Recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the minority leader, I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is bringing to the House floor a debate on how best to make this country stronger and more just. The distinguished gentleman from Texas has just said that this is about raising taxes. One of the worst problems that can happen to you in Washington D.C. is when you begin to believe your own baloney. That is not what this resolution is about.

The situation is very simple: we have a war. That war by next year will have cost us $250 billion. And the question is, how are we going to pay for it? We have two choices. One is to charge the bill mostly to our kids by raising the deficit, which is what is happening, and along with that making every American pay through the nose with less security for our homeland on our borders, in our ports, in our air ports, less security for veterans who are not receiving adequate health care, less educational opportunity for middle-class families because of budget squeezes, less health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children all over this country, less help for workers who are

out of work; or will we choose the other way, as this resolution seeks to do.

Will we choose to ask the most well-off 200,000 people in this country, less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, will we ask them to make the supreme sacrifice? Those who make more than $1 million a year, will you ask them to make the sacrifice of limiting their tax cut to $24,000 on average rather than the $120,000 average that they will otherwise get under the existing budget of this House? I think the answer is quite clear.

I plead fully guilty to wanting to see the most privileged and blessed people in this society accept a somewhat smaller tax cut in order to provide greater opportunity for others in society to get the basic requirements on education, health care, veterans health care, and the rest.

Now, this resolution is very simple. It raises over $18 billion by limiting the average size tax cut for persons who make more than $1 million a year to about $24,000 a year. That is what the average tax cuts will be for someone who makes between $500,000 a year and $1 million. We are asking those that make $1 million to live by that same amount. That is hardly an outrageous sacrifice.

We then use 25 percent of that money for deficit reduction. We use the remaining $14 billion to eliminate the real reductions in domestic appropriations that are contained in the President's budget. If this amendment is adopted, we will simply be adjusting education, health, veterans programs and all the rest by the amount that is equivalent to inflation plus population growth. That is all. We would get back to a standstill level on that score.

We put $3 billion into homeland security. Why? Because the Hart- Rudman Commission told us we have a need of $190 billion at the local level, and we have only met 15 percent of that need so far. We do it because only 13 percent of fire departments in this country are equipped to handle a full-blown hazardous material attack. We do it because only a tiny fraction of cargo in passenger planes is presently inspected for explosives. We do it because we have some 2,000 fewer people on the northern border protecting our border than the PATRIOT Act told us that we would have. We do it because only 20 of the most important 45 ports in America which ship goods into the United States have adequate inspection systems to make certain that there is not nuclear material or explosive material in ships that come to our shores.

We then put $1.3 billion into veterans health care so that we can cut the claims backlog of 327,000 veterans so that we can shorten the waiting time of veterans at VA hospitals, so that we can strengthen critical mental health services for returning veterans. We add $1 billion to military housing because more than 120,000 of military families in this country serve in lousy housing, and they deserve better.

We put $5.7 billion into education to close the gap between what this Congress promised it would provide local schools and what it is actually giving them. We put a billion and a half dollars into Title I so that 500,000 more poor kids and disadvantaged kids can get better instruction in reading and math.

We put $1.2 billion into special education so that local school districts will receive more help from the Federal Government to meet Federal mandates to educate every disabled child. We put $300 million in in order to help 400,000 more children receive adequate child care and after school care.

We put $2 billion in so that we can increase Pell grants to help those who otherwise could not afford to go to college. We want to increase the maximum grant by $450. Pell grants today pay only for 35 percent of the cost of instruction at a 4-year university. Twenty years ago they paid for 75 percent. Can we not do better than that?

Then we use $200 million to provide additional employment and training opportunities for people who have lost their jobs. We also address a number of other matters. We fund a number of other programs that are high priority programs, as demonstrated by the letters from the minority side as well as the majority side of this House to our own committee, asking that our committee provide funding for these programs.

So that is what we do, and I would ask support for this resolution, and I repeat the same thing that I said when I began. We have one choice. We can either pay for this war by shoving the bill to our kids and by cutting back on educational opportunities, cutting back on veterans health care, cutting back on decent housing for the military, squeezing dangerously our homeland security expenditures, or we can ask the most well-off, the most prosperous people in this country to share a little bit more of the load by limiting the size of their tax cut to $24,000 rather than the average $120,000 tax cut they would ordinarily get.

