Mr. WILKINS. I think it only refers to that, Congressman Cramer, in one particular, the particular of having to go to the State first. There is no across-the-board condemnation of this law as not provid ing a remedy.

Mr. CRAMER. I am talking about the present law. As it has been suggested by the chairman, the Attorney General said that the act of 1964 would be utilized in those places outside of the States covered by this proposal, and of course it only applies to Federal elections. Mr. WILKINS. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. My understanding is that this new approach is needed because that was not adequate.

Mr. WILKINS. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. And it is needed all over the country, not only in these 20 States, is that correct?

Mr. WILKINS. I would not quarrel with the Attorney General's opinion that he can use certain sections of the 1964 act in other sections of the country.

Mr. CRAMER. That is not responsive to my question. My question is, as the chairman has suggested, that outside of the States covered by literacy tests and the 50-percent voter or registration qualification, there is the 1964 pattern or practice method of relief.

Now, it was my understanding that the whole purpose for having this bill before us is that the 1964 bill did not provide adequate relief. Mr. WILKINS. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. Within or without those States.

Mr. WILKINS. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. So in effect, there is not adequate relief, in your opinion, in those areas outside the 20 States with literacy tests.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? One of the reasons was that the Department of Justice lacked sufficient personnel and they lacked the appropriations to get the personnel. This bill is aimed at the so-called hard core.

Mr. CRAMER. As I understand the Attorney General's testimony, it was that these proceedings take a great deal of time. Regardless of the number of personnel, they take years to process through the courts. It does not give you an adequate remedy.

Mr. WILKINS. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. Do you now mean to say you are satisfied with the remedy outside the literacy States?

Mr. WILKINS. Of course not, because we say this method requires years and years of litigation.

Mr. CRAMER. Precisely. That is what I wanted to make sure the record was clear on.

Mr. WILKINS. Right.

Mr. CRAMER. And this bill is drafted in such a manner that a number of States in which there is discrimination-for instance, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida-are not included because there is no literacy test.

Mr. WILKINS. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, obviously that is a weakness of this approach, is it not?

Mr. WILKINS. Well, it depends. It is a weakness in a sense, but there is also a question as to whether it is a weakness with respect to

the bill's limited objectives. It might well be a weakness in an overall attack on the whole question.

If you mean the latter, then of course it is.

Mr. CRAMER. For instance, Arkansas has nine counties in which there is not a single Negro registered, yet, Arkansas is not covered. That is an example of what can happen under the 50-percent formula which is being imposed.

You have another example in Arkansas. Take the county of Columbia as an example. There are 10,600 whites and 4,800 Negroes of voting age. But the figures show that while approximately 7,000 whites are registered, only 1,500, or 31 percent of the Negroes are registered. You can have all the discrimination in world relating to two-thirds of the Negroes in that county.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that?

Mr. CRAMER. Columbia County, Ark.

You would not have any relief under this bill for the simple reason that over 50 percent of the people, as an aggregate, are registered. Right?

The CHAIRMAN. It is true it would not be covered.

Mr. WILKINS. Well, Congressman Cramer, this is precisely the reason for our recommendation on page 3 of the testimony for extending the coverage and the point 4.

Mr. CRAMER. Right.

Mr. WILKINS. This is right in line with our testimony.

Mr. CRAMER. That is what I wanted to get confirmed with a specific example on the record. I thank you for it.

Now let's take a contrary situation. Let's take the situation where, in a given area, there are not 50 percent of the people voting and they do have a literacy test, but there has never at any time been any evidence whatsoever of discrimination. Still, as I read the bill, the mere triggering of 3 (a) alone would lead to the application of section 8. This provision would require that a community, changing from a written ballot to voting machines, would be required to come to Washington to get approval of that local ordinance or resolution. Mr. WILKINS. Why not, Congressman?

Mr. CRAMER. Maine is an example?

Mr. WILKINS. Why not?

Mr. CRAMER. Why should they? The question is a constitutional question.

Mr. WILKINS. Yes.

Mr. CRAMER. It is a constitutional question.

Mr. WILKINS. Yes, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman in one breath says the bill is too weak, now he says it is too strong.

Mr. CRAMER. I think this clearly illustrates that the bill is weak in both directions. It discriminates against areas in which there has been no discrimination and where there is no reason to bring them under the bill, but leaves out areas where there is discrimination. Of course when we deal with constitutional questions relating to the power of a community to pass ordinances or regulations when they have not, in fact, discriminated at any time, I think you get into a serious constitutional question.

Mr. WILKINS. It may strike you as serious, but there is not anything to prevent a community which has never discriminated from suddenly adopting a regulation that may prove to be discriminatory. Is there any reason why they should not go to court and say so?

Mr. CRAMER. I call your attention to the fact that the November 1, 1964, date contained in the act, as the date for a device or test being in existence, would not prohibit any State not now covered among those 20, to pass any literacy test, discriminatory or otherwise, that it wishes. Is that correct?

Mr. WILKINS. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid, Mr. Cramer, I have to recognize Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. CRAMER. I would like to ask that these gentlemen return because I have not had a reasonable opportunity to ask reasonable questions. You know my attitude on this legislation. I would like to see a bill that covers all areas.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not vote for the bill no matter what form it took.

Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is totally incorrect, I say, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. BROOKS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILKINS. May I, Congressman, support these strengthening amendments that we propose.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman from Florida asks that if discrimination exists in Florida, in any of the counties listed in the 1963 Civil Rights Commission Act, that it be included in whatever bill is voted out of this committee. I think that speaks for itself.

Mr. WILKINS. I do not see any point-in fact, we are not having an argument, all you are doing is supporting the position I brought here. I appreciate it.

