tend to produce something more comprehensive and something perhaps even more meaningful in terms of the problem.

Mr. RYAN. Let me say to the gentleman, H.R. 6023, although it was introduced in March of this year, is basically the same bill which I introduced in the 87th Congress, in 1961, as H.R. 7143 and in the 88th Congress, in 1963, as H.R. 6028.

At that time, I proposed that the Civil Rights Commission be given the power to deal with unfair discriminatory practices, by making findings and issuing cease and desist orders, a proposal which would have dealt with discrimination across the board, including discrimination in voting.

That bill had a voting rights section which is similar in intent and purport to H.R. 6023. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which adopted a different approach, I revised it and introduced the voting rights section which is the bill to which the gentleman referred.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. A final question, then. On March 24, could you see any improvement in your own bill?

Mr. RYAN. I think there is always room for improvement. As the result of the testimony which the committee is hearing and will hear during the course of these hearings, I certainly urge it to effect improvements in the administration bill, H.R. 6400. It needs to be strengthened and broadened for maximum effectiveness.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Corman ?

Mr. CORMAN. No questions.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman.

Do I understand the gentleman from New York to say that we should eliminate all literacy tests?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. My position is that all literacy tests should be eliminated by legislation, by action of the Congress.

Mr. DONOHUE. In other words, even if a person can't read or write they should be permitted to vote?

Mr. RYAN. That does not disturb me.

Mr. DONOHUE. I know it does not disturb you. But why do you believe that?

Mr. RYAN. I believe we should have no arbitrary requirement of a literacy test or any other requirement except age, residency and sanity. There are only 20 States, I believe, in the country which have literacy tests. Also a strong argument can be made that the 14th amendment invalidates literacy tests.

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, do you believe that a person that cannot read or write can intelligently vote?

Mr. RYAN. I believe that a person who cannot read and write can make an intelligent decision; yes, sir, I do.

Mr. DONOHUE. What is the basis for your conclusion?

Mr. RYAN. The art of communication takes many forms. Civilization experienced vocal and visual communication before it knew writing and reading. The early elections in this country very often were participated in by people who were not able to read and write. The fact remains that in a good many States in this country today there is not literacy test.

Mr. DONOHUE. How can a person that can neither read nor write evaluate the qualifications of a candidate to serve him in a legislative body?

Mr. RYAN. He could listen to them speak, see them on television, and in the movies; he could evaluate what they had to say and weigh their statements just as anyone evaluates the qualification of a candidate when he reads and writes. He could discuss the issues with other people.

Mr. DONOHUE. Now you suggest that a person should not be required to go before the State registrar of voters before he comes to the examiner. If that requirement is made of white people, should it not be required of people that are not white?

Mr. RYAN. I am speaking of those districts, those localities where the Attorney General has recommended to the Civil Service Commission the appointment of examiners. Where examiners are functioning, they should be able to directly receive the applicant and place his name on the rolls without requiring him to go through the process of appearing at the local courthouse or registration place.

Mr. DONOHUE. In other words, you do not believe they should follow the condition precedent?

Mr. RYAN. No; I think the condition precedent should not exist. Once the examiner is appointed, he will have the authority under the administration's bill to register people. I think that he should then go ahead and register them. He would not be there in the first place if there had not been discrimination in voting.

Mr. DONOHUE. How can we determine whether or not the registrar is discriminating until the person goes there?

Mr. RYAN. Under the administration's proposal, H.R. 6400, if less than 50 percent of the population has voted and if there is a literacy test or other similar device, then the Attorney General may recommend the appointment of examiners.

Mr. DONOHUE. That is right, but don't you believe that the person should make the effort?

Mr. RYAN. No; I believe that, once it has been determined that there is discrimination in a locality, the examiner should go ahead and register people. Each individual should not be required to face the hostility of the local boards which are known to discriminate. Otherwise, the examiner would not have been appointed in the first place. Mr. DONOHUE. That is quite true, but the person who is obligated to register, should we not give him the opportunity of turning the person down; that is, if he is

Mr. RYAN. They have been turning people down for a hundred

years.

Mr. DоNонUE. Pardon?

Mr. RYAN. They have been turning people down for a hundred years.

Mr. DONOHUE. Just go to the registrar's office. If he is not given that opportunity, then he goes to the registrar.

Mr. RYAN. But there is another problem and that is the whole problem of intimidation and economic reprisals which are resorted to in these States and these counties. Many Negro citizens are afraid to go to the local courthouse; they are afraid to go register to vote because they know of the reprisals that will be visited upon them.

46-535-65--28

There is greater security in going to a Federal examiner who will then register them than going and facing the hostility and the other consequences which will flow from going to the local courthouse. Earlier, I discussed the publication requirement in Mississippi.

There are very valid reasons, once the examiners are functioning, to permit the examiners to register people directly without putting them through the process of being turned down locally.

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, on the matter of discrimination, if that rule applies that the white should go to the registrar's office and apply, should it not apply across the board?

Mr. RYAN. I would, have no objection in those areas to having the Federal examiners registering everybody, if that is the problem. The problem is discrimination against Negro citizens-not white persons. Mr. DONOHUE. Insofar as applying to register, that requirement is made of the white individual.

Mr. RYAN. But the whole reason we are here

Mr. DONOHUE. Do not misunderstand me. I am in favor of your position, I am wholeheartedly in favor of it, but I am wondering if the same requirement should not be made as a condition precedent of all people, be they white or colored; to go to the registrar's office and attempt to register. If they are denied the opportunity to register, then they should go to the Federal examiner.

