Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Reclaiming my time, let me try to respond to the gentleman's question.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman has a very legitimate question and my response is very simple. I know that the gentleman would agree with me that most countries across the world try to pattern themselves, all of them, most of them, admire the work that we do in the area of business. Would the gentleman not agree with that? The gentleman does agree. He is shaking his head.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. That is a yes. They in fact look at us as role models for the most part. Is that not correct?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman would agree. We do not have companies and workers across the world looking at America saying we do not do our business correctly. For the most part, think we do a pretty good job at it. Let me take the gentleman through the history of minimum wage for a second. It did not hurt then, and I would suggest to the gentleman it is not going to hurt now because, first of all, it is not going to take away the competitive angle of the work force. Individuals must still be competitive. They will be rewarded based upon their merits. Public Law 75-718 was the first minimum wage law, 25 cents. Then in 1939 it moved from 25 to 30 cents. In 1945 it moved from 30 to 40, 40 cents. Then in 1950 it moved to 75 cents. It was still competitive then. Employees were still working and getting their just due in the merit system, and it did not have a devastating effect on the economy and certainly did not have a devastating effect on the American workers. Let me ask the Speaker, inquire in terms of how much time the gentleman has remaining.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Because I would like to yield 1 minute to each of the gentlemen and gentlewoman before I leave, before we close. It moved from, I will put it in the Record, up to 1991, it moved from 25 cents in 1938 to $4.25 in 1991. And certainly the gentleman is not suggesting that employees are coming to work waiting for the Government to raise their wage and not working hard, not trying to be promoted on jobs and waiting for this Congress to raise their wage. The gentleman is not suggesting that.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentleman is suggesting that, I would suggest that the gentleman is wrong. I am going to yield 30 seconds to each of the gentleman and the gentlewoman for closing. I first yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman has no time.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia. I thank all the gentlemen and the gentlewoman for being here, and I want to especially thank the gentleman from Arkansas for being here tonight to participate in this colloquy. The gentleman certainly showed a lot of statesmanship and character in being part of this debate tonight, and I thank the gentleman. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that Members of this Congress, all who I serve with and all who I have a great deal of respect for, when we go home each day we take in $550. Each day we work we get $550. A person on minimum wage only makes $680 a month. I just cannot see why we cannot give them a small 40-cent increase 1 year and another 40 cents the next year, so that they can buy bread and milk for the same price that we buy bread and milk. I want to thank the Speaker and I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, Ron Brown was a very personal friend of mine. I had an opportunity to meet him on a Presidential campaign in 1988, where he and I shared many platforms together. There is not another American that I have ever met in my lifetime who has worked as hard, who has had such a strong commitment to country, than Ron Brown. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today to say that Ron Brown was indeed a scholar, a leader, and a role model, for people all across this country. The last time Ron Brown and I had an opportunity to sit down and talk was actually in the Fourth Congressional District. I called him at the Department of Commerce and said, Mr. Secretary, I want you to come to Louisiana and talk about economic development. And right off the cuff he just said, I will be there. And in about 30 minutes, he called back and said, I will be there in about 3 weeks. So I want to thank the Ron Brown family. I also want to give a special tribute to a family from Louisiana. The pilot of that plane was from my home State of Louisiana, Ashley Davis. To his wife and to his two little children, we want to say that we offer our condolences to them and to all of the families of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident. To them we say God bless you, and we will pray for you. