[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1276-E1277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HONORING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF PASSAGE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964
speech of
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commemorate the
40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I commend my
colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for authoring H. Res.
676 and ensuring that this Congress appropriately marks the passage of
the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in our Nation's
history.
This year our Nation has honored and celebrated several extraordinary
accomplishments that were born of the Civil Rights Movement. Last month
we observed the 50th anniversary of the May 19, 1954, Brown v. Board of
Education decision. That landmark decision not only struck down the
doctrine of ``separate, but equal'' and desegrated public schools. It
ultimately led to the passage of key federal legislation that
desegregated every segment of our society--the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
the civil rights act of 1964
In every real sense, the 1964 Act was a response to the Civil Rights
Movement sweeping the country. This Act could not have been achieved
without the tireless effort of the great, civil rights leader, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. It was Dr. King that motivated hundreds of
thousands of activists--of all colors--to demand that this Nation
realize equality for all. It was because of his leadership that the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was conceptualized and implemented.
The Act, which was signed into law on July 2, 1964 by President
Lyndon B. Johnson, established safeguards and legal remedies to combat
both the dejure and defacto discrimination that plagued minorities in
almost every aspect of their lives.
First, and foremost, the Act moved to ensure an equal right to vote.
The unequal application of voter registration requirements that
effectively disenfranchised millions of African-Americans--poll taxes,
literacy tests, grandfather clauses--was deemed unlawful in Title I of
the Act. This provision made state and local governments accountable to
their citizens and opened the path for equal political participation.
Titles II and III of the Act created a federal remedy to fight
discrimination in public accommodations. Through these provisions, the
Attorney General had the appropriate means to obtain injunctive relief
and bring suit in instances where equal access to a public facility had
been denied. The lunch counter sit-ins and marches now had real effect
in that the federal government could intervene to ensure equal
treatment in society, regardless of race or other factors.
The language of ``all deliberate speed'' in the Brown decision was
given meaning, as the federal government now had the tools in Title IV
of the Act to end segregation in public schools. The Civil Rights Act
of 1964 would serve as strong legislative policy against discrimination
in public schools and colleges because it stood on the shoulders of the
profound Brown decision, in which Chief Justice Warren, writing for a
unanimous court, declared that ``in the field of education, the
doctrine of `separate, but equal' has no place.''
More broadly, under Title V of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Commission on Civil Rights, established in 1957, was provided with
additional guidance in its charge to study, investigate, and report on
civil rights policy.
Title VI of the Act protects persons from discrimination based on
their race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that
receive federal financial assistance. This provision has been broadly
used to ensure that entities receiving federal funds cannot deny
service, provide different services, or segregate or separately treat
individuals.
The Title VII provision of the Act would grow to become one of its
most important and extensively utilized provisions. Going beyond its
impact in the racial and ethnic minority community, Title VII
acknowledged that sex discrimination in the workplace was a major
problem and would be widely used to ensure protections for women in the
workplace.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was also
created in the 1964 Act to serve as the premier vanguard of workplace
discrimination, had its authority enhanced with amendments in 1972 and
1991.
In 1972, the EEOC was given the right to sue non-government
respondents and the federal government, state and local governments, as
well as educational institutions, were made subject to Title VII. The
1991 amendments allowed plaintiffs to recover fees and costs in suits
in which they prevailed, as well as entitled plaintiffs to recover
compensatory and punitive damages in intentional employment
discrimination suits.
Injustices Remain in 2004
Without doubt, substantial progress toward equality has been made as
a result of the passage of the 1964 Act, but there remains substantial
work. I can recount a list of sobering statistics in the realm of
employment, education, healthcare, and the political process:
In terms of employment, the average white woman earns only 73 cents
for every dollar earned by the average white man. The average African
American woman earns just 63 cents to every dollar earned by the
average white man.
With regard to education, today, sadly, most schools have become
resegregated. In the 2001-2002 school year, the Civil Rights Project
found that the average African American attended a school
where minorities formed almost 70 percent of the student body. The
average Latino school child attended a school that was 71 percent
minority. By contrast, the average white student attended a school
where whites composed 79 percent of the student body.
[[Page E1277]]
In the realm of healthcare, the disparities are startling. Minority
Americans are at least twice as likely as white Americans to be
uninsured. More than 30 percent of Latinos and 20 percent of African
Americans do not have health insurance.
Minorities remain disenfranchised from the political process. The
precious right to vote was repeatedly violated in the much contested
Presidential election of 2000. In the state of Florida and at polling
booths across the county, a disproportionate number of people of color
were excluded from the political process.
In addition to the modern day disparities that serve to undermine the
Act, several Supreme Court decisions have whittled away at some of its
key protections. In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the
Supreme Court held that there is no private right of action to enforce
Title VI regulations forbidding practices that have an unjustified
discriminatory effect on the basis of race, national origin, or color.
Also, a dangerous precedent may have been set in Barnes v. Gorman, 536
U.S. 181 (2002), a case in which the Supreme Court held that punitive
damages are unavailable for intentional violations of laws protecting
those with disabilities. We must ensure that such punitive damages that
are awarded for intentional discrimination under Title VI and Title VII
are protected. We must also ensure that the true intent of the Act is
adhered to.
The Future of the 1964 Act
Congresswoman Norton's resolution encourages all Americans to
recognize and celebrate the important historical milestone of the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, rather than engaging
in mere self congratulation, we should recommit ourselves to continuing
and building on the progress created by the 1964 Act. We must pledge to
acknowledge and address the modern day disparities that prevent the
country from fully realizing the potential embodied in the Civil Rights
Act. I look forward to working with every Member of Congress in doing
just that in the months and years ahead.
____________________