Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] who served illustriously in the Florida legislature and probably knows more----

Ms. McKINNEY. I am sure that this is costing the taxpayers of Florida an inordinate amount of money.

Ms. McKINNEY. But the gentlewoman's district was challenged.

Ms. McKINNEY. If not in the country.

Ms. McKINNEY. 50.1. So that makes it race-predominant.

Ms. McKINNEY. How can race be the predominant factor in a 50-50 district?

Ms. McKINNEY. I have a question to ask the gentlewoman, before she gets into her remarks, and it is my understanding that her district, the district that she represents, is 50 percent black and 50 percent white.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given representation all of the time whereas before it was representation some of the time.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, now that the Speaker's temper tantrum has ended and Federal workers are back at work, it is time that this Congress got on with passing the appropriations bills and a mainstream balanced budget. In order for us to get to a balanced budget in 7 years, the Republican leadership is going to have to abandon its tax-cut promises to Wall Street. We cannot afford to be cutting taxes for the wealthy when we need to balance the budget and protect Medicare, education, and the environment. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we need to go after the $500 billion in corporate welfare in the budget, and make Germany and Japan pay for their own defense. So to the Republican leadership I say, reduce the tax breaks to the rich and cut out the corporate welfare, and we will get to a balanced budget.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, this so-called reconciliation is not about balancing the budget, it is about rewarding those who finance the Republican Party. If that weren't true, then why were there no cuts to the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare? For decades, the insurance industry has wanted to sink its teeth into Medicare, and if this plan passes, you can bet your grandma's bed-pan they'll get their wish. The Republican leadership is proud to have opposed Medicare in 1965. What makes you think they want to save it in 1995?

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership is so committed to balancing the budget, then why do they not abandon their $245 billion tax cut? Why is it that seniors, students, and the poor have to sacrifice to balance the budget, but America's wealthiest corporations and insurance companies will get a huge windfall? Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the GOP is using the balanced budget only as a pretext to wage their feudal class-war against seniors and working families. Why do they not go after the $500 billion in corporate welfare, as well as make Germany and Japan pay for their own defense? Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans agree to abandon their tax cuts and eliminate just $200 billion in corporate welfare, then even I will support their budget.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, since April of this year, Speaker Gingrich has threatened that he would close down the Government in order to pass his extremist agenda. Well, yesterday, Speaker Gingrich got his wish-- the Government closed down. All this because the GOP is in a mad rush to make their gargantuan cuts to Medicare, the environment, and education, so they can help pay for $245 billion in tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, the American people yearn for Medicare reforms worthy of the mainstream and not the GOP extreme. Clearly, extremist GOP policies have only one purpose in mind, and that is to reward those who finance the Republican Party at the expense of those who don't make campaign contributions. Don't try to blame the President, pass the appropriations bills.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it appears that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are salivating at the chance to use a rumor against Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary. Some of my Republican colleagues who are upset with Secretary O'Leary for not greasing their districts with sufficient Federal lard, are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill as their revenge. Apparently the Wall Street Journal--not known to be a Democrat-friendly newspaper--wrote that the Secretary of Energy had hired an advanced news-clipping service to gauge what newspapers across the Nation and the world were saying about the Department which she is working to reform. However, some of my bitter Republican colleagues who did not get the bacon they wanted from the DOE, are charging that Secretary O'Leary was spying on reporters, newspapers, and was concerned about the Department's image. What a farce. This coming from Members of Congress who spend tens of thousands of dollars on their press secretaries who basically do the same thing: clip newspapers and respond when they get bad press. This coming from Members of Congress who use the House recording studio, send out newsletters, get official photos et cetera, et cetera. My Republican colleagues are charging Secretary O'Leary with spending $43,000 on what every major corporation in America does: monitor how the press is receiving them. Yet when one compares how much Members of Congress spend on their press secretaries, news letters and so on, we will find that they spend much more than $43,000 on image. Can you imagine the nerve of my colleagues who have the audacity to stand up here and accuse the Secretary of Energy of being concerned about the image of her Department, when they are doing the exact same thing? One of my Republican colleagues from South Carolina even had the nerve to stand on the floor last night to lambaste Secretary O'Leary, and say, quote, ``If I as a Member of Congress took taxpayer money entrusted to my care to go out and work on somebody to make me look better, I should lose my job.'' Well, maybe my colleague from South Carolina should resign. What is your press secretary for if he or she is not there to spruce up your image? What is more unbelievable, is that that same colleague, just seconds before he delivered his rumor-based attack on Secretary O'Leary, said an I quote, ``This is a funny town where rumors can start without any basis.'' He made this statement in defense of one of our Republican colleagues who has had charges leveled against him, Yet, literally in the same speech, he then went on to accuse Ms. O'Leary of abusing the public trust based solely on a rumor. So it appears that when rumors are started about Republicans, Washington all of the sudden becomes, ``A funny town where rumors can start without any basis.'' However, if Republicans are the ones starting those rumors then it is OK. Mr. Speaker, this kind of duplicity just amazes me. In fact, the Washington Post reported today that the Republican National Committee uses the exact same news-clipping service which the Republicans are claiming is a spy agency. In fact, many corporations use such clippings services. And since Hazel O'Leary has been trying to run DOE more like a business, it only makes sense that she have at her disposal the same tools that the corporations have at their disposal. According to Mary McGrory in a Washington Post article on May 16, 1995, she said about Hazel O'Leary, and I quote, ``No Cabinet officer has run a department more efficiently.'' In fact, for the DOE which has tens of thousands of employees, to spend $45,000 on so-called image is actually pretty good when one considers what Members of Congress spend on image. In closing I would advise my colleagues on the other side of the isle to be very careful before they start spreading rumors about a Cabinet member who didn't give them the pork projects they wanted in order to boost their images.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, voters across the Nation sent a message to the Republican majority in Congress: Slow down. [[Page H 11979]] Mr. Speaker, since the elections of 1994, the Gingrich Republicans claim to have a mandate to slash Medicare, cut school lunches, obliterate Medicaid, and reduce student loans. However, that is not what they campaigned on. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party scared away its best chance to win the White House in 1996: Colin Powell. In little more than 100 years, the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Abraham Lincoln to becoming the Virginia Beach chapter of the Hezbollah. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Americans do not want the GOP to crucify their Medicare on a cross built by the insurance industry.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 725. I would like the Record to show had I been recorded I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged and dismayed that the Voting Rights Section of the United States Justice Department seems punch drunk after only one round. Is it that the lawyers over there have forgotten the rich and violent heritage that resulted in their employment? The Voting Rights Act was won only after tears had been shed and blood had been spilt. People died for the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And that our country could survive the turmoil and emerge a better place for all of us is a tribute to our strength. But the Justice Department is about to let us down. The headline in yesterday's Atlanta Constitution just about tells it all: Another majority-black district at risk. It reads, ``The U.S. Justice Department has abandoned its defense of Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, and state attorneys on Monday admitted that race dictated the drawing of its lines--putting the future of another majority-black district in jeopardy.'' Anybody can be a star when times are good. It was adversity that made Dr. Martin Luther King the strength of a nation. It was adversity that made John Lewis a hero to us all. Shame on you, Department of Justice. Shame on you!

