organizations or individuals, in respect to equal protection of the laws, including but not limited to the fields of voting, education, housing, employment, the use of public facilities, transportation, and the administration of justice. The Commission may, for such periods as it deems necessary, concentrate the performance of its duties on those specified in either paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) and may further concentrate the performance of its duties under any of such paragraphs on one or more aspects of the duties imposed therein.

"(b) The Commission shall submit interim reports to the President and to the Congress at such times as either the Commission or the President shall deem desirable, and shall submit to the President and to the Congress a final and comprehensive report of its activities, findings, and recommendations not later than September 30, 1967.

"(c) Sixty days after the submission of its final report and recommendations the Commission shall cease to exist."

SEC. 6. (a) Section 105(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975 (a)) is amended by striking out in the last sentence thereof "$50 per diem" and inserting in lieu thereof "$75 per diem."

SEC. 7. Section 105 (g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975d (g)) is amended to read as follows:

"(g) In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena, any district court of the United States or the United States court of any territory or possession, or the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or is domiciled or transacts business, or has appointed an agent for receipt of service of process, upon application by the Attorney General of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Commission or a subcommittee thereof, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof."

SEC. 8. Section 105 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975d) as amended by section 401 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1975d (h)) is amended by adding a new subsection at the end to read as follows:

"(i) The Commission shall have the power to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."

[S. 1219, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To make the Commission on Civil Rights a permanent agency in the executive branch of the Government, to broaden the scope of the duties of the Commission, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Commission on Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1963."

SEC. 2. (a) Section 104 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975) is amended by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(4) serve as a national clearinghouse for information, and provide advice and technical assistance to Government agencies, communities, industries, organizations, or individuals, in respect to equal protection of the laws, including but not limited to the fields of voting, education, housing, employment, the use of public facilities, transportation, and the administration of justice."

(b) Section 104 (b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1975 (c)) is amended to read as follows:

"(b) The Commission shall, not later than January 31 of each year, submit a report to the President and the Congress setting forth its activities and findings during the preceding calendar year and its recommendations with respect thereto. The Commission may submit such other reports to the President and to the Congress at such times as the Commission and the President deem advisable." (c) Subsection (c) of section 104 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1975 (c)) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 105 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975d) as amended by section 401 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1975d(h)) is amended by adding a new subsection at the end to read as follows:

"(i) The Commission shall have the power to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."

MAY 10, 1963.

From: American Law Division, Library of Congress. Subject: Analysis of S. 1117 and S. 1219 (88th Cong., 1st sess.) and comparisons of them with each other and with existing law.

Section 1

S. 1219

The act may be cited as the "Commission on Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1963".

NOTE. This is identical with section 1 of S. 1117.

Section 2(a)

To the three existing duties of the Commission section 2(a) would add a fourth-that it shall serve as a national clearinghouse for information and provide advice and technical assistance to anyone with respect to equal protection of the laws in any field, including but not limited to the fields of voting, education, housing, employment, the use of public facilities, transportation, and the administration of justice.

Existing law, section 104(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975c (a)) assign to the Commission three duties:

(1) to investigate written allegations of denial of the rights to vote by reason of color, race, religion, or national origin;

(2) to study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution; and

(3) to appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.

NOTE. The language of the new duty assigned the Commission is identical with that in section 5 of S. 1117. S. 1117 however, gives the Commission discretion during any period to concentrate on the performance of any aspect of any one of the four duties assigned to it.

NOTE. The parenthetical reference to the code on page 1, line 6, of S. 1219 should read "42 U.S.C. 1975c (a)".

Section 2 (b) and (c)

These subsections would have the effect of making the Commission a permanent agency by amending existing law (sec. 104b of the 1957 act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1975c (b) (Supp. III, 1959-61)) to require the Commission to submit annual reports not later than January 31 of each year and such other reports as the Commission and the President deem advisable instead of submitting such interim reports as the Commission and the President deem advisable and a final report not later than September 30, 1963. They would also repeal section 104c of the 1957 act (42 U.S.C. § 1975c (c)) which provides that the Commission shall cease to exist 60 days after the submission of its final reports.

NOTE 1.-S. 1117, instead of making the Commission a permanent agency, would simply extend the date for submitting its final report from September 30, 1963, to September 30, 1967.

NOTE 2.-The code citation on page 2, line 8 should read: "42 U.S.C. 1975c (b)". NOTE 3.-The code citation on page 2, lines 17-18 should read: "42 U.S.C. 1975c (c)".