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible for everyone to fully comprehend what a loss the Nation will suffer without the late Commerce Secretary Ron H. Brown. Not only was he a champion for the domestic and international development of American business, but also, and more importantly, his extraordinary character was an invaluable asset to the U.S. Government. Every project he touched was approached with a tireless devotion and a profound understanding of the initiative's impact on the Nation's economy. He led by example, urging others to work as partners instead of competitors to maximize opportunities. Truly, this man was in the business of building bridges and reinforcing existing relationships to ensure opportunities for advancement of large and small business interests alike. Under his leadership, all facets of the Commerce Department flourished and enjoyed the benefits of innovative policies. He was instrumental in developing a comprehensive and coordinated plan for bringing together the many elements of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration; he sought to improve patent and trademark protection of U.S. interests in intellectual property; he worked diligently for telecommunications reform to create a competitive marketplace and to illuminate how technology can alleviate geographic barriers and enhance education; he instituted a long-term plan to assist the New England fishing industry--the list goes on and on. A man of firsts, Ron Brown was the first African-American chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the first African-American to hold the office of U.S. Secretary of Commerce. He worked tirelessly to promote the Commerce Department's mission of long-term economic growth--to him we owe a debt of gratitude for our Nation's prosperity. At a time when diversity seems to be a dividing force in this country, Ron Brown demonstrated that diversity is our Nation's greatest asset. It is in this spirit that I offer these words of tribute. During this time of remembrance, I would like to pay tribute to an Air Force pilot who lost his life serving our country, Capt. Ashley J. Davis. Captain Davis was from my hometown, Baton Rouge, LA. A victim of the tragic plane crash which ended the lives of 33 Americans who were serving their country, Captain Davis' mission was to pilot the dignitaries who visited Europe. He was chosen for the job just 18 months ago, over 38 other pilots. I offer my condolences to Captain Davis' family. He is survived by his wife Debra, and two children. A man of great spirit and patriotism, I know his family and friends will miss him. The Air Force has also suffered a great loss in his untimely death during his dedicated service to our country. Today, I extend my prayers to this family as well as the families of all the persons who lost their lives in Croatia.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Absolutely. And for anyone to even think that a redistricting plan, and I do not care if it is congressional, I do not care if it is legislative or even a city council's plan or a school board plan, to think that politics does not play a role, a significant role in the drawing of these plans, is someone who is off base. You certainly cannot take the politics out of politics. When these plans were drawn in Louisiana, they were drawn based on incumbency protection, first; second, they were drawn based on the fact that Louisiana moved from eight congressional districts to seven. So, of course, districts were going to increase in size and not decrease in size. That is just a logical thing for them to do. They were also drawn based on commonality of interest. What people in north Louisiana have in common with people in south Louisiana, we have always had districts that connected urban and rural communities together. If we do not do that, we will not be able to live up to the deviation of zero deviation or one man-one vote requirement by the Constitution of the United States of America. We are required by the Constitution to have proportioned districts. Legislatures have to apportion districts based on the number of people in each, and each district must have as close to an equal amount of people in one as it does in the other in order to pass the deviation requirement. I was talking about Shaw versus Reno, Mr. Speaker. Shaw versus Reno did not rule that districts were unconstitutional if they were majority minority. Plaintiffs all across the country decided to file lawsuits. Going back to the State of Louisiana, because I have tried to deal with the question of how is a voter injured in my district, because I walk into this body and to these halls and to this august building every day and try to do my very best. I go home every week and I try to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. I try to have a staff that is zealous and caring and concerned. I have held more town hall meetings than any other Member of Congress from my State and perhaps in this whole Congress. So I have tried to go beyond the call of duty not to give any constituent rhyme or reason to say that I have not represented my constituents to the best of my abilities. When the lawyers started to take depositions, the deposition of these plaintiffs who said, I have been injured because I live in Congressman Fields district or the district that he represents, we took the deposition. Let me tell my colleagues about these injuries: How do you feel about Congressman Fields? Well, he is a great guy. He works hard. I like him personally. But he is liberal. That is injury No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2, under oath, what is your injury? Well, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican. So I am injured. The plaintiff No. 3, what is your injury? This is under oath, in the record, I ran for Congress and I was defeated. So I am injured. Not one person who filed a lawsuit against the constitutionality or against this district has been able to allege any real