. convened in Federal
District Court in Manhattan. picked Mr.
Patterson to draw llnee reflecting the 1980
census when the Legislature failed to meet a
court deadline. Subsequently. the res-abor-
tionment plan drawn up in Albany was sent
to Washington. Clearance by the Justice
Department is needed because the Votinx
Righm not at 1963 applies to Brooklyn. the
Bronx and Manhattan

Because 01 population shifts. both plans
provide for live fewer Congressional seats
than the present 39 and reduce the power oi
New York City.

In the report that Mr. Patterson submit;
ted late Monday. he rejected appeals to re-
spect political nicetim like protection oi in-
cumbenu.

He was under order: not to cut the
number 0! districts where racial minorities
were in the malority.

"Where posible.” he wrote. "up: were
drawn which would permit discrete minor-
ities. blacL Hispanic or Chinme. a fair op-
portunity to elect candidates"

[From the New Yorx Times. June 11. 1982]

ns. Acorns Cocoon. Laws Ammo
slalom
(By Jane Perla)

Wilsz-unc-ron. June lit—“Poe Justice De-
partment approved a redistricting plan for
the New York City Council today. saying
that the Council had drawn lines that in-
creased the voting strength at minority
troupe

‘I'he approvaL which came eight months

ter the Justice Department rejected as
discriminatory a redistricting plan that was
proposed last year. cleared the way for C‘ty
Council elections on Nov. 2.

"The new plan was approved because the
City Council made changes to correct prob-
lems we noted before." the Justice Depart-
ment said in a statement. "The Council
redrcw district lines to eliminate the {rag-
mentation of minority groups and to in-
crease minority voting districts."

The plan. approved by the City Council
and signed into law by Mayor Koch last
month. increases the number or Council
seats to 35' from 33. The Justice Department
said the plan increased from nine to l2 the
number. of scam where "the minority com-
munity could choose the incumbent.“

In these l2 districts. black and Hispanic
residents make up more than 65 percent at
the population.

S 6722

The Justice Department did not say ex-
plicitly that these were districts in which
minority candidates could be expected to
win. But Council leaders. who have consult,
ed the department during the last six
months. said the department's directions
were intended to give minority mndidata a
winning chance in the 12 dutricis.

Council leaders have said privately. how-
ever. that minority candidates are likely to
winoruynlneormoitheunewdlstrlcm
TheCoundlnowhaseiahtminorit-Ymem-

authdistrictintheplanhaaeminority
population oi more than 50 percent.

Meanwhile. in the litigation in New York
City over new Congresional and legislative
boundaries. a special three-Judge Federal
court prodded the Justice Department to
act is on the new lines so that the
state could hold its election on time.

“You‘ve got the ball now." Judge Robert
J. Ward told a Justice Department lawyer at
a hearing in Foley Square on reapportion-
ing State Senate end Amembly districts and
the state's Congrational districts “We'd
appreciate it you‘d move on it."

Under the Voting Rights Act oi 1965. the
Justice Department must approve electoral
changesintheBrontroouyx-landuan-
batten to insure that minority participation
is not diminished.

The decision by the Justice Department
today ended nine months at intense wren-
gllng within the Council ltseli. between the
Council and the Mayor and between the
Justice Department and the Common].

The Council had its first trouble with the
Justice Department on the eve at last Sec-
tembers scheduled primaries when a ieder-
alcourtruledthatthecityhadiailedto
provide the department with supporting
data for approval oi its original redistricting
plan. ’ - .

With the help or a. private counsel.
Edward H. Costikyan. the Council provided
additional lniormation and legal arguments.
but the department rejected the plan on
OcL27.rullngthatthellneswould“leadto
e retrogression in the position 01 racial mi-
norities." The relection led to the cancellap

tion oi Counml election last November.

mourns sum-nu

The Council then went back to the drow-
ing board. and according to Mr. Costikyan.
the lines in the plan approved today were
mapped “in consultation with the Justice
Department” The second plan was submit-
ted to the Justice Department on May 4.

The 10 et-iarge member-.1 o! the Council
were not allotted by today‘s action.

A Federal judge last month barrcd the
city form holding election: {or the et-large
members in the tall. Judge Edward 3.
Kosher 0! Federal District Court in Brook-
lyn ruled that the at-large members could
stay in oifice until November 1933. when
voters will be asked to vote on a new Iormu-
ls ior electing the atlargc members. .

Judge Neaher end the United Stats
Second Court of Appeals for the Second Cir.
cult had found earlier that the city's
method of electing at-large members violat-
ed the one-man. one-vote principle. because
there are two at-large members ior each
borough. regardlces oi population.

inn-rm m wesmoron

After the Federal court in New Tort City
urged prompt Federal action on Congm
sional and legislative redistricting. a Justice
Department lawyer. Sheila Delaney. said
“We're trying our best."

The court sought a decision that would
allow the stale poUtiml mlendar start June
22 with the circulation at nominating peti-
tiona

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

Miss Delaney would not give a promise.
She noted that the department's deadline
for action ran until Aug. 2.

The new Council districts in which the mi-
nority population is more than 65 percent.
with the incumbents. were listed by the Jus-
tice Department. They are these:

District 5. Manhattan: Frederick P. Sem-
uels 73:5 percent black rmidents. 15.5 per-
cent Hispanic residents. Combined minoriw
population: 89.12 percent. .

District 5. Manhattan: Stanley 2. Michell:
17.33 percent black. 52.50 percent Hispanic.
Combined minority population: 69.36 per-
cent.

District 3. Bronx-Manhattan: Robert Ro-
driguez: 28.9 percent black. 41.39 percent
Hispanic. Combined minority population:
70.79 percent.

