Our grandchildren will be ashamed that our government denied equal protection to some because of the color of their skin, just as we are ashamed that our government once denied equal protection to others for the same reason. With this legislation, the debate can continue in Congress over the true meaning of the equal protection of the law. I am pleased that today the subcommittee will hear from distinguished members of Congress, scholars, and members of the bar, all experts on this issue. But perhaps most relevant, we will hear from numerous witnesses who have personally tasted the sting of federal government sanctioned discrimination. These people were discriminated against solely because of the color of their skin or sex.
Clever platitudes mean little to real citizens hurt by government preference.
They have appeared in court at every level from a state trial court to the United States Supreme Court, and after long legal battles proved their cases on the merits and struck down unconstitutional government preference programs. But the most compelling thing these witnesses have in common is that despite the fact that they demonstrated government preference programs to be unconstitutional for various reasons none of the unconstitutional preference programs they challenged have been rescinded by government. This proves that the present system of laws is inadequate to protect fully the civil rights of all Americans and demonstrates the urgent need for the Civil Rights Act of 1997. Stories like these are all too common in America today. The subcommittee would greatly appreciate if testimony and arguments addressed this legislation and specifically whether federal government discrimination and preferences on the basis of race and sex are wise policies consistent with American legal and moral principles.