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, as this legislative week begins, I would like to take an opportunity to once again [[Page H 9586]] commend the members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus who are now preparing to have their annual conference weekend with workshops, and I am absolutely certain that the issue of redistricting will take center stage in that conference weekend. The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, under the leadership of State Senator Diane Harvey Johnson, has done a wonderful job, and can never really be commended enough for its dedication and its ability to withstand all of the trials and tribulations of the recently adjourned special session under the leadership of the redistricting task force that, with David Scott at its helm, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus was able to wade through very treacherous waters. While the Georgia General Assembly failed to provide the citizens of the State of Georgia with a redistricting plan, certainly the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus can be credited with preventing a horrendous plan from passing onto the desk of the Governor. I would also like to take a moment to say a few words about one of my leaders in the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, State Representative Tyrone Brooks. When I was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1988, I began, after having been sworn in in January 1989, to serve with my father, and the two of us became the only father-daughter legislative team in the country. Of course, we were much celebrated, but even though my father had been a member of the Georgia Legislature for over 20 years, it was to State Representative Tyrone Brooks that I have turned for leadership. I am proud that he took me under his wing and made me into half the legislator and civil rights leader that he is for the residents of the State of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol there is a statue. The name of that statue is expelled because of color. This statue commemorates the service of 33 black people who were elected, duly elected, to the Georgia legislature, but who in 1868 were expelled for no other reason than the color of their skin. Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has utilized the tool of redistricting to enhance equal opportunity in the area of politics, but in 1993, something happened. That something was the Shaw versus Reno case, which set a new standard in redistricting principles. That new standard is a beauty standard, the beauty standard being that districts have to look a certain way in order to be effective, and if those districts do not conform to a particular standard of beauty, then there is something inherently wrong with those districts. It is through this tool of resdistricting that we have been able to perfect our democracy. I recall from a publication called ``Sister Outsider'' a quote. The quote is, ``For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.'' The question I pose is does my presence in this body, in the United States House of Representatives, dismantle the master's house? What is it about the presence of African-Americans, women, Latinos, other people of color, that causes discomfort to some people in this country? Could it be the things that I dare say, or is it merely just the way I look that causes some people to say, ``This is not your place''? Then, of course, that would compel the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, to apply a double standard. I have an article here written by one of the members of that community of dedicated lawyers who are out there laboring long and hard, and their only effort is to try and make this country a better place for all Americans. The title of this article is ``Gerrymander Hypocrisy: Supreme Court's Double Standard.'' It was written by Jamon B. Raskin, professor of constitutional law and associate dean at the Washington College of Law at the American University. It begins: Racial double standards are nothing new in American law, but the Supreme Court's voting rights jurisprudence has turned farcical. State legislators redrawing Congressional and State legislative districts in the 1990s now carry both a license and a warning from the Court. The license, granted for decades, is to draw far-flung, squiggly lines all over the map in order to guarantee the legislators' reelection or the reelection of incumbent white U.S. House Members. The warning, issued in the Court's 1993 Shaw v. Reno decision, is not to draw any such bizarre districts with the purpose of creating African-American or Latino political majorities. These two Supreme Court positions are on a logical collision course. From the day it was decided, Shaw looked deeply suspicious, since it imposed strict scrutiny on only those oddly shaped districts where African-Americans or Latinos are in a majority. The Court had never before found that the Constitution required districts to have certain shapes, sizes, or looks. District appearance was a question for the States. Now, in the name of tidy district lines and fighting what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called ``political apartheid,'' a term never used by the Court to describe slavery, Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, or white primaries, the court cast doubt on dozens of racially integrated districts represented by blacks and Latinos. In the illustrative case of Vera versus Richards last August, a panel of three Republican judges threw out as racial gerrymander two majority-black congressional districts and one majority-Latino district in Texas, solemnly invoking Martin Luther King all along the way. Meanwhile, the same panel categorically rejected challenges to majority-white districts whose perimeters looked every bit as peculiar as those of the minority districts. The panel was not disturbed that House incumbents from Texas were actively involved in the redistricting process, or that they were so influential in getting districts drawn for incumbency protection that all but one of them had been reelected in 1992. Neither were the judges troubled by the fact that minority districts appear contorted precisely because white Democratic incumbents, looking for liberal votes, took big geographic bites out of minority communities. By blessing the entrenchment of white incumbents and wiping out black and Latino majority districts, the district court is only following the perverse logic of Supreme Court doctrine. The ``equal protection'' clause of the 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868 to dismantle white supremacy, has been twisted by the Court to mean that African-Americans and other minorities may not form a numerical majority in any district unless they are in communities that are geographically compact and residentialy isolated. Without consciously drawn minority districts, most States would continue to have lily white House delegations. No black has ever been elected to Congress from the South in a majority-white district. Even today, with the new districts (hanging on by a thread), minorities remain underrepresented in Congress and in every State legislature. Furthermore, these districts discriminate against no one. On the other hand, ``incumbency protection'' districts are deeply offensive to democratic values. By fencing out unfriendly voters and potential rivals, incumbents make districts in their own image, and turn elections into a formality. In our self-perpetuating incumbentocracy, voters don't really pick public officials on Election Day because public officials pick voters on redistricting day. But in the Court's new racial Rorschach test, incumbent- friendly ink blot districts are lawful if the race in the majority is white. We have, through these districts, the opportunity to elect people who would otherwise not grace these halls, and there has been a lot of misinformation about these districts. Laughlin McDonald is the voting rights litigator for the ACLU. In an effort to try and dispel some of the misinformation about these districts, he wrote two pieces, one of them entitled ``Exploding Redistricting Myths'' and the other one entitled ``Drown in a Sea of Misinformation.'' I will submit both of these pieces to the Record, because it is important that all of the misinformation that has been thrown out by various scholarly people be challenged and