[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 2 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E11-E12]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO STUDY REPARATION 
                  PROPOSALS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 4, 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I come before this body to 
reintroduce the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-
Americans Act. I have advanced the Commission bill for over 15 years to 
direct attention to a historical wrong that warrants substantial 
consideration and discussion. Since introduction in 1989, I have never 
intended to spark controversy or promote division. Rather, I have 
worked to further a national dialogue on the plight of African 
Americans in the context of slavery, Jim Crow, and other legally 
sanctioned discrimination.
  As a result, our dialogue has become more substantive and afforded us 
invaluable knowledge over the years. This Congress I intend to continue 
such discourse. I will also work to ensure that more people understand 
the benefit and the promise of a Commission. Unfortunately, there are 
too many that do not understand its purpose. This means that we must 
dispel the myths and correct the mistruths surrounding the Commission 
bill.
  Each Congress, the conversations and efforts surrounding the 
Commission bill become more mature and sophisticated. Today we have a 
better understanding of slavery and its implications than we did 16 
years ago. Since

[[Page E12]]

1989, over forty states and cities have passed legislation in support 
of the Commission bill. In 2002, lawsuits were filed against U.S. 
corporations for their role in perpetuating slavery. The following 
year, in 2003, Brown University created the Committee on Slavery and 
Justice to assess the University's role in slavery and determine a 
response. And in 2004, a federal appeals court ruled that statute of 
limitations prevented redress in the case of the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot, 
but opened the door for legislative recourse.
  Most recently, on December 13, 2006, a federal appeals court ruled 
that U.S. corporations can be found guilty of consumer fraud for 
failing to disclose their roles in slavery. Just a few weeks earlier, 
on November 27th, Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned the African slave 
trade and Britain's participation. As Brown University prepares to act 
on Committee recommendations in February, and on the eve of the 200th 
anniversary of Britain's prohibition of slavery in March, productive 
discussions on both the national and global levels seem promised.

  However, as this dialogue continues to grow, one entity is noticeably 
absent--the federal government. The Commission would ensure proper 
participation in this conversation, in addition to taking us giant 
steps towards closure on this matter. The truth is that the institution 
of slavery will continue to tarnish the American national story until 
we confront this part of our history. While a Commission will not erase 
the past, it can bring us closer to racial reconciliation and 
advancement.
  A Commission would not only examine the institution of slavery, but 
the legacy of slavery that weighs heavily on this country. Just last 
Congress, a bipartisan collective reauthorized the Voting Rights Act 
because racial inequities and injustices are a reality. This reality is 
the result of the social, economic, and political disenfranchisement 
African Americans have endured throughout our experience in this 
country. For a majority of this nation's history, this 
disenfranchisement was mandated by law. Disparities in education, 
housing, healthcare and other critical aspects of society have 
resulted.
  After examining the issues, the Commission would recommend 
appropriate remedies to Congress. There is this common misperception 
that ``remedies'' means monetary compensation. Let me be clear, the 
Commission bill does not mandate financial payments of any kind. 
Recommendations would be at the sole discretion of the Commission. It 
is unfair to dismiss the idea of a Commission based on a fear that 
monetary reparations will be warranted. We need to understand that a 
reparations discussion goes beyond money.
  We must also recognize that understanding slavery and its modern day 
implications is in the best interest of our society. This nation should 
serve as an example for corporations, universities, and other 
countries. In the 110th Congress, I look forward to open and 
constructive discourse about the Commission bill.

                          ____________________