navyman push the wheelchair, and the clerk repeated his name again, senator engle, watching, looking over, and he couldn't talk, and he very slowly raised his hand, moved it to his right eye, and i think it was senator mansfield who said to the presiding officer, the senator indicated his support for cloture, and if he can do it again, you know, to confirm that, and inc.engle heard that did it again and votes yes. it was very dramatic, and right before that key vote was the great speech of dirksen who, i think, was quoting who -- victor hugo saying stronger is all the

armies whose idea time has come. >> it was. >> the chamber was absolutely jammed. the gallery filled, standing room only, no staff allowed on the floor. just 100 senators. as the vote proceeded, it was silent like a tomb, and when john williams of delaware cast the deciding vote, everyone, there was a corporate exhaling of breath. it was so tense that everybody literally held their breath until that last vote was counted, and in a blink, richard russell was on his feet

demanding to know what the hell we'd do next. >> just to think about it, you know how hard it is to get 60 for today's senate, this was 67, which was a much higher bar, and there was clearly a block of people who were against it, and it was one by one, president lyndon johnson got a few, and one i remember writing about was jack miller, the other senator from iowa, i think it was dubuque, and there was an archbishop who called him saying if you don't vote for cloture, we'll excommunicate you. i mean this was really -- today, martin luther king, a create american and lyndon johnson, arguably a larger than life president, get a lot of credit for passing that bill, but in

truth, johnson almost screwed it up by pressuring the leadership to, as he put it, bring out the cots. this is taking too long. hubert just refused to do it. he told me at that dinner, we're just going to sit at, you know, let it play out, and that turned out to be a very good strategy. >> remember, this was the 12th time there was a filibuster on the civil rights bill. 11 times the phfilibuster succeeds, this was the 12th time, and the filibuster was never the same after that vote in june because the senate began to use it for anything and everything. filibuster this, filibuster the oil bill, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. it was a turn in the feeling. two other little memories that

don't take but a minute. one night john tower, the diminuti diminutive texan was holding the floor. tom mcentire of vermont -- >> new hampshire. >> new hampshire was preproviding. no one in the gallery. just mcentire presiding, and tower had the floor. he said, mr. president, may we have order? it was very funny line, and nobody got to hear it except -- the other memory i have is harrison williams of new jersey facing bernard, a right ring republican, nervous about his chances if he got too close to the issue and got hung up, and he was called from the floor by a group of his constituents, not

williams's constituents, but they wanted to beret him, and he came out and came on the floor and asked him to come again. this time, he slipped out one of the doors of the chamber, ran down the haul and sought asylum in mike's office. >> one story, if i may about, about mike, a wonderful secretary, also a source namedd sophie englehart, and when the vote showed up one day, she puckishly went into the inner office where we chatted and said, senator, there are four reporters here to see you, and a yesman from "the new york times." >> i wanted to give the audience

a chance to ask some questions as well. we have a few more minutes, and so i'd like to throw the floor up to you and there's a question right here. >> i had a quick question -- actually, it's not a quick question, that was a lie, sorry. i wanted your thoughts on the role of the filibuster played. the longest filibuster, a huge part in this legislation's history, and i also hate to make a comparison between now and what, you know, reporting and what the news service is now versus then because it's quite an evolution, but begin the context of this special technique or this special process, did you see from, especially southern reporters or from other communities, once they read maybe what you were writing or what others were writing, was there a backlash to this technique used opposed to general debate or, i guess you

could see more commonly used techniques to get legislation passed? was there some sort of accountability demanded from senator thurman that the public demanded? what were your thoughts generally on how the press and how people reacted to the reporting of that technique? >> this is -- what was the public's reaction to the filibuster is a tactic, and did you get feedback from that and reporting? >> good question. remember, this thing was on two tracks. what was going on in the senate, which was boring, but important because if you didn't have a quorum, you'd lose so they had to organize to always be able to have the ability, but the other track was going on behind the scenes with the leadership counsel on civil rights. we mentioned the religious

people, all three major religions were involved, and, of course, bobby kennedy, burke marshall, all of these meetings, by the way, occurred in dirksen's office because that was one of the ego trip, and so we had to cover what was going on on the floor because that was the public of it, and we had to devine, as roger was very good at, what was begin on behind closed doors. >> yeah, could you -- i'm sorry to ask again, i lost the gist of your question. was it -- was there a reaction from the public to the use of the filibuster? >> i guess it was however you would like to respond. the thinking behind what i was trying to was ask was, you know, sometimes people today see that

the press is supposed to hold, especially members of congress, accountable, and they are supposed to ask, you know, tough questions and allow for this public debate to occur about, obviously, controversial issue, and i think now one of them being the filibuster because it's frequently, but such a unique process we have in the government. did you see any of that kind of conversation happen either within the public, you know, communities, or the press, and they wanted to, you know, sort of make a statement about what, especially senator thurman was doing? >> were people challenging the idea of a filibuster essentially? >> there was a reaction in some mail i got that a big powerful company like cbs would decide that a certain issue was or was not in the best interest of the company, and it would use its

instruments to convince the country to do something that it was reluck at that particular time to do or never thought to do. that was an interesting case of journalistic ethics, should a television company be in the business through a reportorial coverage of the issue, be in the business of trying to change people's minds or just in the business of laying out and let them decide for themselves? it's a fine question. it's a narrow question. it is. yes. >> one of the things that cbs did for that was to have a clock for a while, wasn't it, or a calendar to indicate how long the filibuster was going on? >> yeah, and they wanted me to grow a beard, but thank god. >> you can't forget that the country was sitting on top of what i would call a racial

volcano, and there was really a fear, legitimate fear, that things were getting out of hand, and something had to be done so the people roger worked for and that i worked for, i think, shared that view. >> i got a letter from an irate viewer who accused me of being an unpatriotic american, a communist, a hand maiden for the left wing and dismissed me out of hand and at the bottom, it said, ps, i watch your show every night, and i enjoy it a lot. >> what's the question here? >> what were you most proud of in your reporting, and what might have you done differently looking back? >> i was proud of getting a page one story at 27 years old. i thought that was terrific. i was proud of the fact that they trusted me coverage.

i was really very lucky. today, if you're 27 years old, you're an intern at "politico," but at that time, the tribune made a terrific decision to start a new column by evans and novak, and the congressional correspondent of the tribune, now a columnist, so there was an open slot, and they said, hey, andy, how about covering the hill? i said, fine, and the next thing that happened was the civil rights bill, so that really was a great time in my life. >> yeah, i think if i may say so, i was most proud of nobody knowing what i thought. not the senators. not the audience. it's hard to do. it's the best way to do it. >> question in the back.

