Subcommittee Hearing on H.R. 2128 - "Equal Opportunity Act of 1995"
December 7, 1995
2237 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 a.m.
I want to thank the Subcommittee on the Constitution on behalf of myself and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., for this opportunity to present our views on H.R. 2128.
Since its inception in 1972, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. has sought to protect the equal rights of Latinos. In our view the enactment of H.R. 2128 into law would be a great step backward in ensuring equal opportunity in federal agencies and in awarding federally funded contracts.
We are now facing the greatest retrenchment in fairness measures and social welfare supports since shortly after reconstruction. Latinos in America today do not enjoy either equality of opportunity or equality of socioeconomic circumstance. Latinos are disproportionately poor, disproportionally holders of low wage jobs, and disproportionately underrepresented as graduates of high school and college, as well as other areas.
Income Inequality and Poverty
Latino poverty is growing even though there has been no decline in the work effort of Latino men (78.6% of Latinos are participating in the labor force, compared to 73.9% for non-Latinos), the increased participation of Latinos, an increased proportion of families with more than one wage-earner, and the continued tendency of Latinos to live in extended families.
In 1992, the poverty rate for Latino married families (18.5%) was more than three times that of similarly composed non-Latino families (5.3%).
From 1979 to 1992, Latinos experienced growth in poverty about three times the rate of non-Latin's.
The income gap between Latinos and whites is widening not narrowing. The median Latino household income ($22,591) in 1980 was about 73% that of the median white household income ($30,921). By 1992, the median Latino household income ($22,828) was only 70.5% of the median white household income ($40,780).
Low Educational Attainment
Less than half (48%) of the Latino adults ages 25 and over are high school graduates. Only 7.5% have received a B.A. or B.S. degree, while 2.7% have an advanced degree. In contrast, 76.4% -of white adults ages 25 and over are high school graduates. Almost one in five (19.3%) whites have a B.A. or B.S. degree, and 6.6% are advanced degree holders.
As of 1989, about 37.7% of Latinos aged 18-24 years were high school dropouts, compared to 14.1 % of whites.
Moreover, Latinos have been and continue to be the subject of discrimination because of their ethnicity.
Language and immigration Status Discrimination
"A 1989 Urban Institute study, based on 360 Turing audits' conducted in San Diego and Chicago, found evidence of significant levels of national origin discrimination in employment. Pairing Latino and white job applicants that were as closely matched as possible with regard to credentials, the study showed that white applicants received 33% more interviews and 52% more job offers than the Latino applicants. It also found that 31% of the Latino applicants encountered unfavorable treatment in the hiring process. compared to 1 1 % of the white applicants."
Using similar techniques, the Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington has documented that Latinos have more than a one-in-five chance of encountering discrimination when applying for a job."
considerable employment discrimination has resulted from the implementation of employer sanctions provisions of the Immigrant Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)... According to a 1990 study by the General Accounting Office involving a survey of 4,362 employers, an estimated 10% of employers reported discrimination against employees or job applicants solely on the basis of national origin characteristic; an estimated 5% had begun a practice of refusing to hire 'foreign-looking' and 'foreign-sounding' persons based on their asserted attempts to comply with IRCA's employment verification requirements..."
Pay Inequity
Individuals with similar credentials and productive potential receive markedly different access to employment or job rewards, including both pay rates and opportunities for training, experience and pay increase. According to data from the 1990 Bureau of the Census, when comparing Latino and white mean wage income by age and education, whites generally fair significantly better than their similarly situated Latino counterparts. For example, after aggregating the mean wage income in the "professional' industry, Latinos with "some college" education earned 88 cents to each dollar of their white counterparts. Latinos with a "college' education earned less than 83% of what their equally credentialed white coequals received. "
According to National Council of La Raza (NCLR) research, an analysis of the results of three studies concerning the disparity in earnings and income among Latinos and whites between 1982 and 1990 suggests that:
the percentage of the income gap between [Latino males and whites males] which is attributable to employment discrimination falls within 10%-18% range; and
the percentage of the [Latino female and white male] income gap that is attributable to employment discrimination falls within an 30%-40% range."
Moreover, "NCLR conservatively estimates that the cost to the Latino community attributable to employment discrimination is $11.7 billion in lost income annually.
H.R. 2128 will eliminate measures which sought to remedy these injustices. It would, inter alia:
prevent federal agencies from entering into consent decrees that utilize goals and timetables and other race conscious remedies, even if strong evidence would warrant such relief and even, if such relief was narrowly tailored. This consequently; will require federally agencies to litigate even in circumstances where liability is clearly evident.
eliminate certain assistance to Hispanic serving colleges and universities. See, 20 U.S.C. 1058.
Unfortunately, affirmative action programs have all to often become a scapegoat for the increasing economic pain and hardship felt by most Americans. Without addressing the predominant cause of these economic concerns, i.e - the globalization of the economy - some have turned their disappointment and anger over lack of economic opportunity against affirmative action. Their focus, instead, should be on the massive structural changes in the world economy and the decisions of corporations to move jobs opportunities overseas and downsize their operations-which have been the predominant causes of reduced economic opportunity.
Over the past approximately 20 years there has been substantial growth in our national economy. The increase in wealth that accompanied that growth has enured overwhelmingly to the top 20% of our population, the remaining 80% of our population has had either declining or stagnant real income.
In certain sectors of our economy, such as manufacturing there has been a substantial loss of jobs (estimated to be 2.5 million since 1980).
There has also been a decline in the size of the middle class.
The jobs that have been created have been inadequate. From 1979 to 1988, 17 million new jobs were created; slightly more than one half paid below poverty wages; only 12% paid wages over $46,000.
As a consequence, those of a mind to do so have scapegoated programs such as
affirmative
actions, which have, at best, only the most marginal of impacts on economic opportunity. The
structural changes caused by global economic restructuring and capital fight overseas what some
have termed the "race to the bottom"- must be addressed with real solutions, such as
reinvestment
in disinvested sectors of our economy and education (human development), not through
scapegoating programs, such as affirmative action. Thank you.
Judiciary Homepage