[House Report 108-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-485

======================================================================
 
 SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH REGARD TO THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF BROWN VERSUS 
                           BOARD OF EDUCATION

                                _______
                                

May 12, 2004.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany H. Con. Res. 414]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 414) expressing the sense 
of the Congress that, as Congress recognizes the 50th 
anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, all 
Americans are encouraged to observe this anniversary with a 
commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the concurrent resolution be 
agreed to.




                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of H. Con. Res. 414 is to express the sense of 
Congress that, as Congress recognizes the 50th anniversary of 
the Brown v. Board of Education decision, all Americans are 
encouraged to observe this anniversary with a commitment to 
continuing and building on the legacy of Brown.

                BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

    On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court handed 
down its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of 
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), declaring that ``in the field of 
public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no 
place.'' This decision marked a sharp and stunning reversal of 
a doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 
(1896), which had held that segregation of public facilities 
was lawful. Armed with the Plessy decision, state legislatures 
throughout the country, but particularly in the South, felt 
emboldened to continue andexpand upon their segregationist 
policies, particularly in public schools. These policies ensured that 
the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth 
Amendment was a right in name only for African Americans and other 
minority groups.
    The national nature of this problem was exemplified by the 
four cases consolidated into the 1954 Brown decision.\1\ Oliver 
Brown challenged the school board of Topeka, Kansas on its 
segregation policy, in part because Oliver's daughter, Linda, 
had to walk past a far superior all-white school to reach her 
segregated elementary school, which was located miles from her 
home. A student strike caused by the gross inequalities of the 
separate school systems in Prince Edward County, Virginia, led 
to the case of Davis v. County School Bd., 103 F. Supp. 337 
(E.D.Va. 1952). The case of Briggs v. Elliot, 103 F. Supp. 920 
(E.D.S.C. 1952), was brought by parents concerned with the 
gross inequalities in terms of buildings, transportation, and 
teacher salaries in the segregated school system of Clarendon 
County, South Carolina. And Gebhart v. Belton, 91 A.2d 137 
(Del. 1952), marked a victory for the African American school 
children of Claymont, Delaware, who had previously been 
prevented from attending the local high school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A fifth case, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), dealing 
with school segregation in the District of Columbia, was decided 
separately on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply 
to the District. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the Fifth 
Amendment also forbids segregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These segregation cases were initially argued before the 
Supreme Court during the 1952 term, but the Court delayed 
decision and asked for reargument on October 12, 1953, on five 
questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the 1868 
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. This reargument was 
further delayed, however, when Chief Justice Vinson died on 
September 8, 1953. At this critical moment, President 
Eisenhower selected the former Governor of California, Earl 
Warren, as his nominee for Chief Justice. It was Chief Justice 
Warren who guided a unanimous Supreme Court to declare that 
``separate facilities are inherently unequal'' and the policy 
of school segregation violated the equal protection clause of 
the Fourteenth Amendment, thus paving the way for integrated 
school facilities for all children in the United States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 347 U.S. at 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brown was not the beginning of the struggle for equality in 
public schools. Indeed, seven years prior to Brown, Gonzalo and 
Felicitas Mendez had successfully challenged the segregation of 
Mexican American children from public schools in California.\3\ 
Nor did Brown mark the end of that struggle, either. Indeed, 
Brown's most important legacy may be in the role that it played 
in sparking the civil rights movement. For it was Brown's 
pronouncements that emboldened the Eisenhower Administration to 
push through the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. Those acts, 
in turn, provided the blueprint for the passage of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968. All of these acts played an important role 
in helping to eliminate the barriers to equality for African 
Americans that had existed in the decades prior to Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Westminster School Dist. v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 
1947). Indeed, the Mendez decision provided an important proving ground 
for the arguments that Thurgood Marshall, who filed an amicus brief in 
the case, would later use before the Supreme Court in the Brown cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                HEARINGS

    No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H. Con. Res. 414.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On May 12, 2004, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported theresolution H. Con. Res. 414 
without amendment by a recorded vote of 23 to 0, a quorum being 
present. Subsequently, a motion to reconsider that vote was agreed to 
by voice vote. On reconsideration, on May 12, 2004, the Committee met 
in open session and ordered favorably reported the resolution H. Con. 
Res. 414 without amendment by a recorded vote of 27 to 0, a quorum 
being present.

