moving ahead. The intrusion of demonstrations, carrying with them the heated emotions of both extremes, has served not to aid progress in Alabama, but to retard it.

3. Just 5 years ago, on March 18, 1960, there was a proposal made in the U.S. Senate to enact legislation establishing Federal voting registrars to serve as enrollment officers in cases where voting registration discrimination existed against a particular race or class. That proposal, offered as an amendment by Senator Douglas of Illinois, was weaker than H.R. 6400 in that the machinery for Federal voting registration would be set in motion by the complaints of 50 persons instead of only 20 as in the current proposal.

The amendment was defeated on a vote of 53 to 24 when Senator Dirksen of Illinois and the then Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas opposed it, along with others who raised constitutional questions. Among those voting against it were Senator Fulbright of Arkansas and the present majority leader of the other body, Senator Mansfield of Montana.

Surely the reasons which these distinguished gentlemen had for opposing a system of Federal registrars in 1960 cannot have changed so drastically that now in 1965 the same gentlemen and others will allow themselves to be swept along in the tide of emotional popular feeling created in part by demonstrators for a goal which has already been reached.

In 1960 the Congress acted in this matter as a coequal branch of Government, as it should. It felt itself capable of giving thoughtful consideration and intelligent evaluation to a serious legislative proposal.

In 1965 are we in the Congress to enthusiastically abrogate our responsibility as a coequal branch of Government? Are we prepared to cast away our legitimate function as an effectively independent National Legislature as the result of widespread emotional turbulence? Have we relegated ourselves to the status of a rubberstamp?

Or do we feel that we are a responsible body capable of evaluating conditions and facts, and then taking deliberative action to provide sound legislation with a view to orderly progress? We are a coequal branch of Government made up of elected representatives of the people and charged with the lawmaking function. Perhaps the real question today is whether we understand that function and are willing to exhibit courage to fulfill it, or whether we have failed our responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, in order to fulfill our constitutional responsibility at the National Legislature, we should consider very carefully the bill that the President has recommended to us despite his urging that we enact it against an early deadline and with no compromise.

The bill would, in general, eliminate literacy tests in any State or county where less than 50 percent of those of voting age were registered or voting in the presidential election of 1964.

Let us consider for a moment the question of literacy tests. The Supreme Court has on several occasions defended the right of States to establish literacy tests as a voter qualification. As recently as 1959, in the Lassiter case from North Carolina, the Court said:

"The ability to read and write likewise has some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent use of the ballot. Literacy and illiteracy are neutral on race, creed, color, and sex, as reports around the world show."

The Attorney General has indicated that the President's proposal would not flatly abolish literacy tests. But it certainly would outlaw them for a period of 10 years in the few States and counties affected by the bill. We should consider whether or not the country is prepared to set aside constitutional provisions for a temporary period of whatever duration.

Literacy tests themselves are not evidence of discrimination. The application of them can be. And so corrective legislation should not be aimed at literacy tests unless we are ready to prohibit them everywhere in the country, and unless we disregard constitutional principles.

With regard to other deficiencies of the bill, the Honorable Howard H. Callaway, of Georgia, presented testimony to this committee on March 29. I want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. Callaway ably demonstrated the problem which is presented in attempting to segregate States where the 1964 presidential vote or registration was more than 50 percent of the persons of voting age from those States where the vote or registration was less than 50 percent.

He pointed out the factors other than discrimination which may lead to a low voting percentage in a general election or to a low registration. He dem

onstrated that in States with a history of political domination by one party, the vote may be greater in primary elections than in general elections, or the registration may be low because of the lack of contested elections. And he showed that substantial numbers of persons of voting age may not register to vote for reasons having nothing to do with discrimination: transients, noncitizens, military personnel, persons who simply want nothing to do with voting for

personal reasons.

And he brought out the vast opportunity this bill would provide for a politically oriented Attorney General to apply provisions of the bill for partisan political gain.

The bill gives the Attorney General power to appoint Federal examiners simply on the basis of "his own judgment." And it prescribes no tests or rules for selection of the examiners and specifies no methods of operation. It gives the examiner power to register voters as he sees fit.