rebutted at each step along the way. Mr. Speaker, in the most recently adjourned special session of the Georgia Legislature, we had something very unfortunate happen. Of course, we understood that the 11th Congressional District had been challenged by primarily the Democratic candidate who ran against me, who lost because of an ineffective message, and so was able to find some recourse in the courts. However, something else happened. That something else was that the Second Congressional District was added into the mix, so now the lower court, the same lower court in Georgia that found the 11th Congressional District to be unconstitutional, now is going to have a hearing on the constitutionality of the Second Congressional District of Georgia, which is also a majority-minority district. [[Page H 9587]] The Georgia Legislative News of August 21 chronicles what happens. The headline is ``Parks Attacks Second District,'' and it begins: In an unexpected legal maneuver, Georgia's Second Congressional District is under attack by Lee Parks, attorney for the original plaintiffs in the Johnson v. Miller suit, which resulted in the 11th District being declared unconstitutional. What started out as one majority-black district under attack now results in two majority-black districts being under attack. Unfortunately, in the September 26 edition of the Atlanta Constitution, the headline reads, ``Another Majority-Black District At Risk.'' First there was one, and now there are two. It begins: About Face: State Admits Racial Gerrymandering. The United States Justice Department has abandoned its defense of Georgia's Second Congressional District, and State attorneys on Monday admitted that race dictated the drawing of its lines, putting the future of another majority-black district in jeopardy. Now, I know that we have at the Justice Department very young, idealistic, dedicated attorneys who have experienced 30 years of victory in the area of voting rights, and all of a sudden now, after Shaw versus Reno, we have 30 years of precedent being rapidly eroded. I would just hope that the Justice Department is not losing its will, that it is not punch-drunk after the first round. Now, more than ever, we need people who are dedicated to the proposition that everybody deserves a voice in this Government, to be prepared to fight, to make sure that everyone does have a voice in this Government. Mr. Speaker, I have been through the story of how in the Georgia legislative special session a particular special interest became so pronounced that it was impossible for the legislature to conclude with a congressional map, and that particular special interest is the kaolin industry that pervades the economy of the State of Georgia and as well the legislature of the State of Georgia. There were maps that were produced, but those maps conveniently excluded the kaolin belt from the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, which I represent. Mr. Speaker, because it is only fair that those counties be included in the 11th Congressional District, the Georgia legislative Black Caucus fought for the opportunity of the residents of those counties to be able to elect their candidate of choice, and so by fighting, we were not able to have a map. The whole issue of the double standard can be seen in these maps that I have. The 6th district of Illinois contains a super- majority that is white, of 95 percent, the 6th Congressional District of Illinois has not been challenged in any court. Mr. Speaker, we also have the 6th Congressional District of Texas, which has a supermajority. That supermajority is white. This district has gone through the same scrutiny as has the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. This district, with its squiggly lines, apparently conforms to the beauty standard. It passes the beauty test. It is a beautiful district, so ruled by the courts. It is constitutional. Yet the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, which I think is one of the most beautiful districts ever drawn by any legislature in the State of Georgia, has also a supermajority of 64 percent that happens to be black, has undergone the same kind of scrutiny as the 6th Congressional District of Texas, but Georgia's 11th Congressional District has been declared unconstitutional by the lower court and even our own U.S. Supreme Court. So I stand today before this body as a representative without a district representing people who deserve to have their voices heard in the area of public policymaking. Of course, whatever happens will be determined by the lower court in Georgia, and we will be forced to abide by and will happily abide by the dictates of the law of the land, but of course it does not mean that the law is always right, and it certainly does not mean that the law is color blind. In 1868 those 33 black members of the Georgia Legislature were expelled because of the color of their skin, and here I stand facing the same fate, but I do not stand alone, and that is because there too have been others, even from this body, who have preceded me. Thank goodness we have this thing called a Congressional Record, because we can go back and we can search the Record and find the words of other Members of Congress, others similarly situated, others who also faced expulsion for no other reason than the color of their skin. Mr. Speaker, one such representative, the last, in fact to grace these halls in the beginning of the 20th century was Representative George White from North Carolina. I would like to read what Representative White had to say. This is in 1901: I want to enter a plea for the colored man, the colored woman, the colored boy, and the colored girl of this country. I would not thus digress from the question at issue and detain the House in a discussion of the interests of this particular people at this time but for the constant and the persistent efforts of certain gentlemen upon this floor to mold and rivet public sentiment against us. At no time perhaps during the 56th Congress were these charges and countercharges containing as they do slanderous statements more persistently magnified and pressed upon the attention of the Nation than during the consideration of the recent reapportionment bill. As stated some days ago on this floor by me, I then sought diligently to obtain an opportunity to answer some of the statements made by gentlemen from different States, but the privilege was denied me, and I therefore must embrace this opportunity to say out of season, perhaps, that which I was not permitted to say in season. Now, Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, I want to submit a brief recipe for the solution of the so-called American Negro problem. He asks no special favors, but simply demands that he be given the same chance for existence, for earning a livelihood, for raising himself in the scales of manhood and womanhood, that are accorded to kindred nationalities. Treat him as a man. Go into his home and learn of his social conditions, learn of his cares, his troubles, and his hopes for the future. Gain his confidence, open the doors of industry to him. This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negro's temporary farewell to the American Congress. But let me say phoenix- like, he will rise up someday and come again. These parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heartbroken, bruised and bleeding, but God-fearing people; faithful, industrious, loyal people, rising people, full of potential force. Sir, I am pleading for the life of a human being. The only apology that I have to make for the earnestness with which I have spoken is that I am pleading for the life, the liberty, the future happiness, and manhood suffrage for one-eighth of the entire population of the United States. George White did not leave Congress quietly. He fixed the record. For as long as there will be a United States of America, there will be people who can pull this Congressional Record and find his words there. I guess you could say I am doing the same thing. For if it is the will of this country that African-Americans can no longer serve in the U.S. Congress, I guarantee you that I will fix this record. I, too, will speak on behalf of an outraged people who only want the opportunity to participate as full citizens in their Government. The State of Georgia did not want us, three of us; the State of Georgia did not defend the congressional map that produced its most diverse congressional delegation in history, and so the State of Georgia is now prepared to say goodbye to that diversity. I found a book entitled ``The Passion of Claude McKay.'' Claude McKay did a poem that I would like to read. The title of the poem is, ``If We Must Die.'' If we must die, let it not be like hogs, hunted and pinned in an inglorious spot. While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs, making their mock at our accursed lot. If we must die, oh, let us nobly die so that our precarious blood may not be shed in vain, then even the monsters we defy shall be constrained to honor us, though dead. Oh, kinsmen, we must meet the common foe. Though far outnumbered, let us show us brave and for their thousand blows deal one death blow, what though before us lies the open grave. Like men will face the murderous, cowardly pack, pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back. Mr. Speaker, I intend to carry this fight for the preservation of democracy in America, for as long and as far as we can take it. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have all been so kind, courteous, concerned, and committed. I would like to thank the people from around the country who have taken the time to write letters to us, to place telephone calls to our office, to share their concern about the evil turn that this country has taken, and what it means for average, ordinary Americans, that their representation could [[Page H 9588]] be yanked away from them. If it starts with the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, and then moves over to the Second Congressional District of Georgia, and then sweeps across the South and moves up to the North in Illinois and New York, where will it end? In fact, we have a very renowned writer in Georgia, Bill Ship, who poses the question, ``Are the bad old days back?'' Of course we certainly hope not. I do not want there to be a statue on the Grounds of the U.S. Capitol commemorating the service of the 40 plus African-Americans, the Latino- Americans, the Asian-Americans who may too very well be expelled if this awful page in our history is allowed to be written. I certainly do not want another statue on the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol commemorating my service in that body and my service in this body and my expulsion, either. So I guess I would have to say that it all depends now on the will of the American people. Do we want to assure that our democracy is one that includes everybody, even people like me who do not come from wealth, who are not able to finance the tremendous amounts that it takes to run campaigns and to try and beat back the block voting that occurs in our State, along with the fact that we still have the second primary which requires a candidate to win three times when they should not really have to win but once. I hope the bad old days are not coming back. I know that they will not come back if the American people will say enough is enough and that what we meant was certainly not this. Mr. Speaker, I include the two articles referred to in my special order for the Record, as follows: Drowing in a Sea of Misinformation (By Laughlin McDonald) The debate over majority-minority voting districts is threatened with death by drowning in a sea of misinformation and speculative assumptions. The hard facts are that the increase in the number of minority elected officials, particularly in the South, is the product of the increase in the number of majority-minority districts and not minorities being elected from majority white districts. And because of the prevalence of white bloc voting, minority populations well above 50% are generally necessary for minorities to have a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Of the 17 African-Americans elected to Congress in 1992 and 1994 from the states of the old Confederacy, all were elected from majority-minority districts. The only black in the 20th century to win a seat in Congress from a majority white district in one of the nine southern states targeted by the special preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act was Andrew Young of Georgia. He was elected in the bi-racial afterglow of the civil rights movement in 1972 from the Fifth District where blacks were 44% of the voting age population. Still, voting was racially polarized and he got just 25% of the white vote. Those who have claimed that racial bloc voting was a relic of the past in the new South always brought up the example of Andrew Young. His election was proof that a moderate black candidate who knew how to organize a campaign could pile up white votes and win anywhere, they said. Young proved them wrong. In 1981, after serving in Congress for three terms, being ambassador to the United Nations, and raising more money than in previous campaigns, Young got only 9% of the white vote in his election as mayor of majority black Atlanta. In 1990, Young ran for governor of Georgia. In both the primary and runoff he got about a quarter of the white vote, but running statewide where blacks are 27% of the population, he was defeated. Even for a candidate with extraordinary qualifications, such as Young, racial bloc voting is a political fact of life. A pattern of office holding similar to that in Congress exists for southern state legislatures. Approximately 90% of all southern black legislators in the 1980s were elected from majority black districts. No blacks were elected from majority white districts in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. By 1994, there were 262 black state legislators in the southern states, 234 (89%) of whom were elected from majority black districts. Of the 1,495 majority white legislative districts, only 28 (2%) were represented by blacks, a percentage basically unchanged since the 1970s. For blacks to have a realistic change of winning, they have had to run in majority black districts. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of minorities elected to city and county offices throughout the South. As with Congress and state legislature, the increase can be traced directly to the creation of majority-minority voting districts. It is possible, of course, to conflate the exceptions such as Andrew Young with the general rule, but to do so requires one to rely upon anecdotal evidence and ignore the facts. One scholar has concluded based upon a recent study funded by the National Science Foundation, by far the most comprehensive study to date of the impact of the Voting Rights Act, that ``[t]he arguments that Blacks need not run in `safe' minority districts to be elected, that White voters increasingly support Black politicians, that racial-bloc voting is now unusual--all turn out to be among the great myths currently distorting public discussion.'' \1\ \1\ Richard Pildes, ``The Politics of Race,'' 108 Harv.L.Rev. 1359, 1367 (1995). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous decisions of federal courts support these conclusions. To cite just a few, in Burke County, Georgia the court found ``overwhelming evidence of bloc voting along racial lines.'' In Chattanooga, Tennessee black and white voters ``vote differently most of the time.'' In Arkansas voting patterns were described as being ``highly racially polarized.'' In Springfield, Illinois there was ``extreme racially polarized voting.'' In northern Florida voting was not only polarized but was ``driven by racial bias.'' If whites voted freely for minorities there would be no need to include race in the redistricting calculus, and in places where significant racial bloc voting does not exist the courts have not required the creation of majority- minority districts. But because whites generally vote on racial lines, majority-minority districts are necessary to provide minorities the equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Some have argued that partisanship, not race, is the determinative factor in elections. Blacks, however, have generally been unable to win in majority white districts no matter whether they were controlled by Democrats or Republicans. The argument also ignores the fact that partisanship is inextricably bound up with race. Much of the political dealignment and realignment that has taken place in this country over the last 30 years has itself been driven by race. Conservative whites have fled the Democratic party for various reasons, but important among them have been the