1 State with literacy test. If there was less than a 50-percent turnout in the 1964 presidential election, either statewide or in a subdivision, Federal voting examiners could be appointed under the proposed 1964 Voting Rights Act.

2 State has no literacy test, so it would not be covered by the 50-percent feature of the proposed 1964 Voting Rights Act. Listed here for purposes of comparison.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cramer.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. You mentioned the State of Florida. It is my position that where discrimination is practiced it should come within the scope of any legislation. Obviously those counties in Florida, counties in Tennessee, Kentucky, what have you, don't come within the scope of this bill. Is that correct?

Reverend HESBURGH. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. You suggested that the people of those counties who are being discriminated against have the 1957, 1960, 1964 pattern or practices approach which they can use to get their remedy. Reverend HESBURGH. Yes, that is right.

Mr. CRAMER. Yet, it is that very approach, the weakness of the 1957, 1960, and 1964 litigation approach that supposedly is the basis for the legislation before us, is it not?

Reverend HESBURGH. I think what we are looking for is the 50 percent in a subdivision.

Mr. CRAMER. That has nothing to do with percentages or otherwise. My question is: Is the reason for the bill before us the weaknesses of the present law?

Reverend HESBURGH. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. Yet, those people who live in the States I mentioned and anywhere else in America where they are being discriminated against, must suffer along with those weaknesses in this even if this bill becomes law.

Reverend HESBURGH. Mr. Taylor suggests that the other means might be used for these. What I am suggesting is that this law as written will get at the large, large portion of inequities existing even though there may be some lack of coverage in this.

Mr. CRAMER. If it is possible to get a bill that would make a firstclass citizen out of every one, is that not preferable to the administration approach which obviously means some people end up being second-class citizens?

Reverend HESBURGH. I am for everybody being a first-class citizen but you can get a bill so complicated that we talk about it forever and never get it through.

I think it is important to get the vote as soon as possible for as many people as possible and then simulanteously work on those we may have missed. We made one step in 1957, one in 1960, and another in 1964. This is the best step yet on voting and I think it will bring us very far down the road.

You ask me if it will be perfect. I don't think so. But it is much more perfect than anything we have had thus far, and I favor it. Mr. CRAMER. In preference to any other approach?

Reverend HESBURGH. I would like to look at the other approaches first, but with regard to the bill that is proposed-if someone asks are you favorable to this as proposed, yes, I am.

Mr. CRAMER. Have you given consideration to other bills that have been introduced prior to the President's bill; introduced in excess of a month by the gentleman from New York and many others, which have universal and nationwide application as compared to this bill which obviously is intended to have application only to certain Southern States?

Reverend HESBURGH. Mr. Cramer, my general approach today is that looking back over 8 years of listening to these comments and complaints and studying the possible ways of clearing up the situation we find, it occurs to me that the things involved in this bill have gotten at the solutions that we have proposed over the past 6 years in a way that no other bill heretofore has.

In view of that situation I strongly favor what is in the statement. Mr. CRAMER. Since I mentioned the bill of the gentleman from New York I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LINDSAY. For a long time the Commission favored the establishment of Federal registrars to register persons who have been denied the right to register and vote. Now there are bills pending which would do that, and do it quickly, and do it in any place where there have been denials of the right to register and vote based on race.

When you say that for many years you have been advocating a Federal registration system, there are many who agree with you, but there are many other approaches, some of which were introduced quite a while ago, and I would hope you have examined them.

Reverend HESBURGH. I have not examined all of them. I just recently examined the administration proposal. We in general keep

track of all of the legislation on the Hill but as you know there are many bills and they tend to go in categories as favoring this or that. Mr. LINDSAY. I think you should be careful in saying that the administration bill, which we only saw a day or two ago for the first time and I am sure you did not see it earlier

Reverend HESBURGH. No, we did not see it earlier.
Mr. LINDSAY. Answers all of the questions.

There are other good civil rights proposals which have been pending for some time. Admittedly, they are a little different in the approach because we don't get involved in this 50-percent test which limits the application of the bill to some States, while not covering others. Arkansas, for example, where the Boone County population is 50-percent Negro.

There are zero Negroes registered in Carroll County where the population is 60-percent Negro and zero Negroes to vote. That is Arkansas. The same is true, more or less, in Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Eastern Shore, Maryland. None of these are covered by the bill that you think answers these questions, and that is why I am so curious as to whether or not you close the door to other Federal registrar proposals that may be more effective.

Reverend HESBURGH. No, I took it, Mr. Lindsay, that my presence here today is to say whether or not I think this bill is a good bill. I think this bill is far better than anything that has actually been on the docket and been under active consideration and on that I say I am delighted now.

If you say there is a way of making this bill even stronger I have no objection to that. Maybe one simple way of doing it is instead of having the 50 percent apply to the State have it apply to the county. Mr. LINDSAY. Why can't you talk in terms of the 15th amendment violations or massive denials of the right to vote?

Reverend HESBURGH. Mr. Lindsay, I will make my position very clear. I have been concerned about this problem ever since I have been on the Commission.

I have, from the very beginning in our first report to the President and Congress, come out for Federal registrars, and have been in a minority position for getting rid of literacy tests. It would seem to me today and yesterday in seeing this bill there was an honest and effective approach to get at these things that we have been talking about for a long time.

I am not saying it is the only approach that has been ever put out. Many of you gentlemen have been champions of this for many years. Today, however, it is actively considered, there seems to be a lot of pressure behind it, it may get passed in the next month or two and it would be a great step forward.

If it can be made stronger, however, I am for that, too. Mr. LINDSAY. Or a better method? Reverend HESBURGH. Yes, I am for that, too. many methods of keeping people from voting. method we can to get them to vote.

There are many, Let's get the best

Mr. CRAMER. Maybe if there were a little less pressure there would be more protection in a little better bill because we could give more reasonable and fair consideration to it.