There is nothing in the bill to prevent an Attorney General from appointing a county political party chairman as voting registrar with power to register or refuse to register voters as he wishes. This would be an extraordinary authority. How can we justify the feeling that punitive Federal action must be taken against States which record a voting registration or participation of less than 50 percent while we pay no heed to places where the percentage might be 51 or 60 percent? Surely in the light of cool analysis some months in the future this arbitrary proposal will appear to be artificial and contrived to many who may not see it now. How soon would the Congress again be called on to enact new voting legislation all over again?

And if this kind of action can be taken against a few selected States, then it appears that some other punitive action can be taken against some other group of States for some other apparently worthy objective. But we should consider that a central government with this kind of authority can proceed another time with less regard to the real or suggested merits of the objective, and with less regard to an informed popular will.

This is how the National Socialist movement of the Germany of the 1930's was brought to prominence: Greater government authority on a wave of emotional fever followed by the loss of individual political expression. The stage preceding acquisition of absolute power by Adolf Hitler was the period during which the national legislature allowed itself to be intimidated by executive authority into putting its stamp of approval on measures eliminating the potence of representative government. Today's popular demand for centralization of power is tomorrow's dictatorship.

If we now are to approve voting rights legislation we should do so in the light of cool analysis and reason, not on the basis of emotion. We should not put the Federal Government in the position of dictating a State's voting laws on the basis of arbitrary percentages in an arbitrarily selected selection.

What we should do is retain State authority to determine its voter qualifications in accord with the Constitution, but assure that each State's qualifications are applied without discrimination to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I wonder if many Members of Congress today do not fear within themselves that many persons feel so strongly in favor of a voting rights law that just any voting rights law will do without regard to its real merits. I have the distinct impression that it takes courage today in a Northern State to publicly declare oneself in favor of taking a close look at the President's bill or to suggest that there may be improvements that can be made. In that connection, I want to make note here of some of the comments we have seen recently in nationally respected newspapers.

1. Arthur Krock in the New York Times, March 16, 1965:

"The administration's bill *** would reverse precedents deeply embedded in the constitutional and political history of the United States. And care must be taken lest the backswing prove too wide for the conscience of the Supreme Court and the obligation of Members of Congress to the people of the several States."

2. Arthur Krock in the New York Times, March 22, 1965:

"The more time that is allowed to point out the flagrant constitutional and procedural flaws in the draft submitted by the administration, the more plainly these flaws will be exposed."

3. Richard Wilson in the Washington Evening Star, March 24, 1965:

"The question that the advocates of the (President's) new voting rights bill have as yet failed to answer adequately is this: Why should literacy tests as a

qualification for voting be perfectly all right in 45 of the 50 States, but invalid in the other 5? This is another example of the devious legislative tactics in the Johnson administration to achieve results by legal circumlocution. Literacy requirements have validity both in reason and in law. It makes sense that a voter should have at least an elementary ability to read and write the language of the country in which he resides. It hardly needs to be argued, also, that a Federal law should apply equally to the citizens of all States. The strange, awkward and unequal nature of this new legislation shows how wrong it is to try to legislate on such complicated matters in an atmosphere of violence-provoking public demonstrations. The Johnson administration was rushed into the presentation of a law that has so many obvious flaws that it can immediately be challenged in the courts."

4. John Chamberlain in the Washington Post, March 25, 1965:

"The law should be limited to sending in registrars to provide evenhanded justice in enforcing any given State's own election standards. The Federal Government has no right to substitute standards of its own. What impresses honest and decent southerners about all this is that it (the President's proposal) actually denies equal protection of the law under the pretense of providing this protection. It penalizes the just along with the unjust. So let's have a Federal law that will guarantee fair enforcement of local election laws without telling States what their own standards shall be."