I believe the majority of those people are patriotic enough to say, ``Do it, we do not need that extra supersized tax cut as much as this country needs to have its fiber strengthened by providing the investments that I have just talked about.'' I would urge a ``yes'' vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say, Mr. Speaker, that this is no less binding than is the budget resolution passed by the Republican majority.

Let me also say that we have heard a lot of concern about small business. I would like to see how many small businesses in each of our districts have profits of $1 million per owner to qualify under this bill.

Thirdly, we are not raising taxes; we are asking people who make $1 million a year or more to limit themselves to a $24,000, on average, tax cut, which is still 25 times as much as the average person in this country making $50,000 a year will get.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fiction we have just heard, you have to make $1 million a year profit in order to be covered by this. To suggest small businessmen are hurt by that is laughable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, again, despite all of the misinformation that we have just heard, the IRS has told us that fewer than six-tenths of 1 percent of all returns with small business income have incomes of more than $1 million. To suggest that this is even laying a glove on small business is a colossal red herring fiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman refers to one-third of the top bracket. This does not touch everybody in the top bracket. The top bracket is $319,000 or more. We do not touch anybody with an income of less than one million bucks, less than one million bucks. That is not $300,000. Do not try to bamboozle people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Line 22 and line 23 of page 6: The only taxpayers that are affected are ``taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1 million.'' Period.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is pure and simple about shared sacrifice, as the gentleman from Illinois has just indicated. What we are asking is that those lucky people in this country who make more than $1 million a year, that includes the one-half of 1 percent of small businessmen who make profits of over $1 million a year, we are asking them to accept a scaled-back tax cut so that they only get, on average, $24,000 in tax cuts. That is 24 times as large as someone will get if they make $50,000 a year.

And, instead, we are saying please, for the sake of the country, take a little bit smaller tax cut so that we have some room in the budget to strengthen protection on our borders, to strengthen protection in our ports, to strengthen protection at our airports, to provide stronger opportunities for education, to provide more civilized health care for our veterans, to provide better housing for our military personnel, to provide a little better shot at protecting the environment, to help local communities so that they do not have to lay off hundreds of thousands of kids from health care programs like SCHIP and Badger Care in my own State. This is an effort to see to it that we can enrich the many and enrich the few at the same time.

Trickle-down economics is what we have heard from our friends on the

other side of the aisle today. They say if you just give enough to the people at the top, eventually some will trickle down to people at the bottom.

My old friend Harvey Dueholm in the legislature used to describe it this way. He said trickle-down economics is the theory that if you just feed the horses enough oats, eventually some of it will filter down to the sparrows. Think about it. And vote ``yes.'' It is the fair, it is the right, it is the just thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I hear from Members on both sides of the aisle that this is really a waste of time today. It is kind of a silly exercise. We ought to be having appropriation debate on the floor. We have got appropriations bill that are waiting in line with no prospect of getting them done on time this year, and yet we have got to do this.

I hear from some that this is really an exercise as a price to prevent obstructionism on the floor for consideration of appropriation bills, that if we do not debate that, somebody is going to obstruct the floor.

Regardless, let me say a couple of things. There is a budget. The House has deemed the budget. We await consideration in the other body of the budget, and this is a nonbinding resolution that we are about to talk about for the next couple of hours here instead of talking about appropriation bills, but I guess we are going to go through this exercise.

As the majority leader said, we are going to have some fun because we get to point out our differences, but let us just face it. This is a nonbinding, somewhat silly exercise, but we are going to go through the process and talk about the differences.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the Budget to continue the debate on the Democrat increase-taxes-and- spending proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to read the last line of the bill. The minority leader may want to read page 5 of the resolution she just defended. It is not a tax increase? My goodness. What does ``changes in tax laws sufficient to increase revenues by $18 billion'' mean? I heard one time if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. This is a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to talk further about this Democrat tax increase resolution.

Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this small business job-killing bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to continue the debate on this more-money-solves-all-problems proposal.

Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this Democrat increased-taxes bill, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this tax-increase, job-killing bill, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on the Democrat tax- increase proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to ``bamboozle,'' so I would yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the point of this all is, this is a tax increase. They are admitting it. There were so many Members who came to the floor and said, oh, no, no, no, we are not really increasing taxes. But what the colloquy between the two gentleman from Wisconsin proves is, once and for all, this is a tax increase.