increased participation of blacks in party affairs and the belief that the party was too preoccupied with civil rights. Majority-minority districts are not a form of segregation, as some have charged. The majority-minority congressional districts in the South are actually the most racially integrated districts in the country and contain substantial numbers of white voters, an average of 45%. Moreover, blacks in the South continue to be represented more often by white than by black members of Congress, 58% versus 42%. No one who has lived through it could ever confuse existing redistricting plans, with their highly integrated districts, with racial segregation under which blacks were not allowed to vote or run for office. While the converse is exceptional, whites are frequently elected from majority-minority districts. During the 1970s whites won in 48% of the majority black legislative districts in the South, and in the 1980s in 27%. In Georgia in 1994 whites won in 26% of the majority black legislative districts. Given these levels of white success, racially integrated majority-minority districts cannot be dismissed simply as ``quotas'' or ``set-asides'' for minorities. There is also no evidence that the majority-minority districts cause harm or increase racial tension. In Miller v. Johnson (1994) the Supreme Court invalidated Georgia's majority black Eleventh District on the grounds that race was the predominant factor in the redistricting process and the state impermissibly subordinated its traditional redistricting principles to race. The trial court, however, expressly found that the plaintiffs ``suffered no individual harm; the 1992 congressional redistricting plans had no adverse consequences for these white voters.'' The Supreme Court did not disturb these findings. Farm from causing harm, the evidence suggests that integrated majority-minority districts have promoted the formation of biracial conditions and actually dampened racial bloc voting. In Mississippi, after the creation of the majority black Second Congressional District, Mike Espy, an African-American, was elected in 1986 with about 11% of the white vote and 52% of the vote overall. In 1988 he won re- election with 40% of the white vote and 66% of the vote overall. In Georgia, the Second and Eleventh Congressional Districts became majority black for the first time in 1992. From 1984 to 1990, only 1% of white voters in the precincts within the Second, and 4% of the white voters in the precincts within the Eleventh, voted for minority candidates in statewide elections. A dramatic and encouraging increase in white crossover voting occurred in 1992. Twenty-nine percent of white voters in the Second and 37% of white voters in the Eleventh voted for minority candidates in statewide elections that year. Whether these trends are temporary or not, they undercut the argument that majority-minority districts have exacerbated racial bloc voting. In Miller the Court stopped far short of saying that a jurisdiction couldn't take race into account in redistricting or that it couldn't draw majority-minority districts. Indeed, Justice O'Connor, who was the crucial vote for the five member majority, wrote in a concurring opinion that where a state redistricts in accordance with its ``customary districting principles'' it ``may well'' [[Page H 9589]] consider race, and that judicial review was limited to ``extreme instances of gerrymandering.'' Such a view is consistent with the Voting Rights Act and the interpretation it has always been given that a jurisdiction must take race into account to avoid diluting minority voting strength. As a practical matter it is probably impossible to avoid considering race in redistricting. Members of the Court have frequently observed that one of the purposes of redistricting is to reconcile the competing claims of political, religious, ethnic, racial, and other groups. Legislators necessarily make judgments about how racial and ethnic groups will vote. According to Justice Brennal, ``[I]t would be naive to suppose that racial considerations do not enter into apportionment decisions.'' Redistricting by its nature is fundamentally different from other forms of governmental action where, for instance, scarce employment or contractual opportunities are allocated on a race conscious basis. A contractor denied the opportunity to bid on 10% of a city's construction contracts, or a white applicant denied the chance to compete for all the openings in a medical school class, have independent claims of entitlement and injury. But a resident who has not been harmed by a redistricting plan has no legitimate grounds for complaint simply because race was one of the factors the legislature took into account. Voting districts have traditionally been drawn to accommodate the interests of various racial or ethnic groups--Irish Catholics in San Francisco, Italian-Americans in South Philadelphia, Polish-Americans in Chicago. No court has ever held these districts to be constitutionally suspect or invalid. To apply a different standard in redistricting to African-Americans based upon speculative assumptions about segregation and harm would deny them the recognition given to others. To do so in the name of colorblindness of the Fourteenth Amendment, whose very purpose was to guarantee equal treatment for blacks, would be ironic indeed. Integrated majority-minority districts are good for minorities because they provide them equal electoral opportunities. But they are also good for our democracy. They help break down racial isolation and polarization. They help ensure that government is less prone to bias, and is more inclusive, reliable, and legitimate. These are goals that all Americans should support.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I come again this afternoon as a continuing part of my mission. That mission involves the educational process around the issue of redistricting, and why what is happening in Georgia is so important, not just for the people of Georgia, but for all of the people of this country who value democracy, who value the opportunity for all people who call themselves American citizens to be able to sit at the table of public policymaking and feel that they have an investment in the decisions that are being made about this country. I want to begin by commending the members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, who have endured a tremendous trial during the recently disbanded, recently adjourned special session. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's 11th Congressional District was unconstitutional, and as a result of that decision, the Governor of the State of Georgia called the Georgia Legislature into special session. The purpose of the special session was to redraw the congressional districts to correct those flaws that the Supreme Court found, particularly in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, but also, in the call for congressional redistricting, the Governor included legislative redistricting. There had been no lawsuit against the State legislative districts. There had been no finding of unconstitutionality against those districts, but for some reason, some predetermined reason, those districts were included in the call. So begins the tragic story of [[Page H 9416]] the experiences of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus that fought valiantly to protect its three democratic incumbents who are now in Congress, and to protect itself against what some have called a hoax. I am going to begin by just a discussion of these districts that have been much maligned by supposedly powerful and very intelligent people. The 11th Congressional District was called a monstrosity by the lower court, the court in Georgia, a monstrosity. How can you call a district that allows for the first time people to have representation in the Halls of Congress a monstrosity? The district worked, it worked because people understood that the had an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. They did not have to always be on the losing end. Those people in the 11th Congressional District chose to send me to Congress to represent their interests, to speak out on their behalf. I have tried to do a good job at it. The 11th Congressional District of Georgia is no monstrosity. In fact, if there is a monstrosity, it rests with those people who would like to deny these people who have never had an opportunity