District 9. Bronx: Wendell Foster; 54.58

bloc; 37.01 percent Hispanic. Com-
bined minority population: 91.59 percent.

District 11. Bronx: Gilberto Gonna-Valen-
tin: 3279 percent biacx. 50.26 percent 2-m-
panic. Combined minority population: 93.03
percent. ‘

District 13. Bronx: a new district: 32.39
percent black. 53.03 percent Hispanic. Com-
bined minority population: 35.45 percent.

Dotrict 24. Brooklyn: e new district.
which includes part oi Leon A. Kan“: old
district 69.59 percent bloc; 22.65 percent
Hispanic. Combined minority population:
92.55 percent. ,

District 25. Brooklyn: a new district.
which includes part oi Theodore suver-
man's old district: 57.07 percent black. 12.47
percent Hispanic. Combined minority popu~
lation: 59.49 percent.

District 23. Brooklyn: Enoch Williams:
33.52 percent black. 3.59 percent Hispanic.
Combined minority population: 95.47 per-

cent.

District 27. Brooklyn: 7suls A. Oimedo:
22.75 percent black. 59.30 percent Hispanic
Combined minority population: 32.05 per‘
cent. —

District 23. Brooklyn: Mary 9mm: 27.2.3
percent blue. 11.59 percent Hispanic. Com.
bined minority population: 89.57 percent.

District 17. Queen: Archie Spigner: 32
pee-cent black. «.48 percent Hispanic. Com-
bined minority population: 33.43 percent.

The district with more than 50 percent
minority population and the incumbent was
listed a: '

District 14. Bronx: Jerry L Crispino: 34.31
percent black. 19.45 percent E'spam'c. Com-
bined minority population: 53.75 percent.

Mr. EATCF. What both articles
make clear. as ii it is not already quite
clear. is that the Voting Rights Act in-
creasingly is losing sight at its tradi-
tional objectives. Rather than at,
tempting to promote racial neutrality
and moial nondiscrimination in the
voting process. the act now requires
minute calculations of percentages of
racial and ethnic groups within var-
ious electoral districts. I do not know
what that has to do with the original
purposes at the act. -

What we see taking place ‘on a limit-
ed scale in New York City under sec-
tion 5 is going to become a normal oc-
currence throughout the Nation under
section 2. Racial gerrymandering and
race-conscious districting will become
standard procedure. In the proces.
our Nation will have lost a great deal.

As the new York City experience in.
dicatm clearly. the concerns that have
been raised about the changes in sec-
tion 2 are not merely speculative; one

June 14, 1.982

need only look at what has been
taking place recently under the nar-
rowly circumscribed "eiiects" test in.
section 5.

I would also recall one of the more
interesting cases that have occurred
under the Voting Rights Act—Uded
Jewish Organizations v. Corey case.
at' 4-03 0.3. 144 (1977). This‘ case
involved the Attorney General's reiec-
tion 0! New York's 1972 legislative re-
districting plan as it applied to Brook-
lyn which is covered under the Voting
Rights Act.

The Attorney General ruled that
there were an lnsuiilcient number oi
districts with nonwhite populations
large enough that nonwhite candl-
dates could win an election. The Attor-
ney General then went on to indicate
that a nonwhite population. of 65 per-
cent was necessary to create a safe
nonwhite seat. In a new plan adopted
in 1974. the legislature met the objec-
tion of the Attorney General but in so
doing divided a whole community of
Hasidic Jews which had previously rc-
sided in a single district.

The Attorney General approved the
plan but the Easidlc Jews went to
court claiming that they had been the
victims of racial disaimlnation. The
Supreme Court relected their eiiorts
but was unable to produce a majority
opinion. Seven members of the Court
did agree. however. that New York's
use of explicit racial criteria in raids
ing the reapportionment— plan in order
to obtain the Justice Department's ap-
proval did not violate the 14th and
15th amendment rights oi the Hasidlc
Jews.

Nathan Der-showim. director 0! Law
and Social Action of the American
Jewish Congress. had this to say about
the case: '

The Williamsburg sectional Brooklyn has
been tortuousiy gerrymandered in an as-
tempt to assure the election of minority
group members.

He described it further as the
“institutionalization of ethnic repre-
sentation."

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I wish'
to make clear once again that I am a.
strong supporter of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. I agree with Senator Km!-
mr. who spoke here earlier. that it
has been the single most effective and
successful civil rights act in history.

”There is no question in my mind that

1we need to continue and extend -the
aw. ‘

I also agree that preclearance. under
section 5 needs to be extended. be-
cause there are still instances in this
muntry oi invidious discrimination. al-
though I am pleased that they are
growing fewer each year.

I have fought to see that fair hear-
ings were held on this matter. and I
believe that these hearings demon<
strated that there is continued need
tor the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

My major concerns have been with
proposed amendments to sections 2
and 5.

 

June 14, 1.982

Some have argued here that section
5 has been liberalized in its approach
so that States can more easily bail out
iron the requirements oi preclear-
ance. That simply is not true: addition-
al provisions have been added that
would make it significantly more diiil-
cult to bail out. I believe that there
should be real incentives to bail out.
They do not exist in S. 1992.

Section 2 is a more diiilcult issue.
SectionZisanimuewithrmpectto
which we are changins the entire
tlmlstoitheVotingRightsActhe-
lieve that the new results test ior ideno
tiiying discrimination is leading us
into uncharted waters that will likfl!
lead to the polarintion oi lace: and
increased race isolation in our country.

