[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2276-E2277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBUTE TO THE TRADE UNION LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 30, 1995
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Trade
Union Leadership Council [TULC] which was organized nearly 40 years ago
by a small but determined group of African-American trade unionists in
Detroit. These men and women banded together to fight the blatant
racism that existed in unions as well as in management.
From its modest beginnings in 1957, TULC developed into a powerful
political and social force that was nationally recognized and praised.
It attacked the racist policies in the unions and it literally changed
the complexion of union leadership; it forced companies to desegregate
their work forces; it operated skilled trades apprenticeship programs
aimed primarily at young blacks who had been excluded from such
programs, and it became a force to be reckoned with in the field of
politics.
In its heyday in the 1960's and 1970's, TULC had some 10,000 members.
The organization was applauded for its emphasis on self help and self
development. It often was harshly criticized by union and management
chiefs for its insistence on job equality, but it withstood the
criticism and forced open the doors of opportunity.
Those gains did not come easily. In the decades of the forties,
fifties, and sixties, discrimination was rampant across the Nation. As
late as the mid-1940's, more than a dozen unions still had white-only
policies. Through the 1950's and until the 1960's, the powerful
executive board of the United Auto Workers was lily white.
It was in this atmosphere that TULC was forged. Its 19 founding
members included the late labor activists Horace Sheffield and Robert
(Buddy) Battle III, both of whom rose to key positions in the UAW. Also
among that group was a local 600 activist and democratic State Central
Committee member named Elizabeth Jackson who would later become one of
the most powerful women in the UAW. Hubert Holley, head of Detroit's
bus drivers and John Brown, the current TULC president, were founding
members as was my late father, John Conyers, Sr. I was one of the
lawyers who drafted TULC's articles of incorporation.
Initially, TULC planned to focus on unions and to restrict its
membership to union members. But, as Robert Battle explained years ago
in an interview:
* * * we found that we could not separate the problems of
the unions from the community because basically the union
people are the community when they are at home. So we lifted
the bar then and made it a community organization. We figured
that the problem of job discrimination and discrimination
within the unions were problems that should be dealt with
within the community as well as within labor. We dropped the
bar and said that all you had to believe in was the struggle,
the fight of all mankind.
The TULC members knew the problems in the unions, and they tackled
them head on. The organization's leaders repeatedly and publicly
challenged the AFL-CIO to eliminate segregation from the locals and to
remove the constitutional color bars that were part of the AFL-CIO
philosophy. In its monthly publication entitled ``The Vanguard,'' the
TULC wrote an open letter in 1962 to AFL-CIO president George Meany.
The letter warned Meany that African-American trade unionists would no
longer tolerate the discriminatory practices of the AFL-CIO.
``Discrimination, no matter how it is packaged or who does the
wrapping, remains discrimination'' the letter said. ``Negroes insist on
an end to job discrimination now. Not when Mr. Meany and his righteous
followers get around to it, not when the so-called grievance
`machinery' is perfected, not when the NAACP (or any such organization)
fills staff positions with people strictly suitable to AFL-CIO tastes--
but now.''
At the same time TULC was relentlessly pushing the AFL-CIO to change,
the group was running classes to teach young people how to apply for
and prepare for a job. Over the years, TULC continued on that two-
tiered track--pushing unions, management, and government to increase
opportunities and teaching people how to avail themselves of those
opportunities.
The AFL-CIO wasn't TULC's only target. For years, TULC members were
furious because the United Auto Workers' all powerful executive board
was also all white. In 1959, Sheffield, Battle, and union activist
Willoughby Abner set the stage for change when they forced the issue at
the UAW's 17th Constitutional Convention in Atlanta. Sheffield told the
gathering that the union leadership had promised some 16 years earlier
to put an African-American on the executive board. He said blacks were
tired of waiting.
In 1962, the color barrier was broken with the election of Nelson
``Jack'' Edwards, a region 1A staff representative, to the executive
board. Although many thought Sheffield should have had that post, his
outspoken criticism of the UAW leadership kept him from it.
TULC remained busy on the social and political fronts. In 1960, TULC
rallied more than 1,400 people to form the National Negro American
Labor Council. The late A. Philip Randolph was the first president.
Around the same time, TULC was flexing its political muscle. TULC was
instrumental in the election of African-Americans to government office
and it successfully campaigned for the ouster of Louis Miriani,
Detroit's incumbent mayor who was openly hostile to blacks.
TULC also campaigned vigorously to increase the minimum wage to a
level where people earning it could afford to buy the products they
produced. The organization also traveled the Midwest explaining to
working people the dangers of ``right to work'' legislation.
