Governor Wallace seems to think it was going to take, as I recall, 6,171. I am not quite sure how he got that precise figure, but that is what he stated. That was only for one 50-mile stretch.

Mr. LINDSAY. I have seen instances around the world where tiny contingents, some of them unarmed, of the United Nations have kept peace just because of their presence, whereas, otherwise there would have been no stability, and there would have been violence. The question of numbers was not the issue; the question of immediate presence to protect some people against aggression, symbolically, if nothing else, was the key.

Mr. KATZENBACH. We have tried that, certainly, Congressman. We have had an awfully big Federal presence in these places and maybe it has helped; I think that it has; and I hope that it has, but it has not needed the kind of provision that you are discussing.

I think I ought to say, in all candor, that we have here a bill aimed at the proposition of getting people to vote. For that proposition, there is widespread consensus in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and I don't believe it would be responsible to jeopardize this bill and this terribly important problem by adding a provision which, as I have already indicated in my reservation about it, would divide what is presently, I hope, I believe, a real and substantial consensus for attacking the voting problem.

I think if it is going to be taken up, it ought to be taken up separately and independently and not tacked on to this piece of legislation.

Mr. LINDSAY. On that point I agree with you completely, but I would not under any circumstances want to do anything to jeopardize the voting rights bill. However, I can recall that in the 1964 bill the argument was made by the administration that we could not broaden the voting rights section out to include State elections and local elections, and we had to confine it to Federal elections on the grounds that we might jeopardize the passage of the bill. The same applied to title 3. Yet, the bill went through the Congress with a very safe margin, and then just recently the President came back to the Congress and complained that the Congress had not enacted a voting rights bill that included local and State elections.

So, I am in a position now of wondering whether, with this mood in the country and the willingness of the members to get through a voting rights bill, and I think it will be a very large majority, too, by which it would go through, can't we try to do a little bit more? I think we would be successful on it in this other area, too.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Congressman, let's not tack on to this bill. If you permit me to say so, your description of what happened to the voting section in 1963 and 1964 is not quite my recollection, Congressman. We submitted some fairly strong proposals on voting; those proposals were taken out.

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, and those proposals included registrars to deal with Federal, State, and local elections.

The CHAIRMAN. We should have taken Mr. Lindsay into the conference.

Mr. LINDSAY. In any event, I think it has to be agreed that the bill the subcommittee reported covered local elections as well as Federal

elections.

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. I 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 legislation 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 one'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

against anybody because of race, creed, color, or for whatever reason one might give for doing so.

I believe that everybody should have the same right to vote, regardless of their color, when they meet the qualifications that are set forth in the eligibility rules of their State. However, I think that we have been operating on somewhat of a false premise here on a good many of these things regarding this bill.

I do not agree with a great deal of your bill, Mr. Attorney General. I commend you for your efforts, and I know you are operating in a most difficult area and one that sometimes seems to be almost impossible to solve. We tried to solve it in 1957; we tried to solve it in 1960; we tried to solve it in 1964; and in each of those instances, if I recall correctly, there was a great hue and cry for passing civil rights legislation, particularly with reference to the voting provisions.

I think that everybody, whether they voted for those bills or voted against them, is in favor of a voting bill that provides all citizens the right to vote when they meet legal and reasonable qualifications.

I believe it was said during the debate on the 1964 bill that this bill must be passed so we can get the people out of the streets and get their problems settled in court. Well, it has not solved them, although we set up new court procedure; so just passing new laws does not necessarily mean we are going to solve these problems, as I have indicated in various instances in the past. I don't think that this bill is going to solve them either. I think it could be improved upon in many instances and many changes should be made, and I think that if this bill is to be constitutional it must be drastically changed.

I was struck the other night when the President was making his wonderful speech but I could not help but notice in several instances that some of the things he said did not impress me as being very legalistic. Once for instance, was when the President said there is no constitutional issue here. I know the President has not had time to study the constitutional problems involved like the Attorney General and the members of this committee must study them. And, of course, he did not intentionally say anything wrong.

But I think there is a constitutional problem here, Mr. Attorney General, and I believe that you will have to say so, too. The President stated that there is no issue of States' rights or National rights. I am convinced that there is a serious question of States' rights and there are other constitutional problems that we are faced with. I don't see how we can avoid them.

I won't ask you whether you agree with the President or not, but I know you did not write that part of the President's speech wherein he made these two particular statements. I just don't believe, sir, you can say there are no constitutional issues raised in this bill.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Congressman, an awful lot of our constitutional arguments were made, as I am sure you recall, with respect to the 1964 act. I think they were sincerely made and we were able to persuade nine justices of the Supreme Court as to our position and the constitutionality of that bill. I think there are constitutional issues any time a lawyer says there are, but I don't believe this bill as drafted raised any serious constitutional problem. I would be happy to discuss them but I believe it is clearly constitutional.

Furthermore, I don't think any issue of States' rights is raised when the purpose and the background of the legislation is simply to get States to obey the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which they are obligated to do. No State has a right to duck and evade and equivocate and violate the 15th amendment.

Mr. ASHMORE. I am in favor of them being made to do it if they will not do it voluntarily, but, Mr. Attorney General, we don't think you can change the Constitution by passing an act of Congress. Mr. KATZENBACH. No, but we can enforce the Constitution, Con

gressman.

Mr. ASHMORE. All right.

Now, there is no question, I don't believe, but that the basic law is now and has been, that the States have the right to conduct elections and they have the constitutional right to set up certain eligibility rules for people to register and vote. Isn't that correct?

Mr. KATZENBACH. So long as those rules are not applied in a way which violates the 15th amendment, or do not conflict with a valid act of Congress.

Mr. ASHMORE. They must apply in the same manner to all people concerned.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Correct

Mr. ASH MORE. The Supreme Court has passed on that in the Lassiter case in 1959. They referred to another case, the Guinn case, wherein the Supreme Court said

We do not suggest that any standards which the State desires to adopt may be required of voters. But there is wide scope for exercise of its jurisdiction. Residence requirements, age, previous criminal record, are obvious examples indicating factors which a State may take into consideration in determining the qualifications of voters.

The ability to read and write likewise has some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent use of the ballot.

The Supreme Court said further:

No time need be spent on the question of the validity of the literacy testits validity is admitted.

Now, some people say do away with all of these standards and tests but the Supreme Court has said it is right to have them, perfectly legal to have them.

It appears to me that you now are bringing this bill under the 15th amendment and stating that the States have got to add something to this right which the Supreme Court and the Constitution have given the States the authority to enforce.

You are now saying that a State might have these eligibility requirements provided it also proves a most unheard of thing, in my opinion, Mr. Attorney General, that is, that at least 50 percent of its eligible voters have registered and voted in the State. Now, that just sounds unreasonable to me.

Mr. KATZENBACH. It sounds unreasonble to me, Congressman, too. It is not what we said.

Mr. ASHMORE. What did you say?

Mr. KATZENBACH. What we have said is, if you have not discriminated, you are not under this bill. All you have to do is come in and show that you have not discriminated, if you had under 50 percent registration or voting. That is what we have said. It is not correct.