significant injury or any injury at all. Mr. Speaker, I started toying with this whole notion of what is wrong with the district, what is wrong with me as a Representative. I first dealt with the district thing and I said, listen, Louisiana has been creating districts, extended over 200 miles since we have had congressional districts. So you cannot say because the district is over 200 miles you are injured because four other districts in the State extend over 200 miles. So that is not an injury. And you cannot allege that. Well, it is irregularly shaped. Well, Louisiana has always had irregularly shaped districts. For crying out loud, look at the State of Louisiana, it is not a perfect square or a perfect box, it is a boot. So you tell me how in the world you are going to have seven perfect squares or circles in the State of Louisiana when the State itself is shaped like a boot. I mean most States do not look like squares and boxes. They look like animal cookies. So there is no injury there. Then when we finally got this case to the Supreme Court, I was as excited as anybody else because I, for one, want to put this issue of redistricting behind me once and for all. Now, right now in the Louisiana, the Fourth Congressional District is in the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs insist to the Governor of their State that he put redistricting in the court, when there are very important issues in the State of Louisiana that must be dealt with, issues like education, issues like deficit reduction, real issues that must be dealt with for the survival and the future of our children in the State of Louisiana. And I wondered, why would they put redistricting on the calendar when redistricting right now, the lawsuit is in the Supreme Court, which will ultimately make the decision anyway. And then I started to do my research, Mr. Speaker. I found out that it really was not about injury, that it was not about it and is not about a plaintiff really being hurt. This whole issue is about money. It is about how plaintiffs receive damages, how they receive money. This is beginning to be a trend. It really bothers me that people would have the audacity to file lawsuits not only in Louisiana but across this country for financial gain. The Hays versus Louisiana case, Hays being the main plaintiff who filed the lawsuit, prevailed in the lower court, went to the Supreme Court, lost. Back to the three judge panel in Shreveport, now is before the Supreme Court again. And I often wondered why Hays is still a plaintiff because Hays has been ruled by the Supreme Court that he does not even have standing. He just does not have justiciability. Mr. Speaker, then I pulled the records from the court. I found that Hays' attorney, the plaintiff's attorney, decided to withdraw from the case. Mr. Speaker, why did he withdraw from the case? It was because he did not want to deal with this constitutional issue anymore. It was not because he did not want to see the case through to the final appeal. It was because these plaintiffs, according to this affidavit that was filed in the Federal court, wanted money. I thought these plaintiffs had a problem with the constitutionality of the district and they were injured because their rights were violated. I wanted to share with the Speaker and Members of the House this affidavit that is public record, has been filed in the Western District of Louisiana. This affidavit, I will not go through the entire affidavit, but I would like to talk about two sections of it, sections 2 and 3. Section 2, the counsel said, these are his words, counsel withdrew from further representation of the plaintiffs in this matter because of the demands made by plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley that the fee application in this matter to be submitted under 42 USC 1988 include fictitious paralegal fees, fictitious activities allegedly performed by the plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley and that counsel split. For crying out loud, I really thought the plaintiffs thought they were injured. I thought this was a constitutional question, that the counsel split with the plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley all attorney fees awarded to counsel in this litigation and the redistricting litigation in Texas. Mr. Speaker, how in the world can a plaintiff, a nonlawyer, who has alleged to the court and to the United States of America that he is injured because he is in a majority minority district, the most diverse district in his State, and he is injured because it was created based on race? Now say to his lawyer, I want half of the legal fees. Why it is that the Louisiana legislature would push so hard, some Members, one of the Members, Mr. Speaker, one of the authors of the bill to change the district and moot the old redistricting plan is one of the lawyers in the lawsuit. Want to talk about ethics? Want to talk about injury and what is really going on in Louisiana? I suspect that that is not only taking place in Louisiana but it is probably taking place in other parts of the country. Let us go to section 3. These are the lawyer's words who withdrew from the Hays case. These unreasonable demands were initially made by the plaintiffs shortly after the court's order on December 28, 1993, setting aside the original congressional district in Louisiana. These demands are confirmed by letters