Bethatasitmay.Irecognizethat
the bill is going to pass I will continue
todoeverythinginmypowertohave
the bill brought up. to see that this
motion proceeds with expedition. and
to have an up-and-down vote on this
bill as soon as we possibly can. Along
with the majority leader and others. I
ieei very deeply about that.

That does not negate the fact. how-
ever. that some oi the issues we are
raisingwithreepecttosectionzand
section 5 are important constitutional
issues. that transcend the intermts oi
any particular group in our society,
and that may be among the most im-
portant constitutional. issues ever
raised on the floor oi the United
States Congress. They may have as
far reaching and as proiound eiiect. in
the iinal analysis. as any legislation
that has come beiore it. -

Mr. President. I have done a brie!
analysis of several macs that are perti-
nentto this particular issue, and I ash
unanimous consent that the analysis
be printed in the Recon.

There being no objection. the mate—
rial was ordered to be printed in the
Recon, as follows:

I. coxs-rrrorzonaau'r
South Carolina :1. 34:22:10ch 313 0.5. 301
_ as“)

In an opinion by Chic! Justice Warren.
the Supreme Court held the original provi-
n‘ons oi the 1965 Voting Rights Act to be a
constitutionally permissible method oi pro-
tecting the right to vote. The Court upheld
the preclearance provision: at Section 5
under the rationale that "exceptional condi-

tions can justify legislative measures not.

otherwise appropriate.” Id. at 334. Because
Congress had found from its own eviden-
tiary investigation that 'fiinioue drcznn-
stances” existed in the covered Jurisdictions.
the preciearance provisions were held justi-
fied. Id. at 335. Justice Blach dhsented on
the Section 5 Laruee. ,

thzrnbdch o. Morgan. J" 0.3. 641 (1966)

In an opinion by Justice Brennan. the Su-
preme Court upheld Section lie) oi the 1965
Act which provided that certain persons
educated in Spanish in Puerto Ric-n schools
would not have to comply with the literacy
tests imposed by certain states as a precon-
dition to voting. This provision rendered
New York literacy tests invalid as applied to
those persona The Court held that this step
was within the power oi Congrem under
Section 5 o! the Fourteenth Amendment to
eniorce that Amendment‘s guarantee oi

 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

equal protection of the laws. even though a
court might not have held that the New
Torn law was unconstitutional. The only
question to be determined by the Court was
whether Congrm had a reasonable basis ior
its conclusion that such action wont be
necesary to protect minority rights Jus-
tices Harlan and Stewart dissented. arguing
thatCongreshadnorighttoetrikedowna‘
state statute unless a court would have
iound that statute unconstinitional.

C121 olitomea. United States. «e vs. 155
(1910)

In an opinion by Justice Masai-mil. the Sn.
preme Court held that a political subdivi-
sion within a covered state could not bail
out under Section 4(a) independently trom
the state itseli. even though that subdivi-
sion had proven that it had not been guilty
oi discrimination ior the previous seventeen
years. The Court also held that where ea-
ceptional circumstances exist Congress had
the power under Section 2 oi the Fifteenth
Amendment to prohibit practices that have
only racial impact with no dia-
criminatory intent. In disent. Justice
Powell said that the Act should be inter.
preted to permit subdivisions to bail out
horn the preclearance requiremenm even
though the state itseli could not bail out.
JusticePowellwentontosaythatintheab-
eence oi an independent bailout. Section 5
oi the Act would be unconstitutional. Jus-
tines Rehnquist and Stewart concluded in
dLment that Congrma does not have the
power under Section 2 oi the P‘dteenth
Amendment to prohibit practices having
only a disparate racial impact where the
governmental unit had aiiirmatively proven
thatithadnotbeengulltyoianydlscriml—
patory intent ior a period oi seventeen
yeara'ne madority also held that the city
had not carried its burdui oi proving that
certain annexations and electoral changes
did not have a disadvantageous eiiect on ml-

‘ nority voter;

XI. consumer's m won ““102! I

United States a. Board of Commissioners.
435 v.3. 110 (137-!)

In an opinion by Justice Brennan. the Su-
preme Court held- that all governmental
units within a covered jurisdictions were re-
quired to submit all covered changes under
Section 5 oi the Voting Rights Act. The
Court rejected arguments that only states
and “political subdivisions" were required
under Section 5 to make submission. and
that Section licxz) deilned political subdi-
visions to include only those governmental
units which register voters. and not those
which do not. In dissent. Chic! Justice
Burger and Justices Stevens and Rehnquist
concluded that only those governmental
units which meet the definition oi political
subdivisions should be required to submit
changes. In separate concurrencm. Justices
Blacltmun and Powell expressed reena-
tions as to the correctnem oi the decision.
but believed it to be compelled by Allen.
Justice Elam also remarked that he
considered Congrmsional action in 1970 and
1915 to have been an endorsement oi the
Allen role. , . -

Gaston County o. United States :55 as

’ 285 (1969! -

In an opinion' by Justice Harlan. the So-
preme Court held that Gaston County.
North Carolina had not met the criteria for
bailout in Section «oi oi the Act in that it.
.had not proven that its literacy tests had
not been used with either the purpose or
eiiect oi denying or abridginx the right to
vote on the pounds oi race. The Court at.
firmed a finding oi the district court that
the counw‘s previous maintenance oi a seg~
regated school system had resulted in inlerl.