>> do you get the sense of the opponents in the bill, from any of the opponents of the bill that they actually believed that it was the right thing to do to pass the bill, but because of their concern about their political futures and who they were representing, that they had to oppose it and participate in a filibuster, did you get any sense of that from any of the opponents. >> look, these people had a tremendous investment in what they believed was our way of life, which was jim crow, and the last thing they wanted to do was to give that up, and public accommodations was key to that, and so at every stage, they were not interested in compromising. they didn't want to see the south change, and they believed maybe accurately, maybe inaccurate, that this bill was

directed to the old confederacy, and the rest of the country, it was not important, so the feelings on the part of the opponents of being beleaguered were, i mean, we were writing that, and that was very evident. would you agree? >> there were a few bill william fulbright comes to mind. he refused to sign the southern manifes manifesto, but -- and he was a faint-hearted participant in the filibustering, and without his ever having said so, i think he had serious, grave misgivings about the maintaining the segregated country. >> that was an exception, yeah.

>> yeah. >> question here. >> how did foreign leaders respond to the process? comment publicly, privately, do you know? >> did you hear from foreign leaders or foreigners? how did the story play outside the united states? >> i don't know. >> don't know. maybe you could answer the question. i don't know. >> i suspect it's impossible to explain the filibuster to anyone else in the world. even in the united states it's hard to explain. >> question? >> you were -- sorry, you were in the '60s, and then today, if you had a bill as big as that and members of congress to navigate then versus today where journal newspapers is disappearing, everything's on the internet, comedy central, more people get news from comedy

central, the way people vote, the people who are in congress, can you compare and contrast then versus now? >> how differently would it be reported today as it was then? >> say that again. >> how differently would the story have been reported today than you were able to report it in the 1960s. >> would have still been behind closed doors, still that difficult in. and, i mean, that's always the barrier for the press. there would be the advantage for television to having, and that would have provide d that would have provided central elements of the coverage, but what went on on the floor then and now

remains slightly off the center of gravity for the story. >> two important changes between then and now, one is that your sources, which were mainly the principles, trusted reporters and reporters had almost a visceral sense of what you could walk out the door and write, what you could kind of use, but not attribute, and what you were told that you could never even tell your wife, and that was all gone. that doesn't exist today. the second great advantage to print people opposed to roger, is that we had some leisure. i could take the whole day and think about what happened that day and write it and people would be quite content picking up the "new york times" the next

day finding out what happened. not only that, if something important happened, i could have another day to call other people and say, hey, this important thing happened, what do you think about it? i'd have another day, maybe a sunday story, we call a violin to look at the big picture, what's going on with the bill, and so there was leisure is not the word because we worked very hard, and we had a better sense of thyme, and in my opinion, the public was better served by that kind of pace than it is today. >> well, i'm afraid we haven't anymore time for questions at this stage, but i wanted to point out the public depends on knowledge for reporting, and historians, of course, are dependent on it because this is the first rough draft of history, people on the firing line, writing the story as it happened, and going back and reading the stories and reading your accounts of what was going

on you called the story really quickly, and as a historian, i'm relieved to know i could use your materials to recreate a past, a time when i was not here and able to see this, and so i want to thank you, and i want to thank everyone for coming, and i want to thank, in particular, the staff of the senator historical office, you notice the pictures up here, the ones organize i organizing things, and i hope you have a chance to look at the pictures as well after the session, and thank you, all, for coming today. up next, author todd purdman

on his book, he was at the national institution seconstitur an hour. >> i'm the chancellor at rutgers university in camden right across the river and also professor of law and history, and it's really my honor and pleasure to be with you this evening and to share a little time with todd. todd is a contributing editor at "vanity fair" and senior writer at "politico," and former columnist at the "new york times," and idea whose time has come. todd, it's a pleasure to be with you. >> really, it's my pleasure. >> we're going to talk, and there's a lot of opportunity for audience questions, and i think you already have some note cards that have been passed around in case you want to ask a question. so, todd, it's the 50th anniversary of thesivity rights act of 1964, a reason to write

the book, but talk about your personal journey to writing the book. there must have been other things that drew you particular to this story. >> i had occasion to think about this week because i've been asked that question more than once, and i have an editor, colin murphy, the editor of "the atlantic monthly", and he's been off me to write a book that would be manageable, not a ten-year project, but three years or so, and three and a half years ago, he reminded me the anniversary is coming up. he said, you know, i think you ought to take a look at it. it's always a chapter or section in somebody else's book. it's not a book of its own. i did a little preliminary research and absolutely fascinated to find things didn't know how the bill was passed incoming with overwhelming bipartisan support it was passed, and i was embarrassed to realize i was not sanctions, really, but i was alive during the passage of that bill, and moreover in the winter of 1964, i grew up in illinois, my family

took a car trip, a vacation, spring break to florida, and m sure we went back in 1965, there had to be a difference, but i didn't know what it was. i thought it i owed it to myself and children to find out about it. i grew up in illinois, knew of senator dirksen's role, and i lost it, but there's a picture of me autographed by dirksen. he was a friend of my grandfather's, and as i did research, it was a rich and incredible story this is, beautiful personalities, both races and both pears, not as remembered as they should be, and that was the satisfying part for me digging into the story. >> excellent. it is rich with stories, as you just said, so many people not remembered. i want to get to them in a second, but to set up that conversation, you know, the battle of our civil rights is century's old and on going. >> and ongoing. >> won't be done ever probably.

could you tell us a little bit about what you see as major issues in the early '60s they dealt with that advocates and legislators talk about ats major things? >> well, basic reality was that a hundred years after the civil war and the war was unfulfilled and equality in the eyes of the law was not a reality in large parts of the country, and it was awkward for john kennedy even has the 61-62 went on, there were commemorations of thissing act and anniversary of that, and when it came around, he was very stymied on what to do because he didn't want to do because he didn't want ignore it or make a big deal because it was too clear the promise of emancipation was not vicinindic, and what happened is court ruled in the brown case. deliberate was a word, slow.