from plaintiffs Ray Hays and Gary Stokley and a written refusal by counsel to agree to such demand. Plaintiffs who are pushing right now in the Louisiana legislature that this plan be adopted so that they can benefit from anywhere from $4.2 million in legal fees. The last point of this affidavit I want to point to, Mr. Speaker, is section 7. The motion by the plaintiffs requesting that the court delay the determination owed in professional services. Under that they cite the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, that law firm is the same law firm that is associated with Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation. Kenneth Starr's law firm, according to this affidavit that I will put in the Record, are the lawyers of record for these plaintiffs in Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I will be quite honest with my colleagues and then I will yield my time. I do not have a problem with the Supreme Court of the United States of America deciding the constitutionality of the 4th Congressional District or any congressional district in this country because as lawmakers we make the law and, as the court, they interpret the law. And we have to live with the laws we make and we have to live with their interpretation. Until we change the law, we have to live with the interpretation of the Supreme Court because that is their role. But I am not going to sit and/or stand idly by and let just a few selfish plaintiffs and a few greedy lawyers railroads a plan through the Louisiana Legislature and subject my State to over $4 million in legal fees for personal gain. This is not a decision of the legislature. This is not a decision of a three judge panel. This decision, Mr. Speaker, is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I want to thank the Speaker for allowing us to share in this special order. I want to thank him for his time. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information: Exhibit ``C'' affidavit (By Paul Loy Hurd) BE IT KNOWN that on the 1st day of May, 1995, before the undersigned witnesses, and Notary Public duly authorized in the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, personally came and appeared PAUL LOY HURD, a person of full age of majority, domiciled in the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, Hereinafter referred to as ``Counsel'', who after being duly sworn did depose and state that: 1. Counsel was originally the lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in this matter from its initial filing until December 1994, when this Honorable Court granted Counsel's motion to withdraw. 2. Counsel withdrew from further representation of the Plaintiffs in this matter because of the demands by Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley (i) that the fee application in this matter to be submitted under 42 U.S.C. 1988 include fictitious ``paralegal'' activities allegedly performed by the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, and (ii) that Counsel split with the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, all attorney fees awarded to Counsel in this litigation and the districting litigation in Texas. 3. These unreasonable demands were initially made by the Plaintiffs shortly following the Court's order of December 28, 1993 setting aside the original congressional districts in Louisiana. These demands are confirmed by letters from Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, and the written refusal by Counsel to agree to any such demand. 4. The attorneys presently representing the Plaintiffs were fully appraised of the unreasonable demands being made by Plaintiffs, including both the demanded fee splitting and the submittal of unperformed ``paralegal'' activities. 5. This dispute culminated in the Plaintiffs offering to allow Counsel to argue the appeal in the United States Supreme Court if he would agree to the financial demands of the Plaintiffs. Counsel refused these demands again, and was removed as lead counsel in the fall of 1994. 6. The Plaintiffs are fully aware that Counsel's personal financial condition has been greatly taxed by the failure of the Plaintiffs to reimburse Counsel for out of pocket expenses as previously agreed, and by the continuing delay in the payment of the attorney fees owed in this matter. With this full knowledge, the Plaintiffs, Ray Hays and Gary Stokley, have asserted their intention to take all possible steps to deny to Counsel any compensation in this matter, and to delay as long as possible the receipt by Counsel of any compensation to be received in this matter. 