5. James Kilpatrick in the Washington Evening Star, March 25, 1965: "This is a bad bill; bad in ways that need to be understood if something precious is to be preserved. This precious something is a system of government obedient to a written Constitution. If the Congress sacrifices this high principle to the pressures of a turbulent hour, the Congress may succeed in redressing some palpable wrongs, but a fearful price will be paid in the loss of ancient values. The bill undertakes to prohibit in these States the imposition of those very qualifications, when used without discrimination, that the Supreme Court repeatedly has approved."

6. David Lawrence in the Washington Evening Star, March 25, 1965:

"The 15th amendment to the Constitution *** now is being construed as giving to Congress the power to control the whole election process by passing a few laws. This could mean the removal of all qualifications for voting except those that happen to suit the party in power. Never in American history has so much power been concentrated in the Federal Government which is now virtually directed by the one man who occupies the highest office in the land."

Finally, Mr. Vermont Royster in the Wall Street Journal for March 25, 1965, writes of the mood in Congress for hasty action on the bill-a mood set by ultimatums for this committee to complete its work by a certain date.

He writes: "In such a mood, who but a brave man could stand up and say, 'Wait. Let us see what we are doing before we do it.' Who but a brave man could ask now about constitutionality or propriety or the wisdom of the means to a wise end. What weighs heavily on the mind is that men in Congress should have doubts and fear to speak them."

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, Congress has the choice today of acting in a responsible fashion, or allowing itself to be propelled into an irresponsible act. I join with many others in hoping that our choice will be the former. Thank you, again, for permitting me to present my views.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to thank the members of the subcommittee and other members of the committee for their close attentive interest in the bill which is before us. I repeat that the record will be closed in 5 days.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Do I understand that it is the plan of the Chair to start executive sessions on the bill on Tuesday of next week?

The CHAIRMAN. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week we will meet.

Mr. CRAMER. Do I understand, then, that the printed copy of the hearings will not be available with the 5-day extension for the consideration at that time?

The CHAIRMAN. Probably not.
The meeting will now adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., Thursday, April 1, 1965, the subcommittee adjourned.)

(Additional statements supplied for inclusion in the record:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY COHELAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation which I have joined you in sponsoring. This bill provides important assurances that American democratic principles will be equated with American democratic practices; that the right to vote, which is the cornerstone of American democracy, will not be unjustly denied to any citizen. The full exercise of this right has been too long delayed and the moral conscience of the Nation, shocked, humiliated, and aroused by the recent events in Alabama, demands that it be delayed no longer.

One hundred and seventy-nine years ago our Founding Fathers boldly declared that: "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They cited grievances similar in many respects to those that our Negro neighbors experience today in Alabama, Mississippi, and other areas of our country: "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble term; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

Ten years later they acted to secure these promises and to redress these injuries. In establishing the Constitution of the United States they stated it was done to: "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." And who can challenge, who can doubt, who can deny that they meant all and not some Americans?

Ninety-five years ago, after a costly and bloody Civil War, these basic rights were once again reaffirmed and the special significance of voting rights was spelled out. The 15th amendment made clear that the right to vote was not to be "denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

But the 15th amendment did more than that. It spelled out the responsibility of Congress, through appropriate legislation, to secure that right, and that is what we are meeting about; that is what this bill is all about.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor any other document establishes a category of second-class citizenship. Yet the disparity between our great ideals and our actual deeds is still painfully evident.

Two months ago, along with 14 of our colleagues, I made a factfinding trip to Selma. Our experiences revealed beyond any doubt that Negroes in Selma and across Alabama's Black Belt were systematically and effectively being denied their legitimate and constitutional rights as citizens to register and vote. The statistics alone made this fact abundantly clear.

In Dallas County, where Selma is located, the population is 57 percent Negro, yet less than 1 percent of the eligible Negroes are registered to vote.

In neighboring Wilcox County, Negroes represent 78 percent of the population, yet not one has ever voted.

Adjoining Lowndes County is 81 percent Negro, but not one has ever voted there either.

And these are not isolated cases as the March 1965 Report on Registration and Voting by the Commission on Civil Rights has documented.