but, of course, it was not honored in large parts of the country and had not addressed the question of segregation and public accommodations, lunch counters, hotels, and so on, and it began to seem to a generations of ampbs who served in world war ii, in europe, other places, they did not experience that jim crow discrimination, 15, 18 years later, seemed completely untanble, and, of course, in the spring of 1963, all the demonstrations culminated, starting with the freedom rides in 1961, olk miss, a riot, and then dr. king and ralph and the other sclc demonstrators had incredible days in birmingham with fire hoses and police dogs were turned on young people and children, knocking them to the streets, and the world was outraged and president kennedy too in part because he realized

it was a horrible international black eye for the country in the cold war, and finally after years of equivocation, he was moved to have a bill. >> kpfs comprehensive. public accommodations was one of the major issues of the fact throughout the south african americans could not stay the night at a hotel, eat at a restaurant. that was one part. discrimination in the workplace. >> initial popes were considered to be weak and disappointing to the community. they didn't have any enforcement teeth. involved contractors, not the private sector in the beginning. >> voting rights? >> there's some, and not abolition of literacy test, but insistence they are the same, and the bill did not to state and local elections, just federal elections. provision to cut off funds to state and local programs that received federal money that were discriminated, that was controversial for some people,

and making permanent the civil rights act, and establishing some other agencies of community relations service to help mediate disputes. those were the principle things, and the real heart and soul was the public accommodations section, principle and symbolic, affecting the daily lives of african-americans, and martin louiser king himself spent his honeymoon in the only place available to them in the rural area where they got married which was the extra bedroom of a black funeral parlor. >> strikes me it was only 50 years ago. you have a great vignette. you mentioned about the emancipation proclamation. tell everyone where president kennedy was. >> well, on the day that they had a commemoration of the lincoln memorial of the first draft in the fall of 1962, he was at the american cup races

off newport watching the races, and on board his vessel was a young student named john kerry, and so he was there and rockefeller came to new york in person, and to the degree they were for either party a republican issue, and governor rockefeller not only came and spoke, but brought with him one of the most precious possessions, the draft of the proclamation in lincoln's own hand, and kennedy was incensed and worried about rockefeller as a potential opponent in 1964 so when lincoln's birthday rolled around in february of 1963, he decided to have a big reception for about 800 african-americans in the white house, the largest gathering at that point, and he was incensed to find his friend davis brought his white wife, and he was so mad that he want to make sure there were no

pictures of them at all and asked to be pulled aside, and mad at the request, she left the party in tears, and it got a lot of attention, the black press completely ignored in the white press, and there's a marvelous picture of them all sitting awkwardly in the diplomatic reception room trying to put the best face on the occasion. >> and there was the demand to the to be there that day. uncomfortable -- >> about what to do. what are you going to do about it, he didn't want to answer. >> amazing. i hope we can come back to president kennedy and johnson. as you point out, so often in the book, there's interesting people who played a role in this, and you can't talk about all of them, but a few of them. >> certainly two, mitchell, the lobbyist in washington, african-american, went to law school, got his degree shortly before the whole civil rights debate, the bill.

he was such a persistence presence on capital hill, he was the 101st senator when only five members of congress were black. born in baltimore, lived there, commuted to washington every day. didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't walk in the crosswalk until it turned green because he didn't want to get in trouble, and he was just incredibly brave and patient and diligent, and went out of the way to establish relationships with the most hard core segregationists, and, in fact, on the day that the cloture was voted in the senate and the filibuster was broken, he walked the leader of the filibuster, dick russell of georgia, back to the office just as a gesture of courtly gentlemanship, and it's hard to imagine something like that happening today. the other unsung hero, impossible not to admire, a conservative republican congressman from ohio named william mccullen, home in the west central part of the state is today represented by john

boehner, and he opposed gun control, opposed federal aid to education, bus he was descended from abolitionists and a die hard supporter of civil rights, and in the summer of 1963 as president kennedy proposed the bill, there was a deal with the kennedy justice department in the white house that if they would promise not to water it down in the senate as it happened in 1957 and 1960, if they promised to give the republicans equal credit, he'd use the clout with the kau cause to passed bill, and, of course that was necessary because the democrats were split and the southerners were opposed to the bill, and it had the affect of forcing the kennedy administration and johnson add mgs to attempt something never succeeded, which was to break a filibuster on the senate. this one man, and people, as in the know, as the attorney

general, and kennedy are on record saying he thought at the end of the day, he was the single most important force in getting the actual legislation passed. i mean, it has a thousand fathers of the legislation, fathers and mothers, and someone said they discussed the questions with one of president johnson's daughters, linda or lucy, and asked him at the time the bill was passed why he'd given so many pens to the senate republican leader when dr. king was responsible for getting the bill passed, and president johnson supposed by said to her, dr. king passed the bill, but senator dirksen made the law. it's an interesting distinction, but i think that there's credit to go around, and nice to give it to the people who are forgotten. >> oh, wonderful. could you talk for a couple minutes about this interesting question for us today about the

breakdown of opinion on civil rights among the legislators? as you pointed out, in fact, it was a republican issue in a lot of ways. this was a period of change. >> it was a period of change, and in the aftermath of the period of the law, he worry he gave it out to the republicans for a generation, and the republicans over that period went gradually, but steadily, from being the party of lincoln to the party of white backlash, and it's, frankly, there's still southern democrats in congress who are just republicans now, and the republicans, faced problems at the national brand as we saw in 2008 and 2012, and the republican nominee nearly lost, you know, the republican incumbent nearly lost, and all the things that helped the republicans in the midterm year that their individual districts where the big worry is getting primary from the tea party or the right hurt them at the national level, and in some real way in the past 250 years the parties flipped their roles on race and civil rights and a host of things.

>> not only president johnson, but president kennedy did too, i think, one of the many virtues of the book, you captured kennedy's ambivalence, not morality, but how much progress could be made in civil rights and political concern. tell us about -- >> i think it's very interesting. it's indisputable he temperized for a long time and came slowly to the cause. what i set out to find and give credit to a wonderful journalists, nick bryant, called "the bystander," but how many black people or what kind of black people had kennedy known before he was president? the answer was his two valets, and he didn't really have any exposure in the 1960 campaign, a black dentist in san francisco asked him how many black professionals he knew, and he didn't know more than five to call by their first name, but promised to get better about it. one of the moving things that happened to him in the crowded first two years of the

administration was he had an unbelievably fast education on the topic, and by the time he finally plo lly proposed the bi radicalized, but made aware of how unfair the situation was, how insidious it was, and what black people had to bear in life, and when he made the speech proposing the bill, he decided to do it on such short notice that the text was not finished, and he went on the air. can you imagine the president beginning on live television with the most important speeches of the entire presidency and it's not finished? the last two and a half minutes, he adds libs, and you can tell because he circles back to points made before, but the advantage of that, and he was such, as we know, commandsing, you know, presence, is that he spoke extemporaneously, and not just off the cuff, but from the heart in saying things like this just seems to be an elemental right to me, and it was confe conversational and had the effect of being more powerful.

another thing, his speech writer had strong language like saying things like zest pools of segregation exist all over the country. kennedy changed it to area, and he said, a revolution is at hand, and kennedy said, a great change is at hand. it was a revolution for me as what a great editor can do. in this case, the president was the editor. >> so interesting. of course his transmission completed by connor, the events everyone saw at the time, hard not to take a position given what you talk about and most people know about. >> exactly. he shocked the civil leaders in the white house that day, you shouldn't be so harsh on bull connor, and there was a sharp intake of breath, until he said, after all, he's done more for civil rights than anyone. they then relaxed. >> you captured the complexity of lyndon johnson, a flawed person, but contributed greatly to progress in this area.