Mr. CORMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. I caution you we have three more witnesses this evening and it is now 10 to 9.

Go ahead.

Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Ryan, as I understand this bill, I think that there will be appointment of examiners, but a great bulk of registration will still be by registrars who will no longer be permitted to use literacy tests.

In those instances in which you mention there has been discrimination, I think the Attorney General is obligated to waive that requirement. I do not believe that all the people who register to vote without a literacy test will be registered by examiners. The registrars who are today refusing to register people because of literacy tests will be registering them without literacy tests under section 3. We will not have to have registrars for everyone who is going to register, but I certainly would agree with you that no one should be put in the position of being intimidated; that is the very purpose for the language of the bill which provides that the Attorney General may waive that requirement.

Mr. DONOHUE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CORMAN. I am finished.

Mr. DONOHUE. I am wondering, should we make that same rule apply to the whites to determine whether or not they are qualified to Vote?

Mr. CORMAN. I would have to say that we live in a real world and I do not think we can escape that problem.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conyers. Be very brief, please.

Mr. CONYERS. I only have one question of our distinguished witness whom it seems to me, since my short period in the Congress, has demonstrated one of the continuing concerns in the rights of Ameri

cans to vote, and I am very happy that he has come before the committee.

Could I ask you about the particular reference that you have made with regard to the Negro citizens in the South who might be in these pockets of discrimination as it has been put earlier and what remedies that you would specifically suggest to be added to this bill so that the right to vote would really apply as the President hoped for? In his statement it seemed that every American, regardless of whether he lived in a 50-percent district or a less-than-50-percent district or anywhere in the South, would be afforded the full safeguards that are intended in this new voter rights bill.

Mr. RYAN. I certainly agree with the gentleman that any bill should comprehensively cover all areas in which there has been disenfranchisement of Negro citizens.

The point I tried to make earlier was that this bill because of the 50-percent provision and requirement of a literacy test or other device does not reach four States especially where large numbers of Negroes have been disenfranchised.

I am sure that the committee can draft language to deal with the problem. My suggestion was that, if the Civil Rights Commission or the U.S. district court were to find that there had been a denial of the right to vote in an area where there is no literacy test, and where therefore, this bill is not operative, then upon that finding the Attorney General could follow the same procedure that is outlined in the bill and ask the Federal Civil Service Commission to appoint Federal examiners to register people in those areas.

Mr. CONYERS. What would it require to trigger off this kind of legislation in your opinion; a complaint from a number of Negro citizens in some area like Arkansas or Tennessee?

Mr. RYAN. I would think that would be one approach. My own approach would be to have the Civil Rights Commission make a finding. While the Federal court might also be used, the use of the Civil Rights Commission would avoid segregationist judges. The Civil Rights Commission has done a great deal of work and devoted a great deal of study to this whole problem of discrimination in voting. If the Civil Rights Commission were to make a finding that there was discrimination

Mr. CONYERS. What would bring them there?

Mr. RYAN. They could be brought there on a complaint; they could be brought there on their own motion; they could be brought there on a request of the local citizens.

This, then, would be one way of reaching those States which do not have literacy tests and which are not covered under this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I think we will have to let you go now.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. DONOHUE. I would like to point out to the Member from New York that I happen to be a member of the subcommittee that drew up the 1957 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I am perfectly in sympathy with the position that the gentleman has taken to make every effort to insure that all of our citizens are given the opportunity to vote. Mr. RYAN. I appreciate that.

Mr. DONOHUE. I merely wanted to have some of these things clarified.

Mr. RYAN. I know that is certainly the gentleman's desire and 1 know that he will make a very valuable contribution to the work of this committee this year in drafting a bill which will be effective in accomplishing that purpose.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Our next witness is the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Halpern.

Mr. Halpern?

STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a prepared statement, sir?

Mr. HALPERN. I do have a prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to space the witnesses. We have 1 hour left. How long will it take you?

Mr. HALPERN. I do not think more than 15 minutes-tops.

The CHAIRMAN. Apparently.

Mr. HALPERN. Hopefully.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us not waste time, proceed.

Mr. HALPERN. I am truly privileged to appear here this evening before this distinguished committee. I want to compliment the committee for holding these hearings so swiftly after the introduction of the legislation and particularly for meeting in the evening.

You, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, are to be highly complimented.

I am pleased to appear in support of strong, unambiguous legislation to enforce the constitutional right to vote.

The members of this committee, my colleagues in the House, are engaged in studying this monumental national question. The recent events taking place in Selma, Ala., have accentuated the pattern of rejection and denial which has stained the Nation's integrity.

No right is more fundamental to democracy than the exercise of the franchise. For many years we have witnessed the adoption of ingenious devices aimed at Negro disenfranchisement.

It should now be our unhesitating duty to address this inequity responsibly and enact legislation which will insure for the Negro citizen his rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. You offer two bills. One is H.R. 4551

Mr. HALPERN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Which is more or less patterned after the so-called administration bill.

Mr. HALPERN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It is patterned after the bill offered by Mr. Lindsay. Mr. HALPERN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you offered H.R. 6437, which is patterned after the administration bill, am I correct in that?

Mr. HALPERN. Yes, and I will explain, Mr. Chairman, as I go along. The CHAIRMAN. You are on both sides.