[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14264-14265]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 14265]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________