S 6723

or education ior its black citizens. The in-
ability of many blacks to pass the literacy
tatswasarmultoithispriordiscrlminaw
tion. and the test thereiore had the eiiect
oi denying or ebridging their right to vote
because oi racial discrimination. Justice
Black dissented because oi his view that the
preclearnace provisions oi the Act were un-
constitutional. ‘
City «Roman United Stage-‘13“ 1'

above)

neaaacucovnnbmnsacrrone

Alien 1:. State Board of Elections :33 U3.
5“ (198.9)

In an opinion by Chic! Justice Warren.
the Supreme Court held that private liti-
gants amid bring suit before a three-judge
district court in their local districts to argue
that state laws had not been precleared
under Section 5. The Court held that the
preclearance provisions were applicable. not
only to change in laws directly aiiecting
registration and voting. but all changa
“which alter the election law oi a covered
State in even a minor way.” Id. at 568. The
Court speciilally held that the change
iromadlstnctmtemtoanatlargeeystem
was covered. as was the changing oi a par-
ticular oiiice iron: elective to appointive.
Also covered were changm in procedures ior
qualiilations oi independent candidates
and ior mating write in votes. Justice
Harlan dissented. concluding that Section 5
covered only “those state: laws that change
either voter qualifications or the manner in
which elections are conducted.” Id. at 59!.
Justice Blacx again dimented because oi his
conviction that Section 5 wu altogether un-
constitutionaL

Perkins 1:. Matthews: 400 vs. :79 $1971).

In an opinion by Justice Brennan. the Sn-
preme Court held that a local Federal diar
trict court was without lurisdiction to deter-
mine whether or not a particular change
had the purpose or eiiect oi denying or
abridging the right to vote. Rather. the only
iunction oi a local court was to determine
whether or not the change Ls subiect to pre-
clearanos under Section 5 ol the Act. The
Court went on to hold that the municipal
annexations and charm in locations at
polling places must be precleared. Chiei
Justice Burger and Justice Blachmun sepa-
rateiy concurred under the authority oi
Allen. Justicm Black and Harlan dissented
on the basis oi their opinions in Allen.
(Scorpio v. United States. 411 7.3. 525 (1973)

In an opinion by Justice Stewart. the So-
preme Court concluded that legislative reap-
portionments must be precleared under Sec-
tion 5. The Court also held that the Attor-
ney General could object to a subrolmion
even though he could not conclude that a
change had either the purpose or eiiect oi
denying or abridging the right to vote. The
Attorney General could validly place the
burden oi prooi on the submitting Jurisdic-
tion. and could interpose an objection when-
ever that jurisdiction failed to prove that a
change did not have such a purpose or
eiiect. Chiei Justice Burger concurred.
while reiterating his reservations about
Allen. Justicm White. Powell. and Rehn-
quist dissented on the grounds that the AP
torney General should not put the burden
oi proof on the submitting jurisdictions.

17. metres. muons m1: “on I

City of Petersourv c. United Sicies. 410 US
962 I1973)

The Supreme Court wrote no opinion but

' aiilrrned a judgment oi the db—

trict court finding that Petersburg‘s annex-

ation oi a predominantly white area could

not be approved under Section 5 because it

._ .4 _..—.4

 

 

h

S 6724

would have the purpose or effect ofdens'lng
orabridgingtherighttovoteonthebeeisof
race. The district court also ordered that
theennexetion couldbepermltted it theat
lane government of the city were in be
changedtoacouncilotelngiememberdie-
n-lciat'hlsisoneotonlytwocaeeeinwhich
theSupr-eme Courtheeioundamunicipel
annexationtobeln-violeaionolSections.
'I'hereneltinthisaeewesiaterexolained
byemaiorityoitheCourtinenopinlonby
macro/BWLUMM
353 (1915). The Court es-
plamedthattheennexatlonofthewhite
ereecoupled with shat-large form at gov-
ernmuattersded‘toegeludefl’etroatotally
iromparticipationinthegoverning olthe
city through membership on the city coun-
cli."ld.et37ll.‘l'hiseiiectcouldbecuredby
themhllshmentoiawardsystem which
would eitord them reoraentation “reason-
ehlyeouivelemttotheirpolltinleh-engthin
the enlarged community” RM. The Court
specifically noted that the mere (act that
thebmaeeedsuoennallerpercentageol
theciwutertheennexationdldnot
amounttoavioiailonoftheAct.

City of slam o. Unread States 422 US.
:51 11975) '

InenopinionbmetinWhlte.theCourt
applied the same test it had applied Without
enopinioninthePetersburgasa'rhedia-
triot murt had disapproved an application
byRiohmondtoenneawhiteareaswhile
changing to the single member system. The
Courtdidoothaveocmsiontoruleesto
whether the annexation standing alone
would have constituted a violation oi the
Acnbutitreversed thecistr‘mcourtandre-
mended for reconsideration in light of its
explanation oi the Petersburg case. In dis.
sent. Justica Brennan. Douglas. and Mar-
shall cancluded that the annexation had
been motivated by discriminatory purpcne.
Moreover. they felt that by reducing the
percentage oi blacks in the city 01 Rich-
mond. the annexation had the oiled or
denying or sbridnns the right to vote.

mameonrmsumts”:
above).