So if one wants to come to the floor today in the middle of an economic recovery and vote to increase taxes on small business, knock yourself out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Respectfully, because I know the Speaker is from New York, let me yield myself 30 seconds and say I think a lot of that money we borrowed was sent up to New York. So when the gentleman is talking about what happened and Alice in Wonderland, let me just remind the gentleman that we sent a lot of that to New York. We had a terrorist attack. I know the gentleman knows that, and he voted for it then, and he did not say a word about it then. He said send the money. We need it. Do whatever it takes. Now he comes to the floor and he says, gee, I guess we borrowed too much money.

Well, maybe we did, but the gentleman should have complained about it then.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It all comes down to who is doing the feeding of the oats. The government does not feed oats. That is not where the economic advantage of this country comes from. We do not pass out money to people here and say here is government money, we printed it, you get to have it. They get it from working. They get it from farming. They get it from taking risk. They get it from unlocking their door in the morning and letting in the public to their flower shop, to their shoe store, to their bank, to whatever it might be, unlocking that door and letting the energy and the economic engine of this country work.

That is what we want to continue: working. We do not want this to kill jobs. Just at the moment when we are increasing jobs, look what we have done. Yes, there was a downturn. In the aftermath of 9/11 and in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble busting and the aftermath of the Clinton recession, there is no question, look right here; that is what that is, that little downturn. But look how it is going back up.

And it is going up because the engine of America is working. It is not going up because of the chart on spending. When we increase spending in Washington, that does not drive the economy. That does not do anything except it spends money in Washington. What drives the economy are people in Wisconsin and Iowa taking a risk, building a business, employing people so that when they balance their checkbook around their kitchen table and they meet their obligations and pay for their kids' college and pay for health care and turn on the lights and pay for groceries, they can do it. It is not because, with all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we send them a check. Because that does not do anything.

The check they want to make is a paycheck, not a government check. Every single person in America wants a paycheck. And that is what we have done. We have created paychecks. Look what the spending side of this does. They are saying we are not spending enough in Washington. Look at all of this increase. Look at all of the debt that they are complaining about. And on top of all of that, they say, no, the problem is we are still not spending enough money in Washington. And the thing they misconnect is that that money in Washington came from somebody, a taxpayer.

Money does not start in Washington. Money starts in Iowa, in Wisconsin, across the country, in people's pockets, in small businesses. That is where it starts. And they want to take more of it, they want to kill those jobs, so that they can hand out more money, so that they in Washington can have the power. We do not want that to happen. We want the power to be around the kitchen tables of Iowa and Wisconsin. That is why we have opposed their big tax increases.

As far as the spending, the taxes, that is obvious those increases are ridiculous. But the increases in spending, one can always say we want to hand out more money in order to demonstrate our compassion. And we have told them about the increases in education, the increases in veterans, the increases in health care, the increases for the environment, for all sorts of programs, and to make sure our country was protected. But on top of that, they say, you know what, I think we can even be more compassionate. We are going to hand out money and tell people we care.

Well, quite honestly, I think it is time for to us start looking around for the waste. I believe that, instead of this debate on the floor today, what we should have done is had an appropriation bill come up. That is what we should have done. We should have started going through all the accounts and look for ways where the Federal Government is not spending that money as wisely as the people back home in Iowa and Wisconsin.

We do not want to kill jobs; we do not need to increase spending. We do not need a resolution like the Democrat proposal on the floor today to tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend more and more in Washington. This needs to be done around the kitchen tables of Iowa, not the committee tables in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Members vote against this ill conceived proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, my first thought was to come to this podium with a prepared text to be able to salute the 40th anniversary of the congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I thought it would be more appropriate to speak from the heart and recollection of the pain that was experienced by many in this country without the passage of this act.

Might I first give my accolades and appreciation to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her fight on the battlefield for civil rights; to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), our own special icon and warrior for peace; to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and others, chairman and ranking member, for allowing us this small moment of acknowledgment in the backdrop of the death of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, three young men of different backgrounds and religious faiths who came together in destiny down in Mississippi just to be able to stand up for the opportunity and freedom for a people who had been disenfranchised from the time that they came to this Nation.