to have someone walk in their neighborhood and then walk these Halls of Congress, to deny to those people, those people whom I call my valiant warriors, the opportunity to be elected by someone of their choice. I have some maps here. The first map is the Sixth District of Illinois. Some might say that it is a monstrosity. It certainly is not pretty, but it is an effective district, because it allows the people who live inside this district the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. This district is comprised of a supermajority. The supermajority just happens to be 95 percent white. This district has gone unchallenged in the courts. What is wrong with this district? Nothing is wrong with this district. This district functions according to our democracy. I have another map here, Texas' Sixth District. It also might be called a monstrosity, but it has not been. It is composed of a supermajority. The supermajority just happens to be 91-percent white. This district, along with the entire map of Texas' congressional districts, was challenged in the courts. The Texas court came back with a decision that invalidated the historic district represented once by Barbara Jordan. It invalidated the district that is currently represented by Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, TX, a new district. But the court said that this district, that goes from here and all the way around just like this and picks up people here, picks up people there, leaves out people there, that district is constitutional. Barbara Jordan's district is unconstitutional. Eddie Bernice Johnson's district is unconstitutional. But this district, that is 91-percent white, has been declared constitutional by the courts. What is going on here? Is it that there are only funny-looking black districts? Obviously the answer is no. Is it that only black districts are declared unconstitutional? Black districts and those districts that are majority Latino so far have been targeted for unconstitutionality. I have here Georgia's 11th Congressional District, 64-percent black, one of the most integrated districts in the State of Georgia, one of the most integrated districts across the South. This district, that gives rise to voices that have been left out of the political process to finally be heard, this district was declared unconstitutional. I would have to conclude that when it comes to the issue of redistricting and the shapes of districts, it ain't about shape at all. It is about the color of the representation that is elected from these districts, and the possibility that in the old South we could finally herald in a new era that bypasses, gets us across that bridge of racial divide and allows black people, white people, people of color, women, Latinos to sit down at the table of policymaking and fashion strategies to resolve our communities' problems. What better America could we want for? The America of promise, the America of the American dream, the America which strives to include everybody? Or do we want to go back to yesterday? To go back to that infamous day when black people, who had been duly elected by the citizens of the various States throughout the South, were expelled for no other reason than the color of their skin? What we are looking at today is the possibility that I could become the second African-American of the 20th century to be expelled for no other reason than the color of my skin. We cannot afford to allow that to happen. What happened in Georgia particularly? What happened in Georgia can be summed up by the headline in this newspaper: ``Committee Okays One Black District.'' The bottom line, it appears to me, is that the tolerance level for people from the State of Georgia to have three black people in Congress is not very high, and so there were some people who took an active involvement in trying to make sure that in the elections of 1996, Georgia is no longer represented in Congress by three African-Americans. Now, I am a Democrat and I am a proud Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat. But the head of my Democratic Party in the State of Georgia, who is the Governor of the State of Georgia, said he was going to stay out of the redistricting fray. This was not something that was going to occupy very much of his time. So I wrote a plea to the Democratic leadership of the State of Georgia, ``Ain't I a Democrat, Too?'' When it comes to this issue of redistricting and protecting incumbents, protect me, too. Because when I cast my vote here in Congress, my vote counts the same as my Democratic colleagues, my vote counts the same as my Republican colleagues, and when I come here, I speak out on behalf of the people of the State of Georgia who have a valid voice to be heard. There were some folks in Georgia who had something else in mind, and so before the special session even began, something happened. What happened was the Georgia General Assembly became hostage. It was held hostage by the plaintiffs, along with the Democratic leadership of the State of Georgia, because 17 State house districts and 5 State senate districts were targeted. These were districts that were majority black in the State legislature, and they were said to be unconstitutional. So the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus was told, ``Now, y'all don't play ball and you're going to end up in the same boat as Cynthia, out of office.'' The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, caught between a rock and hard place, did what it could to protect its members, to protect the three Democratic incumbents of Congress who just happen to be black, and they were fooled. It was a hoax. It was a cruel hoax. They were tricked. In fact, State Senator Donzella James was so outraged--she happens to be with us now, up in the gallery--she was so outraged by what had happened that she felt compelled to put it down on paper. She concludes: In this episode of political gamesmanship, Republicans attempted to play the white Democrats against the black Democrats by promising both sides their support in addressing their redistricting concerns. Further, the struggle within the Democratic Party between competing political interests was transformed into one involving race. The eagerness on the part of the white Democrats to ``Republican proof'' their districts blinded them to their overall goal. That is, to foster equal and inclusive representation for all of the people of Georgia. Self-serving individuals on all sides of the debate practiced deceitful game playing and clever trickery and have made a mockery of the reapportionment mandate. The Georgia General Assembly may come to regret this entire ordeal. A number of questions will have been answered concerning our legislative process. For example, was the court order legislative undertaking a hoax? And if so, could this be a needless waste of the taxpayers' money and will the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank? My fear is that when it is all over and done, will the redistricting issue be remembered as racial rights versus civil wrongs? The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, Representative George Brown compiled some information, Representative LaNett Stanley circulated it. After all the dust had settled, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, along with the other leadership of the State, voted to dismantle nine majority black districts in the House and two majority black districts in the senate. [[Page H 9417]] All in all, in the senate, out of 56 seats, they changed 46 of them. In the house, from a total of 180 seats, 69 were changed. There was a redistricting legislative free-for-all on the backs of black people in the State of Georgia. One of the districts that was diluted was a district that I helped to draw in 1992. I was just the vehicle that the people used. I served on the house reapportionment committee. We had a hearing down in Savannah, and a gentleman came to the hearing, obviously proud to be able to be counted among those who would come, to travel so far to try and get a little justice. He began his remarks. He said, ``The name of my county is Liberty, but they still treat us like slaves.'' At the end of the 1992 redistricting process, that gentleman had a district from which to elect his candidate of choice. But after this cruel hoax in the special session of 1995 that should go down in infamy, that gentleman lost the opportunity to elect his