1. score or gram-roll a

City of Mobile 1:. Bolder; 446' 0.8. 55 run;

Inthisasethedlstrictcourthadiound
that Mobile's election oi its city government
et large had the eiIect oi discriminating
against black voters. and it ordered e new
governing board he created consisting of a
mayor end a city council with members
elected irorn single member districts. nu
Supreme Court reversed. but there was no
maiority opinion. In an opinion Joined by
Chief Justice Burger and Justices Powell
and Rehnquist Justice Stewart condoned
that Section 2 0! the Voting Rights Act had
the same meaning es the Fifteenth Ascend-
ment itself. and therefore reaches only the
intentional abridgements oi the right to
vote. In dissent. Justice Marshall explicitly
agreed that the provisions oi Section 2 of
the Act were congruent with the protection
of the Fifteenth Amendment. but he can.
eluded that proof oi discriminatory impact
was suiflclent to secure reliei under the F11-
teenth Amendment. Id. at 10323.2. Justice
Brennan agreed with Justice Marshall's in-
terpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
butno member oi the Court explicitly disap
greed with the conclusion that Section 2
had the same meaning as that Amendment.
Justice Stewart‘s _opinion concluded that
the Plitenth Amendment was satisfied
wherever all races have access to the ballot.
and that claims at “vote dilution“ must be
tested under the equal protection clause oi
the Fourteenth Amendment. Justina Ste-
vens and Marshall explicitly disagreed. find-

CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD — SENATE

ing that dilution cases could also be brought
under the Fifteenth Amendment. Justice
Smart concluded that there was insulti-
cierrt evidence of discriminatory intent in
the oration and maintenance of Mobile’s
iorm oi government he did not explicitly
state that prool of such intent would have
minced to iustdiy relied. Justice Brennan.
/Wl:lte. end Marshall concluded ie dissent
that there was adequate proof ot discrimina-
tory inmh and that and: intent instilled
thereliein-antedbythedistrictco'rrLJur
tice Blacsmun Joined in the reversal. even
though he expressed some sympathy tor the
viewpoint oi the disentera. beause he felt
thattherelleiorderedbythedistrictoourt
wastoodnstinJustiaStevensinhlsoon-
current: dictated that the question at
intent in munidpal government cases
should be largely irrelevant. He concluded
thatsolongestherewasenyretionaliusdo
nation ior an at lane form at government.
it should by upheld by the courts. even
though some of its supporters might have
disclmlnazm'y motives.
vr. mach-Au. com mu 1::
room an rm mm

Somalia)! n. LWOOL 354 US. 339 (1960).

An act at the Alabama Legislature had re
drawn the boundariee or the city ot Tuske-
geeinsuchawayeetoremove {mm thedty
elmoe't ell oi the black voters without re-
moving any of the white voter: Whereas
the city had previously been in the form of
a square. its new boundarim had twenty-
elght sides ova a much smaller area. In an
opinion by Justice Pranhiurter. the Court
concluded this runoval oi black voters from
the city denied them the right to vote in
contravention o! the I'llteenth Amendment.
In a separate concurrence. Justice Whit-
taker held that the Fifteenth Amendment
had not been violated because all persons at
everyracewerepermlttedtovoteinthe
areas in which.they resided. Bowever. he
iound that the action violated the Four-
teenth Amendment because blacxs had been
clearly segregated out oi the city.

Beern United States. 425 US. 130 (1978).

Under the 1960 census. the city or New
Orleans was governed by a council made up
of five members elected irom single member
districts end two members elected at large.
The 1970 census revealed that 45 percent oi
the city‘s population and 35 percent of its
voters were non-white'The city submitted
to the Attorney General a reapportionment
plan which preserved the two at large seem.
created two districts with black population
maioritia. end for the first time created
one district with a blank voter majority. The
Attorney General end the district court re-
iected the plan beause it would produce
black representation on the council roughly
proportional to black population in the city.
The district court added that the city
should abolish the two members elected at
large. In an opinion by Justice Stewart. the
Supreme Court reversed. The Court held
that the district court had no authority
under Section 5 o! the Act to consider the
existence at the at large sears. since those
seats badbeen in existence prior to l9“.
Moreover. the Court held that Section 3
prohibit: only those voting changes which
result in “retroceasion in the position of
racial minorities with respect to their eifeo
tive exercise of the electoral iranchise." Id.
at 141. Beau“ this plan created more black
majority districts than the plan that. it re-
placed it should have been approved under
Section 5. Justices White. Marshall. and

Brennan all dissented. They would have.

held that Section 5 prohibits the approval
oi a plan which dos not result in an en-
proxlrnation oi proportional representation

June 1.5, 1.982

where there is also evidence at bloc voting
and certain bars to participation in the elec~
toral proces.

City of Mobile 7. Bolder: (See V above).

vu. LEGISLATIVE aerator-s mu 2::
rpm urn rm amounts-s

Whitman-b 1:. Clients. 403 US. 1211197!)

In an opinion by Justice White. the Su-
preme Court held that mum-member state
legislative disalcu are not hedgarlly un-
constitutional. In dictum the Court states
that mum-member districts in some circum-
stanceemlghtbeproventoworhesenun-
constitutional dilution orthe voting power
oi the minority voters within the district. In
this one the Court found that minority
voters had ample opportunity to participate
in the selection of Democratic candidates.
but that Republlane regularly deieated
those andidata. The disadvantage to the
minority voter was based not upon me. but
upon partisan alflllatioo. Justices Douglas.
Brennan.» end Marshall disented. finding
that the dilution oi the minoriw vote had
already been proven to the district court.
Theyaleoindlatedthattherewunooeed
to prove discriminatory intent. Ina separate
dissent. Justice Harlan argued that the
entire question of dilution could not be
menagedbythecourtslnaneutnlendob-
iective way. and concluded that the courts
should stay out at reapportionment alto-
gether.

White 1!. may. 41: as. 755/1971)

In an opinion by Justice White. the Su-
preme Court alflrmed a decision oi a district
court in Texas requiring that state legisla-
tors from Dallas end San Antonio be elected
from ‘single member districts rather than at
large in their rapective counties. This is the
first and only me in which the Supreme
Court _has found that mum-member dis-
tricts actually dilute the minority vote In
Dallas the Court emphasized that blacks did
not have e fair opportunity to participate in
the nominating prince: of the Democratic
part7. In San Antonio the Court emphar
sized that language and cultural barriere
made it diiflcult ior Mexican-Americans to
have their views represented in a delegation
elected at large.