Is it not interesting that the 1964 act prohibited discrimination, if you will, in voter registration and public schools. Some would say, did we not have Brown v. Board of Education in 1954? And yet 10 years later we needed the Civil Rights Act to encourage desegregation in our schools. There are reasons that many of us support specific political philosophies because Lyndon Baines Johnson, a President from Texas, helped to be part of the movement of this bill and we had to organize, yes, some Southerners and Northerners and moderates, to come together to push for the support and legislation of this bill.

But most of all I believe that this day allows us to remember that we are on a journey of freedom and that journey is not yet complete, for now we suffer with unequal educational systems in our public schools, inner cities that are crumbling; and, yes, we suffer from an election system that is yet not fair.

So I stand before you to acknowledge the fact that we are grand and greater because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; but what I would simply say to America, our journey is yet not finished and we would join together in working in our Congress to be able to have a fair and equitable system of health care, of an educational system, and of an economic system that treats all of us fairly.

I hope, finally, that we will address the question of an unequal criminal justice system because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that. It is the planting of the seed to ensure that all America joins in civil rights, not just African Americans, not just Hispanics, but immigrants, Anglos, Asians and all will join together and recognize that this Nation is a better place if you acknowledge first that race is a factor in this country and if you acknowledge first that we have not yet finished the journey for civil rights in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 676, a bill recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is imperative that we take a step back to recognize the years of bondage and enslavement; needless lynching and bloodshed; and the years of discrimination and hatred that Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to curtail.

The legal protection of U.S. citizens, regardless of race, color, sex, religion and national origin against the vice of discrimination in the workplace and places of public accommodation; the prohibition of unequal application of voter registration requirements; the encouragement of continued desegregation of public schools; and the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission highlight the basic tenets set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I speak out today to commemorate the progress we have made in casting out the demons of prejudice and discrimination. I speak out today to recognize the steps we have taken as a nation to get closer to the American Creed. However, I must speak out today to call attention to the progress we have yet to make in order to fulfill the tenets of Civil Rights Act of 1964. I speak out today to challenge this nation to uphold our founding principles of equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, sex, religion and national origin.

Despite the 40 year life span of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in 2004, we still attempt to take the life out of this act by violating its principles. Although the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Prairie View A&M University student voter rights in 1979 when it was challenged in Waller County, Texas, attempts to disenfranchise Prairie View A&M University students continue today.

On November 5, 2003, the Waller County, Texas District Attorney requested that the county Elections Administration bar the students at Historically Black College Prairie View A&M University from voting locally by virtue of his unilateral interpretation of ``domicile'' for voting purposes. Texas voter registration law only requires a person to be a resident of the county at least 30 days prior to the elections. African-American students represent the majority of Prairie View A&M's student body of 7,000 members, and these students, constitute a major voting bloc in Waller County. The District Attorney's request sought to effectively disenfranchise African-American college students in this area; as such, this request suggested a form of voter intimidation and likely had the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. Despite a prolonged dialogue with Texas officials regarding this matter, relief from the pressures and intimidation experienced by the students when attempting to exercise their

rights was never provided. This example does not stand alone among the long list of discriminatory acts that continue to plague our nation.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues: Have we truly upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If your answer is no, you are one step closer in helping us to realize our U.S. commitment to equality. You must now join the front lines in the battle against discrimination and injustice. If your answer is yes, I ask that you call your attention to all of the overt and covert discriminatory acts that occur across our nation, such as the attempted disenfranchisement of the Prairie View A&M University students in Waller County, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to ask my colleagues to support H. Res. 676 because of the significant and far-reaching impact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to have on our nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the essential, yet fragile threads that keep our nation civil. In fact, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helped to mend our nation's worn fabric, tattered by hostility and hatred, into a nation that strives for the liberties and rights of all.

The fight to achieve equality is by far not over, but honoring and reflecting upon legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will bring this nation one step closer to upholding unity and justice for all. I implore all of my colleagues to keep the spirit of equality and equal opportunity, the spirit of the Civil Rights Act alive, when governing this nation. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I find this resolution not only pertinent, but a necessary reminder to encourage us to move in the right nation, which is a nation for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for introducing House Resolution 676, which recognizes and honors the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for her work in getting this bill on the House floor today.