tell us how he approached this question, and talk to us about what he did to get the bill past. >> you know, in popular myth, the bill is seen as a result of king's and morals and legislation skill. johnson brought to bear tremendous knowledge how the senate worked, lobbied members to vote for cloture, bring the debate to a close, but i think it's also the most important thing to remember is how careful he was not to be too heavy-handed because he knew it could backfire. early in the vice president si, he tried to win the right to preside over the caucus, and they resoundingly rejected the idea and humiliated by it. you tell from the secret white house tapes they made, that he's going nuts about the pace that the senate debate is taking under the leadership of the majority leader and the democratic floor leader on the bill, and he wants them to go hold run the clock sessions, and, you know, make the senate

come in pajamas, and they think that's impractical, and if they talk themselves to death, exhaust all argue arguments, the energy of the debate will change and swing around and the pro-civil rights forces have the advantage. president johnson deserves all the credit he gets, but he deserves it because he held himself and tremendous impulsiveness and tremendous ego in check, and he never waivered from saying we have to pass the strongest possible bill, the bill pending in the house at the time of the president's death. we're not going to wheem and deal and compromise, not do all the things i'm known for, but pass the strong bill. >> of course, the core of the book is the legislative process from enter duction of the bill toot passage, and there's so many wonderful vip yets and aspects of that, that process you described, and it's a torturous process, and in the future, how do you compare it to today, but first, talk about the process. >> so many things could have

gone wrong, in the house judiciary committee, the most liberal in the party tried to load the bill up, relieved to have an actual bill they loaded up with provisions. for example, they wanted to apply to state and local elections, have strong employment discrimination measures that they said, oh, this can't pass the full house much less pass the senate. one of the last things kennedy did in terms of legislative negotiations was to very adroitly in contrast to the reputation as not being a very good legislation craftsman, he really rained that in and got the committee to pass a bill that was strong and had teeth in it and would be enforceable, but not such a christmas tree of things that it would all fall apart. that's one thing in the process. when the bill got to the house floor, the challenge was not to keep it from being too strong,

but keep it from being weakened on the floor, and because they conducted debate in what's known as the committee of the whole, votes were not recorded by and large, and the only way to know how someone voted was to be there physically and watch, and except for reporters, no one could take notes on paper in the house gallery so the forces led by clarence mitchell and others devised a system of gallery watchers, the segregationists called them vultures, but they had to sit there and keep notes in their head who was voting how, what amendment, and in the precell phone era, had to round up family members to make sure enough were on the floor at any one time to defeat hostile legislative mischief, so a bunch of young activists led by a woman working for the textiles who is still alive fighting all the fights, would sit in a telephone tree and they heard something was happening on the floor, they would physically go run office to office, going come

on, and after three days of this, they said, you don't have to come, i'm coming. she felt guilty when it was over, she stayed up baking sugar cookies with chocolate frosting and equal signs. >> is it accurate to say this was maybe one of the first modern lobbying efforts? >> i think in that way it was a very much one of the first grassroots lobbying efforts and crucial part i did not talk about yet is the ground swell of religious interfaith support for the bill, and across all denominations, and it was applied not willie-nilly, but in a targeted way. the northern and eastern democrats knew that labor unions could play a role because politicians in those states were motivated by things like organized labor, but in the midwest and plain states, republicans disproportionally,

those movements did not have the same, and, in fact, could have backfired, and those members had no large black constituenciecon but had methodists,p baptists, d they lobbied senators one by one, and, you know, day after day with their law school classmates from notre dame or their bishops, and muttering in the cloak room one day after taking a vote to procedurely support the bill, i hope that satisfies the two bishops who called me last night, and it was saltier than that, and that was a remarkable application of strategic lobbying that, in some ways, continued the next year with the voting rights act. we have not seen it again. we tend to think of religious activism being the political right, but this was the last full firing of the religious left. >> tickets to the senate, a lot

of interesting characters too. tell us about senator dirksen who you knew. >> yeah, well senator dirksen is irresistible. he was known as the wizard of ooze. he had a magnificent his diet cigarettes male ox and bourbon. he once described the rub lickating lube lickating properties and he kept a clock in his office where a lot of negotiations took place and every hour was marked five so it was always an appropriate time for a drink. the deputy attorney general told me the challenge in negotiating in the evening was to get his agreement fons on any of the

amendments because while legislative language could be redrafted once without changing its meaning to do it a second time was much harder. so that was one colorful character. >> but he comes along. >> he comes along. his interest was -- from the very beginning he said i'm for this accept for public accommodations and employment discrimination which is really the heart of the bill but his concern was he recented very deeply that he did not get more credit with black voters in illinois for having a civil rights record. he was always against the poll tax, lynching. way back in the 30s when he was a freshman member of congress. his home state of illinois already had strong anti-discrimination statutes on the books. as a good mid-western conservative, he did not want a second layer of federal bureaucracy to go in and pester

businessmen. he had a they of little changes but the big change he made was giving states that had their own effective anti-discrimination laws first crack at enforcement before the federal government would come in and the southern earns correctly surmised that this would be the affect of making the law focus almost completely on legal segregation in the south not de facto segregation like in philadelphia or chicago and also a it was a zrib ra drib raet effort to round up support. >> when we talk about grid lock and how difficult it is to get anything done in 1964 that you wrote so well about. the process was not so pretty in 1964. >> it wasn't pretty but it

wasn't so visible either. i know it sounds strange as a journalist but this story is a great testament to the uses of secrecy a lot of these negotiations happen between closed doors. because of the senate refused to consider the bill or take it seriously, they had to create a kind of ad hawk committee made up of lawyers, friendly senators, interest group who's could behind close doors hammer out a compromise. the interesting thing is several people who participated in those sessions most were in their late 20s or early 30s. the ones that were staill alive a glow comes into their eyes. people could test their assumptions and throw out a trial balloon without having to have a chart for csp a, n or repeat the tired old talking points to satisfy the base.