United Jewish Organization 17. Carey. (30
0.5. 144 (1977) .

This case involved the Attorney General’s
rejection of New York‘s 1972 legislative re-
districting u it applied to Brooklyn. which
is covered under the Act. The Attorney
General originally ruled that there were an
insuiilcient number 0! districts with non.
white populations large enough that non-
white candidates could win an electionfhe
Attorney General indicated that a non-
white population or 65% was necasary to
create a safe non-white seat In a new plan
adopted in 1974. the Legislature met the ob-
jections oi the Attorney General. but in so
doing. divided a community of Hasidic Jews
which had previously resided in e single dis-
trict. The Attorney General approved the
plan. but the Jews went to court claiming
that they had been the victims of rsc:a.l dis-
crimination. The Supreme Court rejected
their elicru. but was unable to produce a
maiority opinion. Justices Brennan. Black-
rnun. and Stevens joined an opinion by Jus-
tice White which held that the Legislature
could legitimately use racial quotas in order
to create a plan which would be acceptable
under Section 5 of the Act. From the record
made in the district court. it did not access-
that the Legislature had done my more
than comply with the requirement that rnl-
nority voting strength not be decreased.
Justica White. Steven and Rehnquist went
on to 53.7 thaL even absent the require

 

June 14, 1.982

ment: of the Act. the Constitution permits a

statetodrawllnainsuchswaythatthe

percentage of non-white districts would ap-

proximate the percentage of non-whites in

the population. so long as white were in
' the population. so long as whites were like-
wise provided with fair representation. Jus—
tices Stewart and Powell reiected the argu-
ment that race consciousness is unconstitut-
tionsl perae. They found this planconstitu-
tional beans: there was no purpose at
lnvidiom dncrirnination. Chie! Justice
Burger disented. ilndlng thatthe use at a
quota system in redistricting attended the
Filteenth Amendment and that an eitort to
require an eiiort to comply with the Voting
Rights Act could not cure that infirmity.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. perhaps
theanalysisoftheseceseswillbeof
some assistance to my colleagues who
are reviewing this matter.

With that. I yield the floor.

Mr. EAST. Mr. President. I should
like to make a comment or two apro-
pos some recent remarks that have
been made here regarding the ques-
tion of proceeding on this very impor-
tant measure.

Senator Est-ca has made some very
cogent and telling remarks. which he
always does so well and so eloquently.

I have also been inwigued with some
of the comments oi the distinguished
Senator from New York (Mr. Mom-
m). He touched on a theme that
seems to appear fairly commonly
among those supporting the measure:
namely. that in some way or other. it
is inappropriate that we take the time
to deliberate and to reflect seriously
upon what we are doing on those
issues.

I simply point out to him that at the
very moment he was making that
_ point. he was interrupted by the Sena-
tor irom Kentucky (Mr. Form). who
was submitting an amendment indicat-
ing his concern about this measure
and the impact it will have in his
State. I suspect that. in due course. we
may very well hear from other Sena-
tors as they begin to have the oppor-
tunity to reflect on this legislation.

I should like to quote briefly from a
column by Mr. James Jackson Kllpa-
trick with respect to this measure. He
says this as regards this measure:

The Dole "compromise" is no compromise
at all. It is folly. In (0 years of covering poll-
tia. I cannot recall a more lamentable legis-
lative error.

He concludes his column. a very
recent one. by saying:

mm the waves oi thoughtless support
given to this misguided bill. I respectfully
dissent.

In between those statements. he
gives a very trenchant analysis oi the
great weaknesses in this bill. There are
enormous weaknesses. and we should
be looking at them as we even consider
whether to take up the measure.

PassageoithisbillwiILintheiii-st
place. have enormous impact on elec-
tion politics in the United States.
Whether Senators would like to admit
it or not. it is going to introduce the
quota concept into the election proc-
es. It will revolutionize American poll-

CONGRJESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

tie: in a way no bill has ever done
beiore. -.
Then. when you look at‘the burdens
oi preclearance that are still carried.
without Justification. by the aifected
States. including my own. and when
you look at the major flaws in the leg-
islation-the venue problem. the
burden oi proof problem. the absence
of a fair and equitable bailout-it be-
comes clear that we need to spend
more time thinking eareiully and ana-
lyzing what we are doing. I submit to
any fairmlnded Senator who is study-
ing this matter that substantive issues
are at stake and certainly the so—called
greatest deliberative body in the world
should not shy away irom looking at

them.

But I do not find a great deal of en-
thusiasm for looking at this legislation
because. I expect. it does not bear up
well under careful scrutiny.

I have always felt very strongly that
it we could get our colleagues to look
seriously at this legislation. as they
have looked at other very important
matters beiore us. we would see a very
changed attitude in this body.

Mr. President. the Wall Street Jour-
nal. a responsible publication in this
country. on May 5 had this to say. it I
might quote briefly about this legislar
tion. It says:

The new bill would further embroll the
courts in loal elections acres the country
and would give citizens loss of a voice in de-
ciding on the type at government that they
want to run their local atfairs.

And it continues:

The “compromise" further muddles the
waters with the legalistic Jargon such as a
“totality of circumstances" rather than
making eifects the sole test. The point at
the exercise is to write a bill that means all
thingstosliparties.3utaincethe bill gives
cosh-radian” instructions. it means nothing
at .

The practical eileet. of course. will be to
dump the hot potato into the hands of the
courts. Our gum is that the end result will
be s-buge impetus toward proportional rep-
resentation for minoritim. But our certainty
is that the courts will take a long time figur-
ing out what the legislation means. and that
in the meantime a great many local elec-
tions will be suspended.