Section 3

This section would amend section 105 of the 1957 act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1975 (d)), which sets forth the housekeeping and miscellaneous powers of the Commission by adding a new subsection (i), giving the Commission the power to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of the act.

NOTE. Although existing law contains no specific provision empowering the Commission to make such rules and regulations, see Hannah v. Larche, 363

U.S. 420 (1960), upholding the validity of rules of procedure adopted by the Commission for the conduct of hearings on alleged Negro voting deprivations.

S. 1117

Section 1.

The act may be cited as the "Commission on Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1963."

NOTE. This is identical with section 1 of S. 1219.

Section 2.

This section reenacts section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, dealing with Rules of Procedure of the Commission and Hearings (42 U.S.C. § 1975a) but makes the following amendments:

(a) Under existing law if the Commission determines that evidence or testimony at any hearing may tend to defame or incriminate any person the evidence or testimony must be received in executive session and the Commission must afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness. Section 102 (b) of this bill would require the Commission to afford such person an opportunity to appear voluntarily as a witness only "in the event the Commission determines that such [defaming or incriminating] evidence or testimony shall be given at a public session" (p. 2, lines 18-20.).

(b) By adding the words "or summary of evidence or testimony" to section 102 (g) (42 U.S.C. § 1975a (g)) (p. 3, lines 3-4) this bill would prohibit anyone from releasing any summary of evidence or testimony taken in executive session without the consent of the Commission. The prohibition in existing law applies only to evidence or testimony, not to summaries.

(c) By amending section 102(j) (42 U.S.C. § 1975a (j)) to increase the daily fee for witnesses from $4 to $6; their travel allowance from 8 cents to 10 cents a mile; and their addition allowance for overnight attendance from $10 to $12. The only changes made in eixsting law (42 U.S.C. § 1975a (j)) are the numbers. (d) Existing law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1975a (k)) prohibits the Commission from serving a subpena which would require the presence of the party subpenaed at a hearing to be held outside the State where a witness is found or resides or transacts business. Subsection (k) of section 102, by adding the words on page 4, lines 13-20, would permit the issuance of subpenas for hearings to be held in a State where a witness is domiciled or has appointed an agent for receipt of process and would also permit service of subpenas for hearings to be held within fifty miles of the place where the witness is found or resides or is domiciled or transacts business or has appointed an agent for receipt of service of process even though the hearings may be outside the State.

Section 3

Existing law (42 U.S.C., sec. 1974 (a)) establishes the pay of a Commissioner at $50 for each day spent on the work of the Commission, authorizes reimbursement for actual and necessary travel expenses and an allowance of $12 a day in lieu of actual expenses for subsistence when away from his usual place of residence. Section 3 of the bill would increase the compensation to $75 a day, authorize payment of actual travel expenses (eliminating the words "and necessary" from existing law), and per diem in lieu of subsistence in accordance with section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 as amended (5 U.S.C., sec. 73b-2, 836 (supp. III, 1959-61)) which sets a maximum of $16 a day within the United States.

Section 4

Existing law (42 U.S.C., 1975(b)) provides that members of the Commission otherwise in the Government service shall receive no additional compensation but "shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel expenses and shall receive a per diem allowance of $12 in lieu of actual expenses for subsistence" when away from their usual places of residence. Section 4 of the bill would provide that such Commission members "shall be paid actual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses" in accordance with the provisions of the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C., 44835-42) which is in effect an increase of per diem from $12 to $16.

Section 5

This section would make three changes in section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C., sec. 1975c):

(a) It would give the Commission a fourth duty; namely, to serve as a national clearinghouse and source of advice and technical assistance to anyone

with respect to equal protection of laws. This provision of section 5, on page 6, lines 10-16, is identical with the provisions of section 2(a) of S. 1219 on page 2, lines 1-7 of that bill.

(b) It would give the Commission discretion to concentrate for such periods as it deems necessary on any aspect of any of the duties set forth in 42 U.S.C. section 1975c (a).

(c) It would extend the date of the Commission's final report from September 30, 1963, to September 30, 1967, but continue to provide that the Commission cease to exist 60 days after submission of its final report.

NOTE. The code citation on page 5, line 18, should read "42 U.S.C. 1975c". Section 6

Existing law (42 U.S.C., sec. 1975d (a)) authorizes the Commission to appoint consultants at rates not in excess of $50 per diem. This section would increase the maximum pay for consultants from $50 to $75 per diem.