i think there's a lot to be said for t for the smoke-filled room. >> we should go back to reporters have to write things down. >> it's always better to see it yourself so. >> very good. i this i we're going to have some questions. so as we pull over the questions that the audience had do you want to tell the audience you were just telling me before about roger ails. >> on the occasion of the recent death of joe mcinnis. the president -- candidate nixon had a series of town halls that were taped for television and were shown on the air but ales described how the process would work which is that the audience members would fill out their question cards and come to the team of the campaign and rewritten and passed onto nixon

and answered just the questions that his staff want him to answer but they looked like they were coming from the audience. >> i might put them in a certain order but i promise not to edit them. one of the questions we have is who the civil rights act have passed if nixon had won in 1964? >> i think it probably would have because, you know, in 1957 when the civil rights act was pending on the senate floor and lbj scaled it back and dropped the provision and then promiezed on the jury trial provision, nixon was in tears and he was distraught. he was very close to clarence mitchell. he had a good regard on civil rights. in 1960 when john kennedy

famously called, nixon didn't do it because he thought it would look like a grandstand play and he didn't want to be accused of exploiting it. there's a scene of witnessing jackie robinson leave 96on's hotel suite in tears having to try to persuade him, no, it's the right thing to do. of course kennedy did the poll thing and got the credit for it. it might have made the difference in place like illinois because it flew under the radar of the white press t. was seen as a huge gesture in the black community so much so that because of kennedy's call he would vote for him. john kennedy understood about

fathers. a different kind of question. i'm so glad that one of our audience members wanted to ask you to tell us about richard russell and his role and what was his -- and also about his relationship with president johnson. >> well, richard russell was from georgia. his father had been a justice and chief justice of the supreme court. he had been a governor. he had come to washington during the new deal. he was a basic supporter of franklin roosevelts releelect riffication but he was a segregationalist and a hopeless racist. he was raised in an era where he was taught by his ancestors to believe that the civil war was a noble lost cause and that it wasn't 2:00 in the afternoon on july three, 1963 and the

confederacy might prevail. so he knew the world was changing. he knew he was fighting a losing battle. he made up his mind that he was going to fight it as hard as he could because he felt that's what he had to do for his constituen constituency. his relationship with president johnson was close. johnson had made its his business to cozy up to russell. he called him the old master. russell was a very shy and somewhat sad bachelor but the johnson family managed to entice him to a lot of sunday dinners at their house. he loved their daughters like his own. he gave one of them -- lucy when she got married he gave her an autographed copy of the gone with the wind as her wedding present. i guess the best thing you could say about him is after the fail buster was over and he lost, he stood right up and said it's our duty to obey it. it's the law of the land.

we have to comply with it and there will be no monkey businesses about trying to have action. i contrast that to -- he was not without class. >> it's so fascinating so there are three senate office buildings and one of them is named off dixon and russell. the third is named off philip hart. who was a supporter of this bill and tragically died. >> excellent. all right. let's find another good question. so this is really a follow-up to something we've been talking about but it's just so -- i know that people are thinking about it. two interesting things politicians that allow their believes to evolve and the need for bipartisanship an the question is, of course, are these dead in today's environment. you live in washington d.c., yes? >> you don't see many examples of it.

and certainly don't see many examples of really political courage in confronting these questions or to put it another question, i mean, bill mucollec from ohio, his district was 2.7% black. he just thought it was the right thing to do. he realized his leadership of the caucus would be in jeopardy was he was seen -- imagine this. it's aprn election year. 1964 is an election year. the republican party instead of saying to johnson, your problem is you have a bunch of hate filled people in your party and you can't resolve this issue. you have large majorities in both houses but it's your own fault you can't fix it. don't blame us. we will go to the polls and see which party they like better. instead they removed civil rights as an issue by cooperating to pass the bill. i think it would be hard to

believe that their consultants and pollsters would let them do anything like that today. i think i often look at speaker boehner and your heart goes out to him pause he's a thoroughly decent guy at heart. if it were up to him he would made a bunch of deals on a lot of topics but he as he said on jay leno a leader without followers doesn't have an interest to taking a walk. >> doesn't he lose his leadership? >> he loses his leadership seat not because of civil rights narrowly defined but because they thought he was too high-handed and too willing to cooperate with the democrats without willing to consult with the party. >> an interesting story of courage but also some connection to today. >> he did in fact lose his leadership role. >> yeah. so one of the many virtues of the book is you really master of arcane rules of the house and

senate of that period. we've had a hot of talk about the filibusterer lately. can you compare and contrast on bipartisanship irk the main difference is when everyone threatened a filibusterer and in the current situation it's usually the republicans, everyone collapses that heap and gives up an says we're not even going to try to change your mind. in this case and a lot of the veteran aids whom i talked to from that era are going nuts when they watch cspan now because they say that harry reed should actually make the opponents conduct a real filibusterer and make them hold the floor and let all of their business grind to a halt and put pressure on them from the country to say what are you doing with this spectacle instead of having a kind of filibusterer like ted cruz in green eggs and ham which isn't a filibusterer at all. the other thing i did not

understand is in a filibusterer it'sibusterers who have the burden, it's the people who are trying to break the filibusterer who have the burden because at any moment somebody can call and they have to produce 51 warm bodies in real time which meant they had to set up an elaborate system of on duty rosters and people would be ready to interrupt their dinner or get out of bed and come in and be present because under the rules of the senate if it could not be mustered there are all kinds of arcane procedural thing that would kick in but it would basically reset the clock on the whole debate giving them even more time and speeches to delay the tactics. so that's partly where humphrey knew that running the senate around the clock would simply exhaust the good guys in their view and make them willing to compromise with the southerners in a way they found no useful. but i think the huge difference

is there aren't really real filibusterers anymore. there are these threatened ones and everyone gives up. >> you had a great vignette about opening day of the senators game. >> in 1964 they all went to the opening day of the baseball game. you thought for one day they could enjoy the national past time. the senator of florida noted the on sense of de core om and a close friend of tai cobb sat there watching the game because he didn't have to go back. >> another question. how many people did you interview and what types of source materials did you use in writing this book? >> i think i probably intervi interviewed something on the order of a couple of dozen people because frankly it was a race against time and death to find some of them. >> could you mention a few?

>> one of the ones i was especially proud of fighting. dirkson had a special aid named cornelious kennedy. dirkson says papers are held in illinois in a library that's defvoted to him. even the people at the library did not know whether he was dead or alive. thanks to the internet and creative searching. i found that he was in fact alive at 91 living in virginia. he suffered a series of very severe strokes which impaired his short term memory and not his long term memory. he went to have a wonderful morning with him and he was very frail but very clear-eyed of the times another one was a wonderful guy named jon stewart

who worked for humphrey. he's very much alive. still thriving. h his son is in the tennessee legislature. the final one that i found everyone remembers john lynnind as the mayor of new york. i kept seeing references to a legislative aid of his named robert kimbal. my default assumption was that the people were dead because some of them were in their 40s then so i just did a google search of robert kimbal and john lindsey. was that this was the robert kimbal better known to me as the leading historian and the executor of the complete lyrics of everyone who is very much alive and i called them and wed the most wonderful visit.