But more striking than the figures were the circumstances and conditions of the denials. For not only is voting registration limited to only 2 days a month in Alabama, but after suffering the frustrations and indignities of standing in intolerably long lines, of being shunted into alleys, of being beaten, bruised, and arrested, the tests and the forms are commonly administered in such a way that many who are qualified and all too few who are able, are finally accepted at all. It is a disgrace and a blot on American democracy-on a government of and by and for free people.

Mr. Chairman, I have sponsored this bill and I support it, but I also believe it can be improved. Discrimination in voting is not limited to Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia; to Mississippi, Louisiana, and Virginia. The reports of the Commission on Civil Rights and our own experiences make clear that in many other areas in counties of Tennessee, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, for example-discriminatory practices continue to exist. Certainly if the deprivation of voting rights warrants this legislation, and I fervently believe that it

46-535-65- 49

does, then the law should be broad enough to strike it down wherever it may thrive and prosper.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that your committee report this bill and press for its enactment without delay. The time has come, and is in fact long past due, when the just and proper activities which have been enjoyed by most Americans for nearly two centuries should be fully shared in by all our fellow citizens. This bill is not only a matter of moral right. It is an expression of our clear yet unmet constitutional responsibility.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JACOB H. GILBERT, OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to supplement my testimony before the committee on March 23 on the voting rights bill. At that time, I asked the committee to consider an amendment to the voting rights bill to eliminate the literacy test as a requirement for voting where the person has completed the sixth grade in a public or private school in the United States, District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as proposed in my bill, H.R. 4249, introduced on February 3 of this year, and proposed by me in the past Congress.

As I have stated, I would like to have my literacy test bill incorporated in the voting rights bill, but if this cannot be done, I hope the committee will consider my bill separately.

The voting rights bill as now written invalidates literacy tests and certain other voting qualifications in States and political subdivisions where less than 50 percent of the residents of voting age were registered or voted in November 1964. New York State administers a literacy test but votes more than 50 percent of its population and, therefore, would be exempt from the bill as now written.

Thus, the literacy test has become an insuperable obstacle in the exercise of voting rights on the part of thousands of New Yorkers of Puerto Rican origin. I realize the voting rights bill we are considering is chiefly concerned with the several Southern States where a majority of the eligible voters have been denied the right to vote-those States which provoked the necessity for this legislation by their failure to fulfill their responsibility to guarantee their citizens the right to vote.

But I have long opposed the disenfranchisement of Puerto Ricans on the sole ground that they cannot read or write English. As long as Spanish is the official language accepted and recognized in business and education-of the jurisdiction in which they were raised, Puerto Ricans should not be kept from voting because they are not literate in English.

I would like to see the bill changed to include my proposal to provide needed Federal safeguards for voting rights of Spanish-speaking native Americans. As I told the committee in my previous testimony, my proposal would make a sixth-grade education de facto proof of literacy as long as the education was acquired "in any State or territory, in the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."

I have attended the hearings each day and participated actively both as a member of this committee and as a witness giving testimony. My own voting rights bill, H.R. 4427, introduced on February 4, 1965, is very similar to the administration bill, H.R. 6400. Both proposals are designed to deal with the use of unfair tests and other devices and the discriminatory administration of these and other registration requirements.

There are deprivations of the right to vote other than discriminatory tests and devices, and I refer to fear of intimidation and coercion-beatings, arrests, loss of jobs, loss of credit, threats to families, and other forms of pressure. We have shocking evidence that many Negroes who have managed to register have failed to vote simply out of fear. I ask that this provision (sec. 7) of the bill be broadened and strengthened. I offer no specific formula or solution, but adequate provision should be made in this legislation to remove this widespread abridgement of the right to vote.

Mr. Chairman, the poll tax is another abridgment of human rights which has been used and still is used to deprive persons of the right to vote. My voting rights bill, section 6, would abolish the requirement of the poll tax as a qualification to vote in any election. I believe this proposal to be constitutional and I have requested the Attorney General to give me his views in this regard. I urge that the bill include a provision to abolish the poll tax in all elections.