On the job front, TULC forced many companies, including United Parcel
and Wolpin Distributors, to hire their first black drivers. Also during
the 1960's, TULC and the Building Trades Council jointly initiated an
apprenticeship training program that became a national model for such
efforts. By the mid-1970's, the program had recruited thousands of
minority youths, and the majority of them were employed in the Detroit
area.
Recognizing the need for educational enrichment programs for deprived
youth, TULC established the Educational Foundation of all races. The
foundation offered classes ranging from remedial reading to typing to
job-seeking skills.
TULC also offered enrichment classes for preschoolers and helped 10
Detroit high schools establish sections on African-Americans in their
school libraries.
John Brown, current TULC president, said that the founding members
took a risk in forming TULC. ``Quite a few people resented us for doing
this,'' Brown said. The criticism did not deter the group from
attacking gross discrimination wherever they found it.
Today, only four of the original members are still alive, Elizabeth
Jackson, John Brown, former State Representative Daisy Elliott, and
retired city of Detroit employee Mickey Welch. Membership stands at
over 2,500. TULC works with the Detroit Board of Education, and it
makes regular contributions to local charities. It also sponsors weekly
programs for senior citizens, and it continues to sponsor cultural
enrichment programs for local youths.
The bold efforts of the Trade Union Leadership Council have enabled
thousands of African-American men and women to progress through the
ranks of both unions and management.
That small group of people who gathered nearly 40 years ago today to
demand equality deserve our praise and our respect. Their noble efforts
must not be forgotten.
[[Page E2277]]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 440, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF
1995
______
speech of
HON. JOE BARTON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Saturday, November 18, 1995
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation. With its passage begins the resolution of years of
questionable implementation of the inspection and maintenance [I&M]
program by EPA, required by sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air
Act. The controversy began with the finalization of the 1992 rule.
Within that rule was an assumption that decentralized or test-and-
repair I&M programs were approximately 50 percent less effective than
centralized or test-only programs. In addition, the final rule removed
a provision within the proposed rule which would have given States a 2-
year period to demonstrate the effectiveness of enhanced decentralized
programs. Three years later, EPA has yet to convince States that such a
discount is appropriate, and the I&M issue is as yet unresolved. This
legislation begins to resolve this dispute by restoring a demonstration
period in which States will be permitted to demonstrate appropriate
credits.
Earlier this year, the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of
the House Commerce Committee, which I chair, held two hearings on the
inspection and maintenance issue. Those hearings called into question
the basis for the so called 50-percent discount. At the time of the
hearing, EPA stated that it relied on 15 years of vehicle audit and
tampering data to justify this discount. However, evidence produced by
the California I/M Review Committee and Dr. Doug Lawson of Desert
Research Institute called into question whether this data supported the
discount.
At the hearing, and in follow-up questions, however, EPA stated that
the basis for the discount was not audit and tampering data, but from
two indepth studies conducted in California. These indepth studies of
California's decentralized program indicated that reductions were 20
percent for hydrocarbons [HC], 15 percent for carbon monoxide [CO], and
7 percent for nitrogen oxides [Nox], about half what they were expected
to be, according to EPA--hence the 50-percent discount. But EPA
estimates credits for a decentralized program are appropriate 6.5-
percent reductions in HC, 12.6 for CO, and 1.5 percent for Nox, much
less than the reductions found in California.
Outside studies of ``real world'' data also called into question
EPA's system of credits. Two engineering professors from the University
of Minnesota found that a centralized I&M program recently adopted in
the Minneapolis/St. Paul region was achieving only a 1-percent
reduction in CO. EPA had originally predicted the program would reduce
CO emissions by 30 percent. They later revised that estimate to 9-
percent reductions. If centralized testing is so effective, why would
the centralized program be expected to achieve only a 9-percent
reduction in CO, when decentralized programs in general are predicted
to achieve a 12.6 percent reduction in CO. Finally, ``real world''
evidence taken from hundreds of thousands of remote sensing readings
further indicate that whether a program is centralized or decentralized
was relatively unimportant to the effectiveness of the program.
The provision in this bill therefore, asks EPA to go back to the
drawing board. By restoring flexibility to the States, it is hoped that
States will experiment with various I&M configurations, such as remote
sensing. EPA should use data from State programs so measure the
performance of centralized verses decentralized programs, and both
types should be examined relative to the performance standard. In
particular, I am hopeful that States and EPA will use this opportunity
to refocus I&M on that small minority of vehicles that cause most of
the pollution. Data indicates that as few as 10 percent of the vehicles
cause over 50 percent of the pollution. Therefore, techniques that
screen out gross polluters such as remote sensing, should be seriously
considered.