7. The Motion by the Plaintiffs (i) requesting that this Court further delay its determination of the fee owed for the professional services rendered by Counsel, and (ii) requesting that Counsel not be allowed to defend his application before this Court, and (iii) requesting that all fees paid by the Defendants be paid to Kirkland & Ellis to be dispersed at the sole direction of the Plaintiffs, is filed by the Plaintiffs to effectuate the threats previously made against Counsel. THUS DONE AND PASSED on this the 1st day of May, 1995 before the aforesaid witnesses and Notary Public. Legal Fees Questioned in Remap Case (By Brad Cooper) Baton Rouge--Two Lincoln Parish residents who challenged Louisiana's congressional districts demanded their former attorney ask a judge to award fees for fictitious legal work, court documents allege. That's the allegation Monroe attorneys Paul Hurd levies against Ray Hays and Gary Stokley of Ruston in an affidavit filed in federal court in Shreveport. Hurd represented Stokley, Hays and two others until December 1994 in the constitutional challenge to Louisiana's congressional districts. A three-judge federal panel threw out the districts because they were rigged to ensure election of a minority candidate. Stokley and Hays denied Hurd's charge, saying they are not trying to make a profit from their lawsuit. Stokley called the charges ``upsetting'' and destructive to his reputation. The state could be responsible for paying the legal fees in the case--possibly more than $4 million by some estimates--if the Legislature approves a new set of congressional boundaries that eliminates a second district with a majority of black voters. A bill that would do that is a step away from final approval. A Senate committee signed off on a new set of congressional districts Monday and sent them to the full Senate to consider. The affidavit surfaced at the committee meeting. ``It's all about money,'' said state Sen. Dennis Bagneris, New Orleans. ``According to the affidavit, there has been no motivation based on . . . who is fairly represented. It's all about the bucks.'' Hurd, who is seeking about $728,000 for his work, states in his affidavit that Hays and Stokley wanted him to apply to the court for fees to cover ``fictitious'' paralegal expenses. He also accuses Hays and Stokley of wanting a slice of the legal fees from the case as well as part of the legal fees from his lawsuit agianst Texas' congressional districts, which were thrown out by a lower court becuse they were racially gerrymandered. Hurd, who declined comment on Monday, withdrew as counsel after the four Lincoln Parish plaintiffs enlisted the help of a high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm. The plaintiffs said they hired the firm because it was more experienced in dealing with constitutional issues. Hays said Hurd's accusations are retaliation for the plaintiffs' decision to bring another firm to argue the case before the Supreme Court. ``His feelings are hurt and he got mad,'' Hays said. ``He is angry and popped all that stuff out.'' Filing a false claim with the federal courts could possibly lead to perjury charges if it is verified under oath. Or the applicant could be forced to serve jail time for criminal contempt of court, court officials said. The judge also could levy a fine if the application is found to be fraudulent, court officials said. Hays and Stokley were confounded by the allegations. They said Hurd deserves to be paid for the work he did. ``We didn't ask as plaintiffs for any awards, damages or anything like that. This has not been about money,'' said Stokley, a sociology professor at Louisiana Tech University. ``Money has never been an issue with me. If it was I wouldn't have been a teacher,'' Stokley said.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and all of its amendments thereto. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go before a panel and present different legal arguments as relates to redistricting in Louisiana and perhaps redistricting across the country. Tonight, I would like to take a little time to talk about where we are today and how we got to this point. I am very pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from the 12th Congressional District of Illinois, Mr. Jackson. Tonight, I want to from a historical perspective talk about the Voting Rights Act, why it was passed and where we are today with it and then try to talk a little bit about the cases that are pending in the Supreme Court and give some sense of logic to what State legislatures should be doing and particularly in the State of Louisiana. Because I think many of these redistricting challenges are not based on constitutional law as much as they are based on financial gain, for lawyers and for plaintiffs, and I plan to talk about that later in this discussion. But at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois as much time as he may consume.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for sharing this special order with me. I want to also talk a little bit about some of the history, not only in Louisiana but all across this country, as relates to the Voting Rights Act. As the gentleman knows, the Voting Rights Act was actually instituted by this institution simply because of the denial of due process in the voting arena. Individuals of color, as a matter of fact women as well, could not participate in the electoral process simply because they were women and simply because they were Hispanic, simply because they were black or African-Americans and, therefore, this esteemed body thought enough of this country to pass something called a Voting Rights Act. Did the gentleman know that there were individuals who would try to register to vote, but simply because they were African-Americans, they were not able to vote? And after it was illegal to deny a person the opportunity to vote, State legislatures passed statutes that had prohibitions in terms that made the registration process more complicated. For example, I can recall talking to one of my professors at Southern University that mentioned the fact that in order to register to vote in Louisiana, you had to state the Preamble to the