Then it concludes:

The “compromise" on voting rights solves
the political problems oi Congress but is
going to cause no end of mischie! in the
land. What kind oi compromise is it that
gives us a voting rights not that will stop the
voters lrom voting?

We are finding in a growing number
of very responsible sources an appre-
ciation that the legislation Congress
seems to be on the threshold of pass—
ing has been drafted too quickly. We
are moving on lmpetuously. I repeat.
Mr. President. because the supporters
of this bill seem to dread what would
happen if we proceeded in a careful
and orderly way to examine the sub-
stantive impact that the bill will have.

So. Mr. President. I am a bit con.
cerned that those of us who wish to
explore the legislation with some care
and at some depth are labeled as ob-
structionists. We are not at all. I

S 6725

rather think we do credit to this great
deliberative body by wanting to, ex-
plore important matters with some
care and some substance. as the very
distinguished Senator from Utah has
been doing. Mr. President. in these few
remarks here I particularly want to
underscore that his willingness to look.
at the bill carefully deserves to be pub-
licly commended. And. with all due re
spect to our able opponents. I submit
that their dmin to rush on offering
simpLy the full flourishof rhetoriC.
but not really looking at things with
any depth. penetration. or substance.
is an ill-advised course to take.

So I implore my colleagues not to be
rushed into something that quite
frankly many of us feel is ill-advised
and precipitate.

I agree with Mr. Kllpatrick. I agree
with the Wall Street Journal. And I
agree with many other distinguished
observers and students of this matter
outside Congress. be they in the halls
of academia. be they in jaurnaliszn. or
be they elsewhere who feel that this
measure is radical. that it is going to
dramatically alter the nature at the
American Federal system and of the
whole election process in the United .
States.

All I am requesting and all I feel
that many others such as the distin-
guished Senator from Utah are re-
questing is simply: “Let us look care-
fully at this. Let us make sure we un-
derstand what we are doing. and i: we
do pass a bill like this one. then let us
be prepared to live with the results." ‘

But I ask my colleagues let us not
come back in 6 months or a year or 2
or 3 and have to say: “My goodness. I
had no idea that legislation would
allow them to challenge at-large elec-
tions in my State or annexation: in
this city or staggered elections in
that."

Let us really look at this bill. It is an
open invitation for the courts to make
such challenges and to impose appro-
priate remedies. Many responsible au-
thorities have made this clear. It will
have tremendous impact and tremen-
dous importance. Any why we should
not examine it ‘37th care I do not
know.

So. Mr. President. it is in that spirit
that I have been involved in this meas-
ure since it first saw the light 01 day in
the Judiciary Committee. Now that it
is being brought before the Senate. I
find the approach that I wish to take
and that others such as the Senator
from Utah are taking to be eminently
responsible and very consistent with '
the deliberation and examination that
should characterize good representa-
tive government. By taking time to '
think. we are acting in the best inter-
ests of the country in general and ot
our constituencies in particular.

So I do not believe. as our distin-
guished opponents imply. that. on. we
are obstructionists. oh. we do not un-
derstand the importance oi getting on
Yes, we do. certainly we do.

 

S 6726

We are simply asking that we not
into something that
frankly few people really understand.
Therein lim our great problem and
our great dilemma-how to inform our
able and busy colleagues just what the
probl- is and how at the same time
to ale-t the people of this country that
they are in for a. very fascinating time
intermaoftheirStateandloaieleo-
tion: if this bill go: through.

andaaywedidourbmtzwetrledm
inform others. they did not want to
listen. or they did listen and they said
no. and we move on to other issues

But please now let our opponents
not hammer on that we should not
look at the legislation usefully. that
we should not examine it. and that a.
falrminded reasonable mind could not
possibly disagree with their position.
OhyeahecanAndlofferagainthe
distinguished Senator from Utah as an
eaampleofmchamamamanwhois
known for great care. great prudence.
and great insight into what he does.

I found him to be in my brief tenure
in the Senate one of the moat thor-
ough Senators I know in terms of
keeping up with a whole range of diffl<
cult and complicated issue and in
terms of trying to inform himself.

I offer his approach as an example
to all of my .colieaguu. however they
ultimately come down on the bill.
Please examine this measure with_
care. with deliberation. and then ulti-
mately we can decide as a body. as a
Congress. and u a. Nation where we
wish to go with it.

Thank you. Mr. President. I yield.

0 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President. it is
indeed unfortunate that we are unable
to proceed to debate on the Voting
Rights Act. Wlth 77 Satators favoring
extension of S. 1992 in its present
form. it is only a matter of time before
cioture is invoked to limit debate. We
can then proceed to vote on the bill
itself. I would like to draw my col-
leagues attention to yesterday‘s New
York Times editorial and ask that it
be placed in the Rococo.

The editorial follows:

(From the New York Time. June 13. 19823
A mm? 0! Verna? In 1982?

Senator Jeme Eelms promism to filibuster
"until the cows come home' to prevent a
vote on the Voting Rights Act. But the
debataiaoverandthecowiarecoming
home. Though he is taking days to say it.
the Horth Carolina obstructionist has noth-
ing new to my. Underneath it all there is an
old mean-

Senate Republlmn leaders say £1127 will
conduct “shuttle diplomacy” with him and
the handful of other opponents of the bill.
But since the vota for cioture are amply
available. this seems pointlan The drafting.
improving and compromising are done, yet
Senator Helms won't even agree to a prt~
um motion to take up the bill for
debate. All temporizing could unsompllsh is

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE

snarl it in other Senate business—u the
August deadline for renewing key voting
rights provisions approaches

The House pused an extended. improved
version of the law last fall by In overwhelm-
ing 339 to 24. The Senate Judiciary Commit
tee reported a bill so popular that Prmident
Reagan entranced it. Pounfiftha of the
Senate favor: that bill. Senator John Sten—
mamauupforrreleainmauddeo-
ly sea in merit.