Mr. CRAMER. I am trying to find out how we can make a good bill out of what appears to be one that is not too good.

Mr. WILKINS. Mr. Chairman, may I say on behalf of my organizations that we will certainly appreciate the Congressman from Florida offering language that he deems would strengthen this bill for our inspection, so that we could perhaps join him in his crusade.

Mr. CRAMER. I would hope to respond to the gentleman in all seriousness, because this is a serious problem. I believe that anyone should have the opportunity if he wishes to register to vote and to have that vote counted regardless of race, color, or creed under basic constitutional concepts. I shall strive on this committee to come up with a bill that will do it, and not one that makes second-class citizens of the Negroes outside the 20 States with literacy tests and penalizes areas within the 20 States that have not in fact discriminated.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I support the motion of having Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Rauh come back after they have submitted whatever amendments they have so this committee may have a chance to consider them. I think it might be well for them to return at the very end of our proceedings.

I did want to ask this one question of Mr. Rauh.

Earlier, Mr. Mathias referred to a number of bills which apparently ban the poll tax, including Mr. Stafford's, Mr. Lindsay's, as well as his own. Mr. Lindsay's and Mr. Mathias' bills read: "The Federal registrar shall disregard any poll tax as a prerequisite to vote." This would appear to be only a moratorium; enforced only for such time as Federal registrars are present.

Another bill, introduced by Congressman Edwards and by Senators Douglas and Case in their key sections states:

No State shall require the payment of poll tax as a condition or prequisite to voting in any election conducted under its authority.

I assume you would prefer the latter language; would you not? Mr. RAUH. You are precisely correct, Congressman Kastenmeier. About the only way we would feel there is reason to limit the abolition of the poll tax to places where the registrar is appointed, would be if Congress were to feel that that was the limit of its constitutionality.

You will recall that I suggested you could deal with the poll tax more easily where you had a registrar. I do not believe that is the limit of your power and we would strongly urge its total abolition.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your coming.

Mr. Stratton.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, have we concluded? There are other members of the committee who had questions to ask of the witness. The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to come back at a subsequent date, Mr. Wilkins?

Mr. WILKINS. At a subsequent date, Mr. Chairman, but at a later date than tomorrow. I am going to a certain State south of here that has been in the news much lately.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you come back at some subsequent date?

Mr. LINDSAY. Is there any reason why we can't allow the members of the subcommittee to ask questions that should be asked?

The CHAIRMAN. I have Members of the Congress who are waiting. They should have been called before.

Mr. LINDSAY. That decision should have been made at 10 o'clock this morning. I do think especially you should give them a chance to ask questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilkins will you come back at some subsequent date convenient to the committee?

Mr. WILKINS. I will be very happy to do so.

Mr. LINDSAY. I think we ought to do that, because I think we are in the line of questioning here which is designed to bring about action and I think we should be given a chance to pursue it.

The CHAIRWAN. You will have an opportunity.

Mr. Stratton.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. STRATTON. I shall be very brief.

I recall some 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, having the privilege of testifying before this committee at the time that the civil rights bill offered by President Kennedy was before the committee.

I remember saying at that time that I felt that the time for talk was over, that we had talked for a hundred years and that it was the

time for action. I remember at the time some members of the committee being perhaps a bit critical that this appeared to suggest that I wanted to rule out the opportunity for discussion and questioning by members of the committee, and of course, the committee did deliberate quite extensively on that legislation.

Now, we have another bill before us and the President of the United States has himself said that the time for talking has ended and the time for action is here.

I just want to appear here this morning, Mr. Chairman, as one who has joined in sponsoring the administration's bill to urge the committee's full support for that legislation.

I recognize that of course the committee does have to deliberate to some extent on the bill, but I think it is clear that there have been informal discussions on both sides of the political aisle and in both Houses of the Congress before this bill was introduced.

I think this bill does represent a broad consensus and goes directly to the pressing problem that has been very much in the news and in our minds and hearts of recent days. I believe it is a good bill, a relatively simple bill, and an effective bill, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of it. I urge the committee to report it favorably and speedily to the House. The committee has also invited me, Mr. Chairman, to testify on another piece of legislation which I had introduced prior to the time I testified before this committee 2 years ago, and which I have introduced again in this Congress as H.R. 683. This is a bill designed to implement the 14th amendment, more specifically the 2d section of the 14th amendment, which provides that if States are in fact denying or abridging the right to vote, then their representation in the House of Representatives shall be curtailed.

I remember urging 2 years ago that that section might be included in the omnibus civil rights bill of that day. But I recognize the point that you have made this morning, Mr. Chairman, that we do not want to load too many things into this particular legislation, and I remember 2 years ago agreeing that perhaps it should not be included for reasons of speed.

I am still very much in favor of my bill, H.R. 683. I wish it could be included today. I recognize perhaps the reasons why it cannot be included in this voting registrars bill. But in those 2 years, Mr. Chairman, and particularly recently, there seems to have been a good deal more interest in developing this kind of legislation, recognizing that perhaps the adoption or at least the favorable reporting of this kind of a bill, which would begin the machinery to take away the congressional representation of those States which continue to deny the right to vote to Negroes in the South, might be one of the most effective ways of bringing pressure on these States to get the job of registration done and avoid the evasion and foot dragging to which Mr. Wilkins and others have already testified.

The CHAIRMAN. If I may interrupt, the committee has agreed to work wholeheartedly with the Bureau of the Census on that very matter and to arrange with that Bureau for legislation along the lines you suggested.

Mr. STRATTON. I am delighted to hear that, Mr. Chairman. I might say my bill was prepared in consultation with the Bureau of the Census and at that time they indicated to me they had available