                         VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the committee's 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 414.
    1. Motion to report H. Con. Res. 414 favorably. By a 
rollcall vote of 23 yeas to 0 nays the motion was agreed to:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Ayes       Nays     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde...............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Coble..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Smith..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Gallegly...........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Goodlatte..........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Chabot.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Jenkins............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Cannon.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Bachus.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Hostettler.........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Green..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Keller.............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Hart...............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Flake..............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Pence..............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Forbes.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. King...............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Carter.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Feeney.............................         X   .........  .........
Mrs. Blackburn.........................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Conyers............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Berman.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Boucher............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Nadler.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Scott..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Watt...............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Lofgren............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Jackson Lee........................  .........  .........  .........
Ms. Waters.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Meehan.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Delahunt...........................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Wexler.............................  .........  .........  .........
Ms. Baldwin............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Weiner.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Schiff.............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Sanchez............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman............         X   .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................        23   .........  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On second vote on the motion to report H. Con. Res 414 
favorably after a motion to reconsider was passed by voice 
vote. By a rollcall vote of 27 yeas to 0 nays the motion was 
agreed to:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Ayes       Nays     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde...............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Coble..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Smith..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Gallegly...........................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Goodlatte..........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Chabot.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Jenkins............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Cannon.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Bachus.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Hostettler.........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Green..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Keller.............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Hart...............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Flake..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Pence..............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Forbes.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. King...............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Carter.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Feeney.............................         X   .........  .........
Mrs. Blackburn.........................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Conyers............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Berman.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Boucher............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Nadler.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Scott..............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Watt...............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Lofgren............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Jackson Lee........................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Waters.............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Meehan.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Delahunt...........................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Wexler.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Baldwin............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Weiner.............................  .........  .........  .........
Mr. Schiff.............................         X   .........  .........
Ms. Sanchez............................         X   .........  .........
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman............         X   .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................        27   .........  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee believes that 
the concurrent resolution will have no cost for the current 
fiscal year 2004, and that there will be no cost incurred in 
carrying it out for the next five fiscal years.

                    PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
goals of H. Con. Res. 414 are to recognize and celebrate the 
50th Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's decision 
in Brown v. Board of Education and to renew Congress's 
commitment to continuing the legacy of Brown.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply because this is a concurrent 
resolution.

               SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

    The first clause of the preamble provides that on May 17, 
1954, the United States Supreme Court announced in Brown v. 
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that, ``in the field 
of education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no 
place.''
    The second clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision overturned the precedent set in 1896 in Plessy v. 
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had declared ``separate 
but equal facilities'' constitutional and allowed the continued 
segregation of public schools in the United States on the basis 
of race.
    The third clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision recognized as a matter of law that the segregation of 
public schools deprived students of the equal protection of the 
laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.
    The fourth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision stood as a victory for plaintiff Linda Brown, an 
African American third grader who had been denied admission to 
an all white public school in Topeka, Kansas.
    The fifth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision stood as a victory for those plaintiffs similarly 
situated to Linda Brown in the cases that were consolidated 
with Brown, which included Briggs v. Elliot, 103 F. Supp. 920 
(E.D.S.C. 1952), Davis v. County School Board, 103 F. Supp. 337 
(E.D.Va. 1952), and Gebhart v. Belton, 91 A.2d 137 (Del. 1952).
    The sixth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision stood as a victory for those that had successfully 
dismantled school segregation years before Brown through legal 
challenges such as Westminster School District v. Mendez, 161 
F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947), which ended segregation in schools in 
Orange County, California.
    The seventh clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision stands among all civil rights cases as a symbol of the 
federal government's commitment to fulfill the promise of 
equality.
    The eighth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision helped lead to the repeal of ``Jim Crow'' laws and the 
elimination of many of the severe restrictions placed on the 
freedom of African Americans.
    The ninth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision helped lead to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 
religion, or national origin in workplaces and public 
establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or 
are supported by the state.
    The tenth clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision helped lead to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 which promotes every American's right to participate in 
the political process.
    The eleventh clause of the preamble provides that the Brown 
decision helped lead to the enactment of the Fair Housing Act 
of 1968 that prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and 
financing of dwellings, and in other housing-relating 
transactions, on the basis of race, color, national origin, 
religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
    The resolved clause provides that it is the sense of the 
House of Representatives, with the Senate concurring, that the 
Congress
          (1) recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of 
        the Brown v. Board of Education decision;
          (2) encourages all Americans to recognize and 
        celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of 
        Education decision; and
          (3) renews its commitment to continuing and building 
        on the legacy of Brown with a pledge to acknowledge and 
        address the modern day disparities that remain.

            CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes H. Con. Res. 
414 makes no changes to existing law.

                                