Constitution. That was one thing that eliminated several voters, several potential voters from the voting rolls, not only in Louisiana but all across the country, particularly in the southern part of our country. Individuals had to state how many bubbles were in a bar of soap. Asinine questions like that were presented to individuals before they were able to gain access to the voting rolls. And then this Congress, this esteemed body, decided that was enough of discrimination, that was enough denial of due process and voting opportunities in this country and they passed the Voting Rights Act. That is what this whole discussion is about tonight. I want to talk about Louisiana from a historical perspective as related to this Congress. The State of Louisiana, we have sent over 184 individuals to this body. One hundred eighty-four individuals from Louisiana have had the opportunity to serve in this esteemed body. Of the 184, only 3 of those individuals have been African-Americans, in spite of the fact that Louisiana has always had a substantial minority population. I mean even today, Louisiana's minority population is over 31 percent. Sending 184 people to sit in this Congress, the people's House, the House of Representatives, and not having but three of those individuals come from that State of African-American descent. And then to have one of the districts that are presently under attack, presently drawn to give an African-American an opportunity is absolutely, absolutely unconscionable. In 1812, Louisiana was admitted to the Union. Louisiana was admitted as a State in 1812 to be a part of this great Union. Louisiana went from 1812 to 1875 before it elected its first African-American to Congress. So Louisiana went 63 years. From the time it was admitted to the Union to 1875, 63 years without sending one African-American to Congress. And the first African-American to ever serve in this body was Charles Nash, who was elected in 1875 and served only one term. He served from 1875 to 1877, and the reason why he was not reelected, it wasn't because he did not want to come back to Congress and to serve his constituency in the State of Louisiana and to do a good job and to represent not only the people in his district but people in his State. It was because the State legislature in Louisiana decided to pass laws to prohibit many of his constituencies the opportunity to vote, to register to vote. They passed laws like literacy tests. They passed a poll tax. They not only disenfranchised blacks, but they disenfranchised whites, as well. Anyone who was poor in the State, as it was in many States across the southern part of our country, could not gain access to the ballot box because they did not own property. So Charles Nash, despite the fact that he wanted to return to Congress, could not return to Congress because many of the people who voted for him could not vote for him any longer. So Louisiana went from 1877 to 1990 without electing one African-American to Congress. That is 113 years. 113 years the State of Louisiana did not have one African-American, despite the fact that Louisiana had over 30 percent African-American population. Why? Because districts were gerrymandering to exclude minority votes and not include minority voters. And as a result of that, they never had the mere opportunity, not a guarantee but just a mere opportunity, to run in a district where they could run and win. So Louisiana's African-Americans, went a total of 176 years without having one single voice here in this Congress from that esteemed State. Now, today, the big debate in the State legislature is whether or not we continue to have a Fourth Congressional District. I am going to at this time yield to the gentleman, because I know he is on a tight time schedule and will be joining me later in the special order for a few minutes to further talk about some of--I see he has a map display, so I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentleman mentioned diversity, and mentioned how the whole purpose of the Voting Rights Act or one of the purposes of the Voting Rights Act was to integrate the political system, such as the U.S. Congress and State legislatures across the country. The gentleman is absolutely right. Even today there are 535 Members that serve in the U.S. Congress, as you know, there are 435 that serve in this esteemed body and then 100 across the hall in the other distinguished body. And of the 535 Members, only 40 of them are African-Americans. So for anyone to even opine the thought that a person's rights have been violated simply because there are 40 African-Americans in the U.S. Congress, in a body that consists of 535 people, is absolutely wrong.