he started ou as a young civil rights loyal and wound up being this dean of musical theaters scholars. >> that's interesting. >> all because of the internet and you can track people down. >> thank you. another question. what was barry goldwaters role in opposing the bill. how did this opposition different from southern democrats. >> his opposition was really routed in the same kind of li libertarian stay out of my business philosophy which later led him to saying he had no objection to gays serving in the military. he was one of only six republicans in the senate to oppose the bill. he did so on civil liberties grounds saying the interference with private property that the public accommodations section could create a kind of national police force and a culture of snooping and big brother and ratting people out. i think he was sincere in that. i mean, he don't think he was a

racist as the final speeches were being made, the new york times recorded that dirkson looked at barry goldwater in the eye to shame him but two weeks later nominated him. it was a paradox that one of the republicans that opposed the bill became nominated that year. >> so staying in arizona, you'll see why i said that, what lesson can immigration reform advocated take away from the pass anl of the civil rights act. >> this is something i thought about a lot when i was finishing up the book and beginning to talk about it with other people. i do wonder why religious groups, the national conference of catholic bishops, and there is a big strain in that of feed of least of us kind of thing. i wonder why they have not yet coalesced into some kind of broader more active effort at

highlighting immigration as kind of a moral issue and not just an economic and political one. i think that if there would be any hope of moving members of congress on that question it would be that kind of an effort. i've been a little bit surprised that nothing like that has happened. the other thing that was both depressing and inspiring to for me about writing the book was 50 years ago we like to think of ourselves as living in a uniquely divisive and uncivil age. there's nothing in the meanest internet flame war that cover be said and there's nothing that has been said with barack obama that wasn't said in some way about john kennedy or linden johnson or the supporters of civil rights. it's kind of eerie when you go to the library and you see these people taking the trouble to sit down -- women especially in their perfect penmanship and use the n word and say these hateful things to the president. i found a post card in the

kennedy library on the night of the march on washington, that evening, there was post marked from huntington west virginia, a letter addressed john f. kennedy, care of martin luther king, the white house, washington d.c. the letter read grab the vote, you just lost mine. people would put this on paper. it's well to remember that we're not the only generation that's suffering with a lack of good manners. >> yeah. >> all right. so moving to another body that played a big role in civil rights. so there's a present question but i also invite you to talk about the supreme court in that period. the question is now that the supreme court has got the voting rights act. i'm sure you've got this question before, is the civil rights act next? >> that question has been asked to me three times in the past 36 hours. i think some advocates of civil rights worry that the current courts emfphasis and just this

morning the decision on the campaign finance case that the whole elevation of private property rights and this whole question in the hobby lobby case about religious liberty and who would be entitled to withhold service from what groups on what groupeds, i think people do worry that some of this body of law is at risk. the problem with the voting rights act comes back again to the dysfunctional of the our current politics. in that case the court had been warping congress for years that had needed to do something about addressing and updating this formula. because the congress knew that to touch it at all would be to lead to a tremendous unraveling of -- so the congress punted and got what it deserved in a way which was this rebuke from the court. i think it's interesting to hear people like congressman looseui and people who were there on the front lines 50 years ago, i

think they are very mindful that this fight is an an going one and there needs to be constant vigilance and it's wonderful that there's an african-american president but it's not the end of the journey. it's just part of the journey. >> i think the voting rights act the specific provision that was declared unconstitutional was even more aggressive in terms of its intrusion than the civil rights act not that our supreme court would find problem with the civil rights act also but they are not exactly the same. >> they are not exactly parallel. could you talk to us a little bit about if you came across any involvement of supreme court justices in this period. so obviously after the civil rights act of 1964, maybe you want to talk about that. also, i'm sure you're aware that the president and supreme court justices talked much more frequently or openly than they do now? >> yes and played poker. >> yeah. >> the thing that you pointed ot

was that by december of 1964 the court had upheld the public accommodations section, that part of the law. there's a very good piece in the current issue of the atlantic monthly about a series of books, including mine and a progressfe of law at yale. i did realize this whole situation where there was a case pe pending before the court and it involved this very question about whether the federal government could apply either the 14th amendment to preefate actors. the justice was afraid if the court decided the issue it would create another back lash akin to what happened with brown. it would take the heat off congress to pass a strong law and resolve the issue lenl la legislatively. so he managed to get them to delay dealing with it long enough that the law was passed

in the meantime and they didn't have to take action. if i misdescribed some aspect of that, i cop a plea. that's basically the outline of what happened. it's a have interesting window into the fact that the supreme court is than and now not a political institution and certainly a human institution as well. >> yeah. yeah. all right. a couple of more questions. i asked that one already. so i know you're asked this question a lot too. you bring it up in your book. it's fair game to talk about the fact that we have a black president. i was just reading today an article in the new york times there's a big debate about the president's -- president obama's statements toward african-americans an he's being criticized by some african-americans by being too critical of african-americans. i'm not asking you to answer that question. i'm inviting you to talk about

where we stand today and how writing this book has made you think differently about where we stand today having an african-american president and how our politics have changed with regard to race? >> well, i think it has been striking that with the exception of his remarkable speech during the campaign in 2008 about race which was made this this building, wasn't it. >> it was. >> he's had trouble addressing the question of race as the first black president in part because he is the first black president. i have a working theory, hard to prove that the times when he's gotten into the most trouble have been as with skip gate's case in cambridge when he criticized the police or when he said he had a son he would look like trevoron. there are the moments where he faces an enormous back lash from the right saying how dare you

say this. >> if bill clinton had said similar things he would have not have faced the same back lash. i think he has a singular burden and trends very lightly on this. it is paradoxical that by his person, he has done so much to elevate the topic but it's hard for them talk about openly. to me one of the most remarkable documents of his presidency was a young afric around american boy came into the oval office and the president leaned forward so he could touch his hair and the boy was touching hair like his. that was a picture that sent a thousand words. it is interesting though when you ask about that because in the spring of 1963 robert kennedy had a meeting with black intlikt yuellectuals in new yor profoundly affected his thinking. he wanted to make the case that the kennedy administration was doing more than anyone had ever

done and indeed, it was. they made the case back to him yeah but it's not nearly enough. if this is the best white america can do, it's pretty terrible. he tried to say to them look, look, 100 years ago my ancestors came from ireland and they were completely impoverished and now my brother is the president. there's no reason why he couldn't have a negro president in 40 years. he was wrong by five years. >> yeah. interesting. a couple of other questions. so there are a lot of other things going on in this period. one of the interesting stories that you tell is how the issues around economic policy, they get intwined but than disentangled with the civil rights issue particularly the tax law that president kennedy wants to pass. tell us a little bit about that vignette. >> well, it's interesting. they do get -- first of all i

didn't really realize until i started this research how crowded those first 2 1/2 years of the kennedy administration were. the day he made the speech proposing the bill that morning the university of alabama had been integrated by james hood and vivian malone and that four hours after the speech they was shot. lbj is juggling calls with hoover with that and members of congress about the bill. what you reference is the president's principal domestic le ledge slative priority was to get a tax cut. they thought you should not have a tax cut because you couldn't afford it. one of the people that was most against that tax cut was harry bird of virginia who was a

segregationist. so the challenge was to get support from senator bird to move the tax cut along so you could clear it out of the way because linden johnson knew if the tax bill was still pending when the debate of the civil rights bill came up they would be hopelessly entangled. the second point you made the incompleteness of the 1964 civil rights act and the part of the story that is so unfinished is the economic inequality that persists in america today. on the day he proposed the bill president kennedy sited the statistics for a black and white baby born on the same day. they involved life expectancy, access to college. on the questions of access to opportunity, equality, a lot of blacks are infinitive better