candidate of choice. As a result, there is a letter that has been drafted and signed by some of the members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus. That letter is to Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick, asking that the Department of Justice deny preclearance to those two bills that were passed by the legislature--the bill that dismantled the State house districts and the bill that dismantled the State senate districts. I am going to read this letter, because if I have not been clear, I think this letter is. It says: Dear Mr. Patrick, I am submitting this comment urging you to object to the reapportionment plans passed by the Georgia General Assembly in its special session in 1995. These plans were enacted by the State of Georgia with a racially discriminatory purpose and will have a retrogressive effect on black voters throughout the State. The plans for the State senate and State house also violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because those plans dilute black voting strength. In carrying out these redistrctings, the State legislature specifically aimed their sights at legislative districts with majority black voting populations. The decision by the legislature, therefore, was targeted at black voters with the intent to reduce the black voting strength throughout the State. The legislature undertook this action even through their had been no court decision invalidating our existing plans, nor had there even been a lawsuit challenging any of the districts. The context in which these new plans were drawn is also important to understand. The special session in which these new reapportionment plans were enacted was called to address also the reapportionment of the congressional districts pursuant to the decision in Johnson v. Miller. The white leadership in our legislature forced the assembly to address legislative reapportionment first and then proceed to congressional reapportionment. In exchange for cooperation in legislative reapportionment, the leadership promised to work with the black Members of the legislature on congressional reapportionment. The leadership, therefore, used legislative reapportionment as a stick and forced legislators to make concessions they would otherwise not have made. The enclosed statistics show the degree of retrogression and discrimination. For all of these reasons, we urge you to object. This is sad. It is absolutely sad that the Democratic leadership of the State of Georgia would use black people as spare parts to bolster the political aspirations of their favorite sons. And I do put emphasis on the word ``sons,'' because there is no room for women also in the good old boy network. Who comprises this good old boy network? Well, as it turns out, we also discovered that there were some rich and powerful people that just did not seem to be able to deal with this new black woman who was representing poor folks, some of the poorest people in the country. They could not deal with this black woman from Georgia. And so, Madam Speaker, seizing advantage of an opportunity, driven by the racist politics of race, they could also move forward on the agenda of greed. We learned, in fact, State Senator Donzella James was moved once again during the special session to put out a press release entitled ``Senator Donzella James Implicates Kaolin Interests in Driving Redistricting Agenda.'' State Senator Donzella James expressed concern today that Georgia kaolin companies are exerting undue influence on the State's redistricting process. As legislators slowly hammer out a new congressional map, Senator James is increasingly convinced that kaolin interests in Washington, Jefferson, and Glascock Counties have issued a veto threat over any congressional map which puts them in the 11th District represented by Democrat Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Now, what is it? What is kaolin in the first place? After we came to this floor, we got quite a few telephone calls from folks wanting to know what is kaolin? Well, kaolin has been called Georgia's white gold. I guess Louisiana has oil; Kentucky has coal; Georgia has kaolin. Georgia's richest mineral resource is kaolin, a white clay used to make chemicals, medicines, and coated paper. Last year, a handful of mining companies, many of them foreign- controlled, dug a billion dollars' worth of kaolin out of Georgia's soil. They pay rural landowners as little as a nickel a ton for it, and after refining it, sell it for $50 to $700 a ton. They pay no mineral taxes to the State, whose wealth they are exporting and they operate in virtual, total secrecy. Reporter Charles Seabrooks spent 5 months reporting the operations of the kaolin companies and their impact on the lives of thousands of poor Georgians, and in this, it says: What is kaolin used for? Glue, newsprint, magazines, cosmetics, china that we eat from, paint. It has a lot of different uses. Toothpaste. Kaopectate. The ``kao'' is kaolin. It also chronicles here Grant Smith, who lives in a Milledgeville mental hospital, does not know that he is at the center of a dispute over his family's former farm and its kaolin riches. Gentleman Gary Chambers: The industry leaves pits and craters and gullies on the surface of Georgia's soil. Ten-mile railway that links the kaolin belt in Georgia to the sea has made some of our richest Georgians. Robert Lee Watkins, a man who was sent to Federal prison, what the Atlanta newspapers may have called a political prisoner, this Grant Smith might have been a millionaire, but his guardians sold the family farm. Gary Chambers turned his land into a rutted ruin. Tar buttons, ten-mile railroad put them on the track to wealth and power. ``Crime and Punishment in Kaolin Country. Businessman who challenged the chalk companies receives a 5-year sentence for another man's lie.'' Nothing happened to the man who lied. ``Companies versus Landowners in White Gold Country.'' This is from USA Today. Another picture that I wish I could have blown up. The scarred landscape of my beautiful State of Georgia. ``Weak Laws Slow Restoration of Ruined Land.'' Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, I had an interesting conversation with one of our State's constitutional officers who told me, ``Cynthia, you made some rich and powerful people mighty upset with you.'' And we have been hearing about this impending lawsuit against the 11th District, but somehow it never materialized. And suddenly, a letter appeared in the Sandersville Progress, which is a local newspaper down deep in kaolin country. The letter was written by the executive vice president of one of kaolin companies. And guess what it said. It said that the 11th District ought to be dismantled. And then, miraculously, folks who do not have much were able to amass the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it takes to take a lawsuit all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The general assembly came up with some maps, some maps that were pretty darn near the mark. But those maps had one target left out and that was those 7 kaolin counties. The Atlanta Constitution has done some stories on our plight. ``Bring in the Feds to Probe Kaolin.'' ``McKinney Takes on Kaolin Industry. Her nosing around has infuriated the industry.'' ``King Kaolin's Political Prisoner.'' This is about the story of Robert Watkins. ``This should not be Cynthia McKinney's fight, but Georgia's politicians are so afraid of the kaolin companies, they do not dare raise a peep.'' ``Taking On King Kaolin.'' So McKinney is now trying to get the U.S. Justice Department to look into the problems. Politically, that may not be a very smart move on her part, because kaolin money will try to unseat her. But then again, who knows, maybe McKinney will [[Page H 9418]] prove that a woman with a backbone can succeed in a State run by men with weak knees. And so Georgia's special session, called for the purpose of redistricting, ended. They adjourned sine die. What did they accomplish? Well, they got rid of some minority districts. They even diluted the district of a sitting Member of the Georgia legislature who is black; dropped his district down to 41 percent. The gentleman who represents the district of the man who said, ``I come from a county named Liberty, but they still treat us like slaves.'' We do not know if we can even get Reverend Tillman reelected in that district, but we are darned sure going to try. But