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentleman would yield, because the gentleman is correct about diversity, and continuing on the point about diversity, because many of the individuals, particularly the press, they declare districts, the district that you represent and the district that I represent and the district that many African-Americans in the Congress represent, they declare them as, quote-unquote, black districts, when in fact these are the most diverse districts in the entire country. These districts are not superminority districts, these districts are very diverse districts. The district I represent and the district you represent is not overwhelmingly--I mean not 70, 80, and 90 percent African-American. They are very diverse. The district I represent is 55 percent black, 45 percent white. So how can one say the creation of these districts segregates voters? As a matter of fact, these districts desegregate voters and integrate voters. It brings voters together. To say a district that is 98 percent majority is constitutional and is integrated, and a district that is 55 percent minority and 45 percent majority is unconstitutional and segregated, defies all logic. That is one of the reasons why State legislatures ought to leave this decision to the courts. I think the courts are still tussling with the idea of how to deal with redistricting. Let us go back to Shaw versus Reno. In Shaw versus Reno the Court went to great pains not to say that the creation of a majority-minority district is unconstitutional in and of itself. Sandra Day O'Connor used, I think in the dictum of the opinion, it is an appearance of racial apartheid. But they never said the creation of the district in North Carolina, the 12th Congressional District which is represented by our colleague, Mr. Watt, was unconstitutional. They simply said that if a district is drawn, if a district looks so bizarre as to suggest that race was the predominant factor in the creation of that district, it does not mean it is unconstitutional, it simply means the State must show a compelling stated reason why they draw it. And, second, that plan must be narrowly tailored. As soon as Shaw versus Reno was ruled on by the Supreme Court, plaintiffs all across the southern part of the country rushed to their courthouses and filed lawsuits, and started saying that if a district is majority black or majority Hispanic it is unconstitutional. That is not the declaration of the Court. Then the Court came back in Johnson versus Miller, when they ruled the district in Georgia was unconstitutional. They did not say it was unconstitutional because it was majority black, they said it was unconstitutional because race was the predominant factor as they saw it, and the plan was not narrowly tailored. Now, one of the problems that we have, one of the legal problems that we have in this whole discussion is if plaintiffs are allowed to file lawsuits in courts because they are of the minority, then that opens up the floodgates of litigation that every citizen in this State will have standing in the courts to file lawsuits, even tonight, if they feel that their district was created based on race. Just the thought. For example, in the State of Louisiana, the three judges in Louisiana did not even discover an injury, but they gave plaintiffs standing to file a suit, and a suit went all the way to the Supreme Court. Later they found that those plaintiffs did not even have standing. The basic requirement to even get into court. The threshold requirement. Everybody is rushing to judgment on these cases, and the Supreme Court has yet to really deal with this issue in a definitive way. You talked about diversity and Members representing all their constituency. I am proud of the fact that I represent the most diverse district in the State of Louisiana. I take great pride in that. My district is almost a 50-50 district. When I view my constituents, I do not view them as black constituents or white constituents or Hispanic constituents or Jewish constituents. I view them as constituents. When they have a problem, they have a problem and they need the assistance of their Congressman and his congressional office. That burden that the press and other people try to put on Members, not only African-Americans but Hispanic----

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I can state several reasons why I feel that the district has been singled out, one being the fact that it is a majority-minority district. In Shaw versus Reno the Court, when it ruled, it gave an invitation to plaintiffs all across or people all across this country, that if you live in a majority-minority district and you do not like the appearance of it, then you have the right to file a lawsuit and you have a right to be heard. So I think plaintiffs, as a result of Shaw versus Reno, filed this lawsuit, and simply because it was a majority-minority district. Now, these plaintiffs, you have a picture of a map of the Louisiana district, and the gentleman had another map earlier that showed the second phase of the Louisiana district. As you can see, Louisiana is the only State in the Nation that has changed its congressional district twice within 2 years. First they started with the Zorro plan, and a lot of people considered that the Zorro plan because the minority district was shaped by a Z. I put evidence in the record in the Louisiana State Senate only yesterday to show that the Zorro plan was not created in the 1990's. The Zorro plan, in fact, was created in the 1970's, but it was not a majority-minority district. It was a majority-minority district and it was not called Zorro then, it was called a congressional district, and it was about 80 percent majority. But because it is majority-minority, now it is Zorro. It looks bad. The Louisiana legislature, and I give great credit to the Louisiana legislature, these men and women, after the Court ruled on Zorro, went back to the drawing board and redrew the lines. They wanted to comply. They went to great pains, they wanted to comply with the three judges in Shreveport, LA, and they drew the Second District, which is just like former and previous districts in Louisiana. They did not want to deviate from redistricting principles in the State, so they drew from the old eighth Congressional District because the Court said this district is 66 percent minority, it ought to be 55. they made it 55, and the Court still ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Certainly.