today. on the question of earning power, it's eerily the same. that part of the story is definitely unfinished. when president obama talks about the growing inequality gap, i suspect down in aft inn at the lbj library there will be plenty of speakers trying to grapple with that j of course lendon johnson did try to address those issues. maybe i'm pushing this too far but it seems -- an argument could be made that the 1964 act really was a turning point in the 60s too that we look at those two periods as distinct. >> there's the early 60s that stopped around 1964. >> yeah. >> and there was common agreement about the civil ryiigs act even though you proved there wasn't. and then we got into this other aspect and also economic improvement that johnson is trying to create where we still have disagreements about all of

those laws. >> just days after the 1965 voting rights act was passed, the watt's riots erupted. how do you address long-standing imbalances, the civil rights act was to be colorblind and race newt raxt the thinking was if you just remove the barriers, people can thrive and talent and nature will take the coriurse. of course we've seen that's not true. it's eerily poignant because it's kind of the last -- it's sort of the end of the 50s in a way. i guess the assassination is the end of the 50s but the 64 civil rights act is the last moment of real national unit on anything. after that we into territory that's much more familiar feeling about the division that's persist.

>> two questions about the people that you talked to. looking back is that how they looked at it. did you talk about this at all about your interviewers. it doesn't seem to me that they really -- >> no, i think at the time they were so focused on getting the bill passed and getting a foot in the door, i think they knew that it wouldn't finish the job and the ardent civil rights supporters knew there were another things that had to be done but that you could never go back and back slide all the way. i think it's also clear from history and humphrey says that nothing in the law should be interpreted as even allowing quotas in hiring. i think many people who supported it would not have supported if they would have thought it would have led to affirmative action.

he thought a great deal of it came from the practical hopes of members of congress that passing the bill would stop the demonstrations and stop the disorder in the streets. of course the disorder in the streets got worse. so that's part of it. but i want moved in talking to people many of whom are now, you know, have had rich, full long lives of doing other things. when they talk about this, they get a certain tone in their voice and they knew that then and they are proud now that they were living in really amazing times. >> yeah, yeah. well, so it's just wonderful that you were able to capture that. i want to thank you for this conversation and thank you for that book. i think that leaves us a little optimism that maybe this could happen again. that moment that you capture. >> well, we got through the civil war so we're still hanging in here. as dr. franklin said opt steps just across the street, the lady who supposedly asked him what have you given us. a republican if you can keep it so it's really our job to keep it. todd is available forevery weekn

primetime during congressional recesses on c-span 3. commenting on the anniversary of the signing president obama said," the civil rights act transformed the concepts of justice equality and democracy for generations to come and brought us closer to making real the declaration at the heart of our founding, that we are all created equal." now the 1964 civil rights act signing ceremony. this is a half hour. my fellow americans, i am about to sign into law the civil rights act of 1964. i want to take this occasion to talk to you about what that law

means to every american. 188 years ago this week, a small band of valient men began a long struggle for freedom. they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. not only to found a nation, but to forge an ideal of freedom. not only for political independence, but for personal liberty. not only to eliminate foreign rule, but to establish the rule of justice. and the affairs of men. that struggle was a turning point in our history. today in far corners of distant continents the ideals of those american patriots still shape the struggles of men who hunger

for freedom. this is a proud triumph, yet those who founded our country knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning. from the minute man at concord to the soldiers in vietnam, each generation has been equal to that trust. americans of every race and color have died in battle to protect our freedom. americans of every race and color have worked to build a nation of widening opportunities. now our generation of americans has been called on to continue

the unending search for justice within our own borders. we believe that all men are created equal. yet many are denied equal treatment. we believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. yet many americans do not enjoy those rights. we believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. yet millions are being deprived of those blessings. not because of their own failures. but because of the color of their skin. the reasons are deeply embedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. we can understand without rancor or hatred how this all happened.

but it cannot continue. our constitution, the foundation of our republic forbids it. the principles of our freedom, forbid it. morality forbids it. and the law i will sign tonight forbids it. that law is the product of months of the most careful debate and discussion. it was proposed more than one year ago by our late and beloved president, john f. kennedy. it received the bipartisan support of more than two-thirds of the members of both the house and the senate. an overwhelming majority of republicans as well as democrats voted for it. it has received the thoughtful

support of tens of thousands of civic and religious leaders. in all parts of this nation. and it is supported by the great majority of the american people. the purpose of this law is simple. it does not restrict the freedom of any american so long as he respects the rights of others. it does not give special treatment to any citizen. it does say the only limit to a man's hope for happiness and for the future of his children shall be his own ability. it does say that there are those who are equal before god shall now also be equal in the polling booths, in the classrooms, in the factories and in hotels and restaurants and movie theaters and other places that provide service to the public. i'm taking steps to implement

the law under my constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. first, i will send to the senate my nomination of leroy collins to be director of the community relations service. [ applause ] governor collins will bring the experience of a long career of distinguished public service to the task of helping communities solve problems of human relations through reason and common sense. second, i shall appoint an advisory committee of distinguished americans to assist governor collins in his asignmen. third, i'm sending congress a request for supplemental appropriations to pay for necessary costs of implementing the law and asking for immediate action. [ applause ]

fourth, already today in a meeting of my cabinet this afternoon, i directed the agencies of this government to fully discharge the new responsibilities imposed upon them by through and to do it without delay and to keep me personally informed of their progress. fifth, i'm asking appropriate officials to meet with representative groups to promote greater understanding of the law and to achieve a spirit of compliance. we must not approach the observance and enforcement of this law in a vengeful spirit. its purpose is not to punish. its purpose is not to divide. but to end divisions. divisions which have lasted all too long. its purpose is national, not regional. its purpose is to promote a more

abiding commitment to freedom. a more constant pursuit of justice. and a deeper respect for human dignity. we will achieve these goals because most americans are law-abiding citizens. who want to do what is right. this is why the civil rights act relies first on voluntary compliance. then on the efforts of local communities and states to secure the rights of citizens. it provides for the national authority to step in only when others cannot or will not do the job. this civil rights act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our

hearts to eliminate the last vistages of injustice in our beloved country. so, tonight i urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife, i urge every american to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people and to bring peace to our land. my fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. we must not fail. let us close the springs of racial poison. let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. let us lay aside irrelevant

differences. and make our nation whole. let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise god who is the father of us all. thank you and good night.

[ applause ] >> thank you, sir. >> speaker first. >> thank you.

>> i think we ought to move out. >> here my friend. >> thank you, mr. president. >> we did better today than we did the other day. >> thank you.