NOTE. The code citation on page 7, line 7, should read "42 U.S.C. 1975d (a)”. Section 7

Existing law (42 U.S.C., sec. 1975d (g)), dealing with aid of courts in enforcing Commission subpenas, confers jurisdiction on the court in the district where a contumacious witness "in found or resides or transacts business." This section would change the quoted langugage to "is found or resides or is domiciled or transacts business, or has appointed an agent for receipt of service of process" (p. 7, lines 18-20). No other change is made.

Section 8

This section would make a change identical with that providing in section 3 of S. 1219. It would give the Commission the power to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of the act. The same comment is appropriate here. Although existing law contains no specific provision empowering the Commission to make such rules and regulation, see Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960) upholding the validity of rules of procedure, adopted by the Commission for the conduct of hearings on alleged Negro voting deprivations.

VINCENT A. DOYLE, Legislative Attorney.

Senator ERVIN. The hearings have been scheduled with a view to insuring that the widest possible cross section of views is received. The attorneys general of the various States have been asked for their opinions concerning the necessity for and/or the desirability of the legislation before us. The responses will be included in the record of the hearings. The subcommittee has attempted to schedule all who have requested to testify; these include Members of Congress, other Government officials, representatives of organizations, and private individuals. In addition, the subcommittee has invited the Attorney General of the United States, and the chairman of the Commission on Civil Rights, to appear on behalf of the Department of Justice and the Commission, respectively.

At the outset, I would like to outline a few of the areas upon which the record should build.

Long before the Commission published its recommendation concerning Mississippi a few weeks ago, it was my opinion that the Commission is neither desirable nor necessary; and even if it were the former, it most assuredly is not the latter since its functions only duplicate in part those of the Department of Justice. The Commission's recent unconstitutional recommendation points up not only its lack of understanding of our governmental processes but a total disregard of the Constitution its members have sworn to uphold. The Commission's interim report on Mississippi is a very shocking example of its recommendations, which will be one of the areas of its operations to be reviewed during these hearings.

At one point in that report it was recommended

that the President explore the legal authority he possesses as Chief Executive to withhold Federal funds from the State of Mississippi, until the State of Mississippi demonstrates its compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

I was gratified that the President promptly repudiated the report, saying he neither had nor wanted such power as that the Commission suggested he use. The report also was repudiated by the Attorney General, by the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, and by a number of constitutional scholars, columnists, and newspapers. It is heartening for the country that so many of its leaders in this instance rose above the intense political pressure that invariably is exerted each time the Commission makes a recommendation.

However, even though the recommendation is now properly dead, it is relevant for the purposes of these hearings because it reflects on the very character of the Commission itself. The most disturbing aspect of this essentially punitive proposal is its abundantly clear unconstitutionality. This recommendation is doubly disturbing because it was proposed by a group whose alleged purpose is to defend, not destroy, the Constitution.

The President was asked to annex conditions to legislation which Congress never intended. The President, of course, has no legislative power at all; he therefore has no power to add terms to a grant which Congress has made. I do not think that even Congress could enact such a ridiculous restriction as that denying to 1 State out of 50 the use of Federal funds; it would seem to me a denial of due process of law to the citizens of Mississippi.

There is a further constitutional objection in that the President is asked to make a judicial determination of whether a State is denying rights of certain citizens, without any hearing being offered the accused. As the Washington Post said editorially:

The first (defect) is that it would seem to entail a bypassing of the courts by authorizing the President, or the Congress, to determine when a State's conduct violates the Constitution. This is essentially a judicial question. * *

If adopted, the Commission's proposal would result in a thorough confusion of the balance of powers.

Aside from the constitutional issues, the recommendation seems to me so unwise that it is almost beyond comprehension. It is not only those who are alleged to have violated the Constitution who would be punished; as the Raleigh News & Observer has noted, "This proposal to starve all in order to force some to obey the laws would hit everybody, 'without distinction."" Everybody would suffer the white, the Negro, and the Indian. In the last paragraph of its report, the Commission states, in effect, that it does not wish to see the people of Mississippi suffer. However, if its proposal had been adopted, the only way it could avoid seeing the people suffer would be to turn its back. If agricultural surpluses were cut off to the State, it is not the white planter who would be hardest hit. If Federal aid for education in the impacted areas of Mississippi was eliminated, it is not the State officials whose education would suffer. The supposed sins of the guilty would be visited on the innocent, contrary to our principles that only wrongdoers are punished and then only after a hearing. The innocent would suffer greatest, and such action, un