Mr. KATZENBACH. Well, I believe that it was intended to apply to the whole of it--being denied an opportunity to register to vote under color of law. In other words, the intent of it, Congressman, was that the Attorney General can waive the requirements that you go to the State registrar where he has reason to believe it is going to be a futile undignified act and that the registrar would say, "go jump in the lake." You can waive the allegation that in the past 90 days he has bee denied opportunity to register under State law.

Mr. LINDSAY. I should think that might be clarified.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes.

Mr. LINDSAY. Then, let me ask you this question: Here on page of the administration bill, Section 7

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall fail or refu to permit a person whose name appears on a list transmitted in accordance wi section 5(b) to vote, or fail or refuse to count such person's vote, or intimida threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person voting or attempting to vote.

should that not also include the words "or having voted"?

If you are going to be thorough about it, would it not have embrace the case of the fellow who votes and then comes back and fired for having voted, or what have you?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Lines 21 and 22 deal with coercion for voti Mr. LINDSAY. I guess that is clear.

Now, finally, Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you about the p bility of including in this bill a limited version of the old titles to part 3, as it is known, which would empower the Attorney Genera the United States to protect the first amendment rights. That say, the right to assemble peaceably and petition against grieva This has been an old question in part 3. We have been up and d the mountain on it many times. The House passed it once, in broad form.

What I am thinking of is submitting a limit that would confine problem to the first amendment, or free speech and peacefully pet rights as stated in the first amendment. What would be your op of an addition to this bill of that limited form of part 3?

Mr. KATZENBACH. My opinion on it, Congressman, would b same opinion that was stated by my predecessor. When you gi that power, then you also give us the power for an appropriat hire the police force that it is going to take to do it. Don't give responsibility without the capacity of fulfilling it. Don't put the box where you say the law tells you to do this and I have no to do it. Give me the national police force that it may take.

Mr. LINDSAY. Well, we do all the time. We pass legislation 1. various fields which is authorizing legislation, and the Appropr Committees have the responsibility, power, and obligation to do ever is necessary.

Title 3, I repeat, passed the House several years ago in very form. If you limit it to the first amendment proposition, do you think that it would require an army of Federal officers to secur protections to individuals?

Mr. KATZENBACH. How many people do you think it might the State of Alabama, right now, to assure those protections. assume that those privileges are being denied by the State aut

109

Governor Walle

6.11. 1 22 50 4T

what be stated

ging to take, as I recall,

gur tout precise figure, but that is fur one H-ale stretch.

Mr. Lindner. I hate SI DIIVAN (und the wond where tiny continguts, SKER É CHI DUTAL de United Nations have kept peace just nem te Franz Jose 9 TOPPS Or erwise there would have been on stabbing, at der vild care teen violence. The question of 1 xmbers VIE DE DE SINI TE TJELIon of in mediate presence opere ne penge upon rede gobally, if

nothing else was the per

Mr. KE

have had an

the

•proposto de r

is Widere

Senate, and

till and tas tam

I have what is presen attackin

I think fr

and inders Mr. Lis

།

would to 72 ****

the rot the arr broaden the m loud elections a

1

Mr. KATZENBACH. The bill the subcommittee voted out knocked out the most important provision on voting that had been submitted by President Kennedy.

Mr. LINDSAY. We were asked by the administration to cut it back; so all I am saying is that I hope we are not in a position

Mr. KATZENBACH. The administration wanted that provision and there was objection to it. I just want the record to show that we wanted that provision and we wanted it for the reason that it was sent down.

Mr. LINDSAY. We have a disagreement on that point, but that is not the important thing at this moment. The important thing is, I do not want to see the 89th Congress take a step now which we will immediately discover is too short a step. If we are going to go through the difficult business of drafting an important civil rights bill, I hope that we will not make the mistake of not covering those things which are critical in the country that ought to be covered. That is my viewpoint and I hope that you can think about that a little bit.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I have thought about it a great deal in the last 2 weeks, Congressman.

Mr. LINDSAY. If there is any disposition on your part in the next few days or weeks to agree to a limited part 3 proposal here, I wish that you would communicate with us.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chelf.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Attorney General, I have read your bill and while there are some sections that I would question seriously, nevertheless, on the whole, I want to commend you for having drawn a bill and presenting it to the Congress. The 15th amendment is very clear and very plain. In reading not only your bill, I have re-read the entire Constitution and in the 15th amendment there is no question, no doubt, no ambiguity; it says just what it means.

Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

No question about that.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Not the Supreme Court, the Congress.

While I am very happy that you took Kentucky out of your "voters' list," nevertheless, if it had not been I would be for this type of legislation. I am going to support the right to vote vigorously. I feel that today our Nation in some areas is sick to the quick with a strong case of not ileitis, but "no vote-itis," if you want to call it that. Î think it is time that strong medicine be taken for this malady that has come upon us. Maybe we need some 110-proof Kentucky bourbon instead of the mild, gentle, soft, mellow, whispering, 86-proof, discriminating whisky, if you know what I mean. Maybe we even need some block and tackle whisky. That's the kind, you know, you take a drink, you walk a block, and you tackle anybody.