H. Res. 676 recognizes the advancements we have made in the 40 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and reaffirms the work we need to do, not only to retain what progress has been made, but also to continue to move toward greater social existence and inclusion.

But I want to take a step back for a moment and trace some of the history that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Many of us can remember what it was like in America back in the tumultuous era of the 1960's. It was a time of social unrest marked by riots and protests across the country.

Growing up in this era, we were all galvanized by the passion and commitment of our civil rights leaders who worked to end America's immoral practice of discrimination.

The 1960's and the decades preceding were marked by unprecedented resistance to racial segregation and discrimination captured by the `freedom rides' throughout the south, the Lunch counter sit-ins, forced school integration in segregated schools, Supreme Court cases challenging Jim Crow practices and the individual stances that our parents took at their jobs and in their neighborhoods.

Here in Washington, A. Phillip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, along with a young activist from Georgia by the name of John Lewis, coordinated and organized a non-violent march on Washington on August 28, 1963 bringing more than 200,000 people to the Nation's Capital to hear Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and other speakers and to demand the dignity, justice, and jobs that were promised by the government, and to have their economic and political concerns heard.

To be Black in America at the time meant you had no voice in the government, could not attend good schools, could not get good jobs, and in short, could not live a free life.

For over 100 years after slavery was abolished, Blacks and other minority groups were relegated to second class citizenship.

And because of all these facts, the March on Washington was nothing short of revolutionary in the precedent it set as the culmination of a national social movement.

But the real test of the movement was whether it could accomplish change.

As Bayard Rustin wrote of the March in his magazine, Liberation in 1963:

``What counted most at the Lincoln Memorial was not the

speeches, eloquent as they were, but the pledge of a quarter

million Americans, black and white, to carry the civil rights

revolution into the streets. Our task is now to fulfill this

pledge through nonviolent uprisings in hundreds of cities.''

It was on February 10, 1964 that Congress finally passed an unprecedented and highly contentious bill to support and protect the civil liberties and rights of all people.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in many ways turned a new page on the history of our nation, and all people, regardless of race, class or gender, were acknowledged as equal citizens of our nation.

Signed into law on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels.

It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and other public facilities.

And while it is often misconceived that the Civil Rights Act only affected the lives of Black Americans in the 1960s, this landmark legislation also protected the rights of women for the first time in history.

But as we all know, by itself the legislation could not transform the hearts and minds of those who truly believed in segregation. Only time could truly do that.

Yet the injustices that Blacks and other minorities faced with the tacit approval of the government were finally over.

But today our March, our struggle, and our cause are not over.

Today we are still attempting to understand and counteract the ramifications of the physical and mental enslavement which our ancestors were subjected to.

Profound inequalities remain imbedded in American society.

For example, black women are less likely to have breast cancer, but are more likely to die from this terrible disease because of the discrepancies in our health care system.

And according to the AFL-CIO, the average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 due to unequal pay during her working life.

Facts such as these indicate that our work is far from complete.

Our Nation's capital, the icon of our collective American legacy pays sparse tribute to the African forefathers of this country and our Civil Rights leaders.

Despite the fact that this country was built on the backs of slaves, there are few commemorative statues or paintings that demonstrate as much.

Perhaps most glaringly, there is still no national memorial dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on our National Mall.

And in this day and age, it is even more important that we continue to fight for our civil right and civil liberties, especially in light of the Patriot Act.

The resolution we are discussing today not only recognizes how far our country has come along, but it also praises the sweat and blood that was sacrificed to make sure that we got here.

This commemorative resolution is a testament to the shift in this country toward the spirit of inclusion and equality.

It also reminds us of how much we have left to do.

Our great society is highly regarded around the globe because of our laws, which ensure the integrity of our constitution and perpetuate the belief that all men and women are created equal.

The legacies of those who marched, protested, and died for our cause capture the true sentiment of our nation. By passing this resolution we continue to commemorate their struggle, our struggle.

It is the ultimate sacrifice of individuals like Dr. Martin Luther Ling Jr., from which we all benefit.

We must honor their memory by continuing to work to realize their vision.

And today we will honor their memory by passing this resolution.