with the court order as initially issued in Clemson; it has made general compliance with the 1964 act, and I agree with you that it is one. of the areas of the South that has made real and genuine progress. I don't think the problems have been eliminated and I don't think you think so, but it has made progress.

I would like to go on record as saying that it is an area that has made considerable progress. Progress has also been made in other areas in the South. I don't think the fact that it is included within this group on the basis of these objective criteria should mean that the State of South Carolina resembles in this regard other States that are in that group. The problem of South Carolina is certainly much less acute and much less bitter; it is through the elected representatives, both here in Congress and in the State government that this progress has been made.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to state that it intended to conclude at 1 o'clock. There are still three members who want to interrogate.

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Chairman, I have one more point, and that is all. Mr. Attorney General, you have said in several instances that if anyone else or any member of the committee, of course, has any better plan or idea or suggestion or recommendation or remedy for some of the things we think are bad or unwise in this bill, that you would be glad to hear them. Let me say this: I think that you can forget about this formula business; it didn't work before in some of the formulas we have had. These mathematical formulas are bad in the first place. I think your bill is unconstitutional in several respects, as I have already stated, however, if it is constitutional for the Federal Government to come in and do those things you can write a bill that simply provides if a certain group, say 20, for example, as you have used in one of the sections of your bill, give written notice that they have been discriminated against, then in that case the Attorney General would have authority to appoint Federal referees, commissioners, or hearing examiners or anything you want to call them, and they would immediately hear each complaint as rapidly as possible. This would be their only duty, to determine whether or not the person had been discriminated against.

Let there be an appeal from the referee or the examiner directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and you have eliminated all loss of time element, you have eliminated all formulas in this thing about whether you voted or registered 50 percent, and so forth. What would be wrong with a bill that simple? Is it too simple? Mr. KATZENBACH. I think the difficulty with that kind of a bill is that it does not apply the same standards that have been applied to others who have been registered.

Mr. ASHMORE. Does not do what?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Let me see if I can be more clear about it, Congressman.

I know that in some of these instances, some of these States, while there are literacy tests, the literacy tests have not been applied to white applicants who are presently on the books but they have been applied, not merely applied but applied in an improper manner, to Negro applicants, to keep them off the register.

Mr. ASHMORE. I didn't recall that.

Mr. KATZENBACH. So, now if the determination was that you were going to freeze in all of the improperly registered whites and from here on out be honest in the application of a test of that kind, you would not cure the existing injustices. I think that people should be presently registered on the same standards that have, in fact, been used in the past and if those standards have been applied discriminatorily so that whites who did not meet them were registered and Negroes that did were not, then I think the proper course of action is to suspend those standards and get people registered without applying them.

So, I don't think that your proposal, that has the advantage of being simple, really solves the problem and I am afraid that it additionally has the disadvantage of another 2 years in court. It does not freeze out the possibilities of any tests in these areas; it does not freeze out the possibility of tests that would be designed to prevent Negroes from voting.

Mr. ASHMORE. It is going to have the possibility of—if the Supreme Court sets the precedent, there it is.

Mr. KATZENBACH. But the Supreme Court has set the precedent time and time again in the school cases and how many of them have been litigated? Every single one.

Mr. ASHMORE. If the Supreme Court says that a certain thing is a violation of voting rights, that is that, and the next man, the referee, would rule the same way; the Court would not even hear him the next time.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I wish that were true, Congressman; it has not been our experience.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gilbert.

I am going to allow 3 minutes each to the next three members, not as a matter of race or creed.

Mr. GILBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, I don't wish to belabor the point, about political subdivisions, but in the State of New York there is a problem which would concern political subdivisions and I would like to have a definite statement from you on political subdivisions.

Mr. KATZENBACH. All right, Congressman, I'll be happy to provide that.

Mr. GILBERT. I wonder if we could have it on the record today, or would you prefer to provide that at a later date?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I attempted to make my general statement as to what a political subdivision is but I cannot apply that to New York without knowing more than I do about how the registration works.

Mr. GILBERT. In New York, we have a City Board of Elections and they have offices in each county. Also, as the chairman pointed out earlier in the hearing, I believe it was yesterday, we have assembly districts in which a person is elected to the New York State Legislature. We also have in these assembly districts election districts where there are registrars or members appointed by the Board of Elections to register people.

Now, that small compact unit of election districts, would that be considered a political subdivision?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Is each of these election districts run as a separate area for purposes of registration?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes; they are run as a separate area for purposes of registration, and, incidentally, they elect members of the county committee from that geographical area.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think, Congressman, I would feel safer and perhaps you would feel safer if we examined the law in New York and made the judgment on the basis of that rather than on my understanding of your oral description of it. I could submit something for the record on that.

Mr. GILBERT. I appreciate it.

Also, you refer in section 3 of the bill, to Federal, State and local elections. Now, would that include election for a bond issue?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes.

Mr. GILBERT. Now, my bill, H.R. 4427. I have a definition. I spell out the word "election" on page 5, subdivision (b). I say:

"Election" means all elections, including those for Federal, State, or local office and including primary elections or any other voting process at which candidates or officials are chosen. "Election" shall also include any election at which a proposition or issue is to be decided.