I want to commend you, sir, for being here and supporting legisla tion of this kind. Now, I have not seen eye to eye with you or the administration from time to time on certain pieces of legislation.

In 1957, I supported the civil rights bill, voted for its passage; in 1960, I supported that civil rights bill; but last year, in 1964, I did not. I did not vote for it, sir, because, in my heart and in my mind at that time there were three disturbing factors. I was afraid that three sections in that bill-one that dealt with the first amendment, the fourth amendment, and the sixth amendment-were unconstitutional. They certainly, in my opinion, were dangerously on the outer perimeter, and I did not want to do anything that my conscience would leave any doubt about the freedom of speech or religion under amendment No. 1, nor under amendment No. 4, unlawful searches, and seizures of ene's private books and possessions, and last but not least, the sixth amendment which could possibly deny the right of trial by jury.

Those are the reasons and those are the only reasons that I, myself, personally, voted against that piece of legislation. However, I must confess that I did everything that I could in our Judiciary Committee to get it to the floor with the reservation, of course, that I was at liberty to oppose it on the floor if it was not properly amended. Mr. KATZENBACH. You certainly did.

Mr. CHELF. I think the gentleman seated before me knows what I

mean.

Mr. KATZENBACH. You certainly did and without you it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have had that legislation.

Mr. CHELF. You are very kind and I appreciate it because it was a question of my belief. If the time ever comes, General, that I can't vote according to the dictates of my heart, then I have had it here. My people are not going to have to send me to the showers; I am going to take a voluntary "walkout" on my own.

I am going to commend you, sir, for your presentation. Let me say this: While your voting list shows that some 54 percent of our people in Kentucky are voting, I would like to say to you that in all of my campaigns for public office for the past 30 years I have preached the gospel of voting because in the United States only 60 percent vote. I have stated to our people time and time and time again that in Canada 95 percent of the people vote, that in England 90 percent of the people vote, that in the Netherlands 90 percent of the people vote, that in Australia 92 percent of the people vote. I have begged them over the years to vote whether they are black or white, Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Protestant, rich or poor. I want everybody to vote, and you are going to have my vote on this right to obtain a vote for every person. [Applause.]

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman announced when we went into session he hoped that we can finish with Mr. Katzenbach by 1 o'clock because this afternoon we have scheduled to appear the Hon. John W. Macy, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission; Dr. A. Ross Eckler, Acting Director of the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; and Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, member of the Civil Rights Commission and president of Notre Dame University, accompanied by Mr. William L. Taylor, Staff Director of the Civil Rights Commission. So, I hope that we can finish with Mr. Katzenbach at 1. Mr. Ashmore.

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Attorney General, let me say, in the first place, I am from South Carolina, that I am not in favor of discriminating

Mr. KATZENBACH. Well, I believe that it was intended to apply to the whole of it-being denied an opportunity to register to vote under color of law. In other words, the intent of it, Congressman, was that the Attorney General can waive the requirements that you go to the State registrar where he has reason to believe it is going to be a futile undignified act and that the registrar would say, "go jump in the lake." You can waive the allegation that in the past 90 days he has been denied opportunity to register under State law.

Mr. LINDSAY. I should think that might be clarified.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes.

Mr. LINDSAY. Then, let me ask you this question: Here on page 7 of the administration bill, Section 7

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall fail or refuse to permit a person whose name appears on a list transmitted in accordance with section 5(b) to vote, or fail or refuse to count such person's vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.

should that not also include the words "or having voted"?

If you are going to be thorough about it, would it not have to embrace the case of the fellow who votes and then comes back and is fired for having voted, or what have you?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Lines 21 and 22 deal with coercion for voting. Mr. LINDSAY. I guess that is clear.

Now, finally, Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you about the possibility of including in this bill a limited version of the old titles to our part 3, as it is known, which would empower the Attorney General of the United States to protect the first amendment rights. That is to say, the right to assemble peaceably and petition against grievances. This has been an old question in part 3. We have been up and down the mountain on it many times. The House passed it once, in very broad form.

What I am thinking of is submitting a limit that would confine this problem to the first amendment, or free speech and peacefully petition rights as stated in the first amendment. What would be your opinion of an addition to this bill of that limited form of part 3?

Mr. KATZENBACH. My opinion on it, Congressman, would be the same opinion that was stated by my predecessor. When you give us that power, then you also give us the power for an appropriation to hire the police force that it is going to take to do it. Don't give us the responsibility without the capacity of fulfilling it. Don't put me in the box where you say the law tells you to do this and I have nobody to do it. Give me the national police force that it may take.

Mr. LINDSAY. Well, we do all the time. We pass legislation here in various fields which is authorizing legislation, and the Appropriations Committees have the responsibility, power, and obligation to do whatever is necessary.

Title 3, I repeat, passed the House several years ago in very broad form. If you limit it to the first amendment proposition, do you really think that it would require an army of Federal officers to secure those protections to individuals?

Mr. KATZENBACH. How many people do you think it might take in the State of Alabama, right now, to assure those protections, if you assume that those privileges are being denied by the State authority?