congressional redistricting never happened. It did not happen. So now the issue of Georgia's 11th Congressional District is right back where it started: In the hands of the Court. We are, of course, law- abiding people, and whatever the dictates of the Court, I will be prepared to accept them. However, I do not think anybody in this country ought to have a good feeling about what happened in the State of Georgia. Nobody who cares about diversity, inclusiveness, real deep-down democracy, should be thrilled or even happy about the picture that we have painted. Now, after Georgia comes North Carolina and Texas and Florida and Illinois and New York and Mississippi, because all of those States now have challenges to their minority districts. And what happened in the State of Georgia--the trickery and the tomfoolery and the deceitfulness--can happen to good-hearted, well- meaning people in those legislatures across this country. So the State representatives and the State senators who now understand that they might be called into special session or special duty to address the issue of redistricting also need to understand that something else might be afoot. My father serves in the Georgia legislature. My dad has been there for 23 years. He is what I call a warrior, too. So I am really just a chip off the old block. When he got elected in 1972, the first thing he did was file suit against the State of Georgia for unfair hiring practices. State of Georgia continues to be under a court order regarding that lawsuit that is over 20 years old. And all I have done is to take advantage of a district that was borne of the pain of people in the State of Georgia and to elevate their pain right here on the floor of the House of the U.S. Representatives, and to remember them as I go about my business of casting my vote, speaking out in my committees, speaking to my colleagues, and speaking to the press, to always let people in this country know that in the State of Georgia we still have people who do not have running water in their homes and it is a crying shame, and that those people need to have representation. And that all of the largesse of the Federal Government ought to be delivered to them, too, that we have people who are suffering from teen pregnancy rates that ought to make us ashamed. And that we need to have an opportunity to help those people, because they are Americans, too. But that is just a little bit too much for some folks. I am just about finished. I am reminded of a statute on the grounds of the Georgia State capitol, and the name of that statue is Expelled Because of Color. It commemorates the service of 33 African-Americans who, during the period of Reconstruction, were duly elected to serve in Georgia's general assembly. But something happened. They did not have the right color. And so they were expelled. And this statue is from the slave ship to the ship of state, African-Americans holding up the State of Georgia, holding up the ideals of this country. In 1901, there was an African-American also who had to exit from these halls. His name was George White from North Carolina. And he said, this is the Negro's temporary farewell from Congress. But Phoenix-like, the Negro shall rise again, and walk the Halls of Congress. It happened in this country. It happened as a result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Black people, white people, died. Our own Representative, John Lewis, had his head broken open at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. No, I was not there. But I was there 30 years later. And I am here today as a result. A few people in this country want to turn this country around. The majority of us have got to say no. We are not going to allow a few people to take back all that we have gained. I am pleased that I have a hero right here on the floor of the U.S. Congress. And in 1992, after I was elected, the first person I came to was a Representative from Texas. And I told him, ``You are my hero,'' because his legacy in this body has been one of complete devotion to his constituents, complete devotion to the people of Texas, complete devotion to the people of this country. His name is Congressman Gonzalez. I am very proud to yield to my leader.

Ms. McKINNEY. I thank the gentleman very much. I would like to conclude by acknowledging that in Georgia we have come a long way. But we still have a long way to go. And in reporting the events of the special session and those events that took place just prior to the special session, it is not my intent to indict anyone who is innocent in this whole play. But there are some people who are very guilty. And those people know who they are. There were some good people in the legislature who spoke out and said, quite frankly, what the problem was. But their voices were too few, too powerless, too muted. But I do want to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation and my thanks to them, because they did not have to say those kind things and they did not have to say those true things, but they did. [[Page H 9419]] They wear a badge of courage, and they are now my additional warriors, who may not be in the 11th congressional district, but they are warriors nonetheless for that which is right. In the gallery, aside from State Senator Donzella James, who participated in the special session and who spoke out so eloquently against what happened, we also have State Senator Connie Stokes, who represents a portion of the 11th congressional district. And I would like to take this moment to thank my own State Senator for her actions on behalf of preserving the 11th congressional district of Georgia. The members again of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus worked day in and day out, and they only had one goal in mind. And that goal was to make sure that all of the folks of Georgia at the end of the day had an opportunity to case a vote, a meaningful vote, for the representative of their choice. And so while the venue has moved to a new place and a new time, the camaraderie, the loyalty, the love, the cohesion of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, and the way that I was able to interact with all of the members, I will never forget. From that, I know, will come a new and stronger, more lasting relationship. And also a better relationship will come from the Democratic leadership of the State, that saw that under no circumstance were they able to break the glue that struck the members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus together. And that was their loyalty to the people of the State of Georgia. In conclusion, I would just say that it is a pleasure for me to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I have come to love, to truly love many of my colleagues with whom I interact daily. I appreciate all of them for their strong shows of support, for their kind words of support, and I want them to know that no matter how this fight ends, they have a friend in me.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. This is a new district, but Barbara Jordan's historic district was also found unconstitutional by the Texas lower court, but now they found this district constitutional, so this district is constitutional, but this woman does not deserve a seat in Congress.

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, I want to thank both of the gentlewomen for joining me in this special order and I would like to conclude by saying that I know that this struggle, as the gentlewoman correctly point out, is growing pains for the south and it is growing pains for our Nation. We do not stand alone in Georgia's fight that we are having. We have been joined by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the State of Texas, the National Voting Rights Institution, Mexican American Legal Defense Educational Fund, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund, National Urban League, People for the American Way, and Women's Legal Defense Fund. It is obvious that we do not stand alone.

Ms. McKINNEY. So then they go against the will of, I won by 66 percent in 1994, so they go against the will of 66 percent of the people in the district. I had five plaintiffs, and they take it out on 580,000 people, is that what you are saying?

Ms. McKINNEY. They lose, then they cannot stand the agony of defeat, particularly to a woman.

Ms. McKINNEY. So really it appears that what we are seeing is people run for office.