Now, I have no pride of authorship but don't you think we should define in-H.R. 6400 the term "election"?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I would certainly have no objection to it and I think it should be broadly defined.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tenzer.

Mr. GILBERT. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Make it brief, please.

Mr. GILBERT. My bill on page 5, section 6, says:

The requirement for payment of the poll tax as a prerequisite to vote in any election is hereby abolished.

Many leading scholars have told me and other Members of Congress that this provision is a constitutional provision, and I am just wondering if this provision were incorporated in your bill if you would have objection to its incorporation?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I have already expressed myself on that, Con

gressman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question has been answered.

I am going to recognize Mr. Tenzer.

Mr. TENZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. Since you agree to define in the law the term "election", would you also agree to define the term "political subdivision", so there would be no question about that as one that regularly maintains a system for registering voters?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it might be a good idea to define political subdivision. I think the committee ought to consider giving it consideration.

Mr. TENZER. They do not maintain regularly established systems for voting throughout the year; they register only 1 week of the year and then send them on to the county voting board.

Mr. KATZENBACH. It was for that reason I was inclined to think in New York it might be the county.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will get advice from counsel.

Mr. Cahill.

46-535 0-65- 9

Mr. CAHILL. About 60 percent voted for a President last year in New York. I believe nationwide, the percentage was approximately 60, or a little less.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes.

Mr. CAHILL. Do you have the figure as to how many were registered nationwide?

Mr. KATZENBACH. On the registration provision, we don't have it because we can't get registration figures from every State.

Mr. CAHILL. Is it fair to say in those States from which you could obtain the percentages, it is substantially higher than the percentage of those actually voting for the president in 1964?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes; it is higher.

Mr. CAHILL. In light of that, Mr. Attorney General, and so that this may be clear, and I think it would help us in our consideration of this part of the bill, would you explain the reasons why you would not elect to use a higher percentage than 50 percent in line 4 on page 2 of the bill? Could you tell us why you did not conclude that there should be a different percentage used in the registration test than in the voting test?

Mr. KATZENBACH. It does not make any difference. You see, we don't get accurate figures on registration; they are not reliable figures and that is really the reason.

Mr. CAHILL. Fair enough.

I have two more points.

The word "therein", first word on line 5, page 2. Can you tell us precisely what preceding words are encompassed by the word "therein"?

Mr. KATZENBACH. "Persons of voting age residing".

Mr. CAHILL. When you say "therein," do you mean in some particular area?

Mr. KATZENBACH. In a State or in a political subdivision.

Mr. CAHILL. Next question: Did you or other drafters consider the tests or devices in addition to the four specifically enumerated in subsection (b) on page 2?

Mr. KATZENBACH. We thought those were pretty all-inclusive, Congressman, since, for example, any attempt to test the ability to read, write, interpret, or understand, or to test knowledge, would be banned, no matter what form it took.

Mr. CAHILL. You considered others and rejected them?

Mr. KATZENBACH. We didn't know of others.

Mr. CAHILL. I am referring specifically to the question that has been mentioned heretofore about the findings of the Civil Rights Commission in 1963.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Those tricks, if you call them that, almost always associated with the test and devices.

Mr. CAHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

We thank you, Mr. Katzenbach, for your patience and the responses to the questions. I am sorry if we taxed you so much.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn until 2:30.

(Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., a recess was taken until 2:30 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The committee reconvened at 2:30 p.m., Hon. Emanuel Celler, chairman of the committee, presiding.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We have three witnesses this afternoon headed by Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, and distinguished president of Notre Dame University. Father Hesburgh, we will be very pleased to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND THEODORE M. HESBURGH, MEMBER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION AND PRESIDENT, NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, STAFF DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

Reverend HESBURGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.

My name is Theodore M. Hesburgh. I am president of Notre Dame University and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. My feelings about the opportunity to testify before you today are far beyond those of appreciation. For 8 years I have served as a member of the Commission on Civil Rights.

During this period our Commission has been exposed time and again to the shameful facts that many American citizens have been denied their most basic rights of citizenship, the right to vote. No single issue has produced a greater consensus among our Commissioners.

I might add that from the beginning half our Commissioners have been from the South and there is no lack of consensus on this opinion. We have long felt that if only the American people could be made as intensely aware as we have been of the wrongs that have been inflicted upon some of their fellow citizens, there would be quick and decisive remedial action.

That moment in our Nation's history appears to have come. And I believe all of us owe a debt of gratitude to President Johnson and his speech. The conscience of the Nation has been aroused and we are prepared to act upon our convictions. As an American citizen, I am proud to be sharing this moment with you.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is charged with the duty to investigate denials of the right to vote to anyone by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin. In carrying out this statutory obligation the Commission has conducted extensive investigations in the field of voting since its establishment in 1957.

It held hearings on voting problems in Alabama in 1958-59, in Louisiana in 1960-61, and most recently in Jackson, Miss., this last February. In addition, State Advisory Committees of the Commission have held open meetings and heard complaints on voting prob