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me just say to the gentleman that I certainly appreciate the gentleman making recognition of Mrs. Bernice Barlow. I was extremely excited at the fact that she was born, she started off, in Louisiana, in the State that I represent. I want to thank the gentleman for taking the time to recognize such a great servant. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for taking the time to have this special order. I want to personally thank all the African-American women in this country, those who came before us, or before me, and those who are present today in our society who have opened up so many doors of opportunity. That leads me to a very brief discussion, Mr. Chairman. I wish to talk about a few African-American women from Louisiana. I want to start by talking about an African-American woman by the name of Yola Antoine. Just a few weeks ago, as a matter of fact, when I was traveling in my district giving speeches for Black History Month, I was speaking at a church, and the mother of the church was Ms. Antoine, and the pastor had her to stand, and found out she was 100 years old. So I certainly want to take this moment to recognize her and talk about what type of a woman she is. She is a great woman, because even at 100 years old, she still has kids gathering at her home, and she reads the Bible to them, and she should be commended for that. But she cuts her own grass, she lives by herself, and to be 100 years of age and still be as active as she is in the church, as active as she is with taking care of herself, we certainly want to recognize her tonight, and I certainly commend her. She is from Eunice, LA. I was just so proud of the fact that I had a citizen in my district that was so old, but yet so wise and so energetic. I also want to talk about those African-American women who work with children in the district and in the State that I represent. It brings me to the name of Hazel Freemen, who was the past president of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. She also was a high officer in the LINKS organization. The gentleman from New Jersey knows about these two organizations. This lady works night and day to try to encourage young people to stay in school and stay away from drugs and alcohol, so I certainly want to talk about her as we celebrate black history and recognize women. I want to talk about another woman from my district out of Baton Rouge, LA, Ms. Eva Legarde. Ms. Legarde was the first female black president of the school board. She was elected to the school board. She put a heavy emphasis on education. She encouraged kids to stay in school. She should be commended tonight. She is no longer on the school board. She still works with community groups. She still works with the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and with her church, St. Francis Xavier, a church in Baton Rouge. She tries to encourage kids to stay away from drugs and alcohol. I want to talk about Annie Smart, who started a legal defense fund in Baton Rouge, LA, because there were so many indigent people in the city that did not have legal representation. She started not only a legal defense fund, but she started a legal aid program in Baton Rouge. What she decided to do as a result of that, she started encouraging more young people to go to college and major and get a legal education. She encouraged kids to go to law school. We certainly commend Annie Smart tonight. Ms. Lula B. Coleman. She was the mother of civil rights for Baton Rouge. She worked so hard to open up many doors of opportunities that many of us have benefited from today. I can speak as one of those individuals who is a direct beneficiary of her hard work. Janice Clark, who is a judge in Baton Rouge, LA, today. She works night and day to work with kids before they are confronted with the judicial system. The way she deals with it, she goes into schools and she talks to kids about the consequences of committing crimes and doing drugs, so she should be commended at Black History Month. Diana Bajoie, who is a female State senator who serves in the Louisiana State Senate, the first African-American woman elected to the Louisiana State Senate. She works night and day to try to improve education in the State of Louisiana by introducing bills that are in the best interests of educating our children. Ms. Georgia Browne, who is a former librarian at Southern University. She had a program where she brought kids from high schools from across the State of Louisiana, and had them to interface with the library on the college campus. She had many programs that included kids from churches, so they can understand how to use the card catalog, so I want to commend Ms. Georgia Browne tonight. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was trying to hear the ruling of the Chair, if the Chair would be so kind, because the last two or three sentences of his ruling I did not understand because the House was not in order.