ButSenatorBelmldroneIonMostofhls
complaints about “regional discrimination'
are as hollow as they were when
rights law
elected—u
many minority citizens. His charge that the
law would create racial election quotas h
hilly answered in the compromise worked
out with the important help of Senator
Dole.

The Senators demonsmtlon. if more gen-
teel in phrasing. is no lea mean-spirited and
no lees an anachronism than those of the
nurmonds and Manda who on: made
the word "W redolat o’f nelsm.
Eva: those few legislators who remain
openly opposed to racial equality are embar-
raaed into ailenm when the subject is
voting. the right that prmervm other rights
1': Senator Helms beyond embarrassment?
It‘s time for the Senate to stop the talking
and do some voting of its own..-

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.

The
clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr EAYAZAWA. Mr. President. I
as: unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDmG OFFICER (Mr.
Mamas). Wlthout objection. it is so
ordered. ~ -

 

URGENT SUPPLEIME‘JTAL
APPROPRIATIONS BELL

Mr. EAYAKAWA. Mr. President. as
the Senate approaches consideration
of the Conference report to the urgent
supplemental appropriations bill. I am
compelled to remind my colleagues
that this not merely an urgent supple-
mental bill. It contains legislation ini-
tiating a massive new housing program
which I oppose and which President
Reagan opposes. While it is an affront
to the budget process that we consider
additional appropriations for the cur.
rent fiscal year. allowing legislative
language containing both authoriza-
tion and appropriations for a. new pro-
gram on this bill. dos double duty. It
violates the appropriations process by
providing new funds which are not
necessary to continue the function of
government on this urgent supplemen-
tal bill. and providing both appropri-
ations and authorization in one vehi-
cle. The appropriations procem was
specifixmlly designed to be separate
from the author-nation pm com.
bining the two mereLy as an opportu-
nistic measure of forcing enactment of
the Lugar amendment does violence to
our congressional responsibility.

Because the conference report con-
tains this legislation. I intend to vote
against it. and if it passes it is my hope
that the President will veto it.

PRESIDING OFFICER— The

June 14, 2282

In thh morning‘s Wall Street Jour-
nal an editorial appeared that
me: this state of affairs. I ask unam-
mous consent that this article be
printed in the Recon.

There being no obiectioct the edito-
rialwasorderedtobeprintedinthe
Recon. as follows:

[from the Wall Street Journal. June 14.
- 19811 '

Nowmmmnnra

Mr. Reagan finally pried out of the House
the 1983 budget resolution be said he
wantedltatlllmuatbereoonciledwiththe
Senate version. but the differencm aren't
greatandalreadythealristhickwithproc-
lamatlona of another great budget victory
for the adminismflon. ‘

But quite aside from the merits of tbs
particular budget resolution. which we
thinkaredubiouaatbwtitahouldbere-
membered that budget rmoiutions are only
thebeginninnoottheendofthebudget
cycle. Now comes the actual appropriations
procaThiaiswhex-ethefunreallybegins
asthevatedinterefisgotowortonthe -
dividual mmmitteea to ratchet spending
ever higher. '

Indeed. there will be an immediate test of
whether the 1983 budget revolution is worth
thepaperit‘swnttmmtAtthesamenme
that Cong-ma was wringing its hands and
heating in breast about future deficit; it
was quietly whipping through a budgetbusb
ing housing bill calling for $3 billion to :3
billion of “anti-recessionary" mortgage sub-
sidim over the next five years.

This housing bailout is likely to reach the
President‘s desk later this weeL lls spon-
sors. hoping to make it veto-proof. have at-
tached it to an “urgent supplemental appro-
priation” of monies needed to keep the gov-
ernment operating through the current
fiscal year. (Those urgent supplementals are
a neat littlefizick too. by the way: Cong-r51
habitually makes its budget ceilings look
better in the fall by underestimating fixed
obligations. Then-comes back for a supple~
mental in the spring.)

Mr. Reagan. tired of thee budget-busting
game. has indicated he's ready to veto the
whole package and let Conga-es sweat over
who pays the government‘s bills. But the-
Eouse. for all its show of restraint on the
l983 resolution. is almost certain to override
him on this issue of real substance. And in
the Republimn-controlled Senate he could.
lose as well: 51 Senator: co-sponsored the
housing subsidies to begin with.

if Congress does override the President. it

will be a sure sign that the old politim is
continuing: tax and tax. spend and spend.
elect and elect. And we‘re not just talking
about Democrats. The main backers of the
housing boondogglm. which would provide
mortgages to the middle class at up to four
percentage points below market. have been
Republican Senatom Richard Lugar of Indi-
ana and Jake Garn of Utah. ‘
' l1 housing needs special treatment. after
all. why not the auto industry. the aircraft
industry, the thrifts. the elderly, the young.
or anybody else with the clout to pres an
“entitlement"? Republicans mn play the
game as well u Democrats And in the pra-
ent economic climate it will not be difficult
to play on the sympathies of the press and
public. not to mention the electoral fears of
the politicians. ’

But failure to hold the line Will be an
equally clear signal to the markets that
Congres has no serious intent of getting a
grip on spending and the deficit. If interest
rates are indeed staying high because of
fear of future deficits as most of the politi-