>> johnny, you got one? >> you bet. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you.

>> held jobs edgar. glad to see you. hello, phillip, glad to see you. hello, roy. so glad to see you. did anybody talk to you about i wanted to talk to you before you

leave. will you see that the others, i want to talk to them when this is over with. cabinet room. >> mr. president, thank you very much. >> thank you, wayne. thank you, my friend. wayne has approved.

>> this one just won't work.

>> i'll distribute them right now. my daughter's birthday, july 2nd.

>> wayne -- this is my ninth anniversary of my heart attack today. >> this is a good healing bill. >> thank you, mr. president. >> lots of health to you. >> thank you. >> great day. >> thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president, wonderful speech. >> thank you very much.

>> good day. >> thank you. >> stay here. i want to say a word.

>> let's see. tell my staff to make sure we get some more pens here. >> all right. >> thanks.

>> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, mr. president. done like a real pro. >> mr. president, thank you.

>> thank you. great speech. >> thank you. >> get me some more chuck, we're going run out. you got somebody to bring them over?

>> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you very much. >> hello, roy. >> great statement. >> good luck. >> best ever. >> everybody have one. mr. speaker?

>> thank you, mr. president. good to see you. >> mr. president can i have one? >> yes. >> mr. president, so good to see you. >> thank you. >> good to say. >> everybody covered back here? >> i didn't see you. >> anybody else? anybody else? >> thank you. >> can i have one of those for

myself? thank you. >> anybody else? >> thank you very much. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> good day. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. anybody else? did i get them all? >> mr. president just put your hand in there. that's fine. that's good, sir. thank you, kindly. just your hand, sir. that's fine. just fine, mr. president. thank you. thank you. thank you, mr. president. thank you.

thank you very much. thank you. >> just got a couple here for myself. >> thank you.

>> i had it here.

congressional leaders marktd the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act with a u.s. capitol ceremony that included awarding the congressional gold medal to dr. martin luther king, jr. and his wife core letta scott king. this is a little less than an hour. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our honored guest, members of the united states house of representatives, members of the united states senate and the speaker of the united states house of representatives. ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives the honorable john boehner. >> good afternoon and welcome to the united states capitol.

[ applause ] as you can see the dome is under construction. getting some repairs and there's a technical term for that canopy but the architect said we could refor it refer to it as the doughnut. on july 2nd, 1964 congress completed the most fundamental and consequential ladies and gentlemen -- legislation of our long history. the civil rights act recognizes every citizen has the right to pursue happiness without discrimination on grounds of race, color, or national origin. this was a long time coming because of dr. martin luther king, jr. and coretta scott

king. we have with us many special guests. we're grateful for the presence of president johnson's daughter, linda johnson robb along with her husband former senator chuck robb. [ applause ] we're also pleased to have with us members of the king family. let us welcome them all. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the presentation of colors by the united states armed forces lower guard and the singing of our national anthem and the retiring of the colors.

♪ o say, can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's

last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ ♪ and the home of the brave? ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states house of representatives the reverend

patrick conroy gives the invocation. >> let us pray. loving god as congress comes together to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964, may the hands and hearts of this nation be raised in prayer and praise as we remember also a couple whose lives were intimately involved in those great struggles. the reverend dr. martin luther king, jr. and coretta scott king. justifiably considered the first family of the civil rights movement. may the breadth of god uphold their noble and heroic story. may it carry to all generations a message to inspire americans, to accept the responsibility of

protecting the rights and privileges promised in our founding documents for all citizens, no matter their belonging to a numerical minority in our country. may the sacrifices of martin luther and coretta and those of so many who were inspired by them, or who joined them in their struggles for justice echo now and throughout history as a call to us all to be men and women for others, especially for those whose rights are threatened. ed god, bless america. grant us peace and equal justice for all both now and into a greater future for our nation. amen.

>> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, united states representative from the 11th district of ohio and chair of the congressional black caucus the honorable fudge. [ applause ] >> good afternoon. today we commemorate one of the most significant pieces legislation in our history and honor two of the world's greatest leaders, dr. martin luther king, jr. and president lyndon b. johnson exemplify the principles on which our nation was founded. these servant leaders committed their lives to moving america closer to what it can be. due to the work of dr. king and president johnson, i am able to stand here today as the third

african-american and second woman to represent the 11th district of ohio and i greet you on behalf of the 43 members of the congressional black caucus which i'm honored to chair. the civil rights act of 1964, did more than help in the discrimination in america. the civil rights act established legal discrimination would no longer be a barrier to what one could achieve, but that achievement should be solely determined by one's ability and ambition. the civil rights act clarified the difference between all men being created equal, and all men receiving equal treatment. the constitution established one as a principle the civil rights act of '64 established the other as a practice. giving a generation of americans hope that they too could be acknowledged as full citizens of this great nation. as president johnson signed the civil rights act of 1964 into

law, he stated that america's founders knew freedom would only be secure if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning. with the civil rights act and his other great works, president johnson did his part, and to protect our freedom and with his words, activism and sacrifice dr. king did the same. today the responsibility lies with every american, especially those of us in this house. the civil rights movement and the civil rights act of 1964 established equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for every american. and together we must protect it. as dr. king said, the time is always right to do what is right. it is only right that we fulfill the promise of the civil rights act by ensuring every american's right to vote is protected.

let us pass the voting rights amendment act of 2014. [ applause ] now, please join me in reflection as we listen to president johnson's remarks as he signed the civil rights act into law. >> this civil rights act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country. so, tonight i urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife, i urge

every american to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people and to bring peace to our land. my fellow citizens we have come now to a time of testing. we must not fail. let us close the springs of racial poison. let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. let us lay aside irrelevant differences. and make our nation whole. let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise

god who is the father of us all. >> ladies and gentlemen, united states representative from the 5th district of georgia, the honorable george lewis. [ applause ] >> we gather here in the capitol to honor dr. martin luther king, jr. and his beloved wife coretta

scott king. one of the most distinguished husband and wife teams of the 20th century. often history remembers speeches or facts and figures, but i cannot forget their love. from their union came an enduring strength that carried many of us through the darkest days of the movement. when they stood together, their bodies became great pillars of hope, the roof of the american house resting on their shoulders. they led a nonviolent revolution, a revolution of values, a revolution of ideas. mrs. king had the rare ability to tell the story of the movement through song, through music, to travel the length and breadth of america she built dr.

mar martin luther king, jr. center for change. they taught us the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence. they inspired an entire generation to find a way to get in the way, to find a way to get in trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble. through their action their speeches and their writings, they helped create the climate for the passage of the civil rights act of 1964. and the voting rights act of 1965. and president lyndon johnson signed these two pieces of legislation into law. without the leadership of lyndon johnson, we wouldn't be where we are today and there would be no barack obama as president of the united states of america. [ applause ]