While all of these bills are desirable, and while it is not up to me to assign priorities, nevertheless I do want to say that the first five can, and should, be enacted by this Congress. In addition to the right-to-vote bill, these are also of timely importance: The bipartisan commission bill, the civil-rights division bill, the Armed Forces antidiscrimination bill, and the antilynching bill.

For the moment, let me only add this: No conscientious observer who has ever examined the American scene has failed to put his finger on our greatest national weakness-the gap between our pretensions and our performance in the field of civil rights. We know that our Constitution guarantees full equality of rights and opportunities to Americans of every race, color, religion, and national origin. We know that proposed legislation to assure to every American his constitutional rights has been introduced in Congress after Congress, only to die in committee, on the calendar, or by the veto of the filibuster.

I am convinced, however, that we are coming to realize that a Congress which continues to be unresponsive to the greatest moral demand of our generation is an irresponsible Congress. We are coming to realize that, to the degree that procrastination, temporizing, delays, and obstruction continue, we are convicting ourselves of hypocrisy. We are coming to realize that the enemies of society are not those who promote the processes of freedom but those who try to block them.

Your subcommittee now has the opportunity, if it will only seize it, to initiate the first meaningful civil-rights legislation in 80 years. Despite the honest differences of opinion among us, I am convinced that the subcommittee will do its part and that the Congress itself will follow.

Best wishes.

Sincerely yours,

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY.

[S. 500. A bill to protect the right to political participation, and prohibiting any intimidation, coercion, or other interference with the right to vote]

I. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Violence, threats, fraud, coercion, other forms of terrorism, boycotts, and discriminatory qualifications are today successfully disfranchising large numbers of American citizens. Well-documented cases have been publicly reported within the past year, cases involving a pattern of threats from physical attack to loss of jobs against Negroes who exercise their right to vote. As a penalty for voting, these threats have included discrimination in hiring or tenure; discrimination in regard to the withdrawal or granting of a business franchise or other benefit; efforts to cause an employer or principal to discriminate against an employee or agent to discourage the employee or agent from voting; boycotting of a business firm to encourage the firm to discourage its employees in exercising their right to vote; discharging or otherwise discriminating against any person because such person has encouraged others to vote.

The results have been to contribute to the great imbalance in the value of a vote cast in one section of the country as against another section. The extent of the limitation of the franchise is illustrated by the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Olney before the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections on October 10, 1956. Mr. Olney cited illegal practices by voting officials in Onachita Parish, La., acting in conjunction with local white citizens councils. In the course of several months in 1956, over 3,000 of the approximately 4,000 Negro voters in this particular parish were removed from the voting list.

The Jackson Daily News of December 18, 1956, carried a story of a plan by the white citizens councils to extend this program to other sections of the State and thereby clear Negroes from the voting lists. According to this report, 11,000 Negro voters were removed from the voting lists in northern Louisiana. A leader of the State's white supremacy movement was quoted as promising that a new purge would begin on January 1, 1957.

A more direct example of effective disfranchisement by intimidation occurred in January 1956 when a group of 12 negroes registered to vote in Liberty County, Fla. They were the first Negro voters to register in that county. Before a week elapsed, the homes of some of these citizens were shot into and crosses were burned throughout the area in which they lived. As a result of this intimidation, none of these new registrants voted.

These instances are not unique. Yet in these and in similar instances the Department of Justice has been powerless to act under existing law, beyond

investigations which may be conducted by the FBI. It is manifestly apparent that any new Federal legislation adopted must be broad enough to give the Attorney General discretion to intervene and the Federal courts jurisdiction whenever arbitrary and discriminatory devices are used to interfere with the right to vote. Obviously if the legislation is to be meaningful it must explicitly extend to voters in primary as well as general elections.

The proposed bill, originally requested by the Justice Department in the 81st Congress, is designed to do just this.

The Hatch Act (18 U. S. C. 594) now makes it a crime for anyone to intimidate or coerce an American citizen for the purpose of interfering with his right to vote as he wishes in elections for national office. This law was enacted in 1939, at a time when there was doubt in Congress as to the constitutionality of Federal regulation over nominating primaries. It is clear, however, today that the Federal Government does have the right to regulate the nominating primaries system. This has been so since 1941 and the case of U. S. v. Classic (317 U. S. 299). It is therefore essential that our laws be clear and unequivocal in this respect.

The proposed bill therefore provides that it is a crime to intimidate or coerce an American citizen and thus interfere with his right to vote in primary and special elections, as well as general elections for Federal office. The proposed bill also makes certain minor technical changes in the existing laws so as to declare it to be the unequivocal right of citizens to vote at any election without distinction as to race, color, religion, or national origin. Interfering with that right by anyone is made a crime. These changes have been requested by the Justice Department, which itself is responsible for carrying out the provisions of the law and protecting the rights of the citizens.

It is clear that discrimination against voters on the basis of race or color is a direct violation of the 15th amendment (Smith v. Allwright (321 U. S. 649)), and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (Nixon v. Herndon (273 U. S. ECF); Nixon v. Condon (366 U. S. 73)). Our courts have continually ruled that discrimination in voting based on religion or national origin is arbitrary, unreasonable, and "by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded on the doctrine of equality."

The proposed bill further strengthens the existing civil-rights statutes insofar as voting is concerned by providing in addition to criminal penalties that the party whose voting rights are interfered with can bring a suit for injury against the person or persons who interfered or attempted to interfere with his right to vote. Another most important provision of this bill would authorize the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in Federal court to prevent violation of the law or provide relief if violations take place. This would put a discretionary burden of protecting a citizen's right to vote directly upon the proper agent of the Federal Government rather than upon the individual citizen, who is often subject to local pressures. This is a bill, similar to S. 903 of the 84th Congress, which was favorably reported by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in 1956.

[S. 501. A bill to establish a bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government]

II. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO CREATE A COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

There is an urgent necessity for Congress to establish a permanent, bipartisan, regionally representative Federal Commission on Civil Rights to make continuous appraisals and to recommend action with respect to civil rights problems.

In a democratic society, the systematic, critical review of social needs and public policy is a fundamental necessity. This is especially true of a field like civil rights, where the problems are enduring and range widely. Yet, nowhere in the Federal Government is there an agency charged with the continuous appraisal of the status of civil rights and the efficiency of the machinery with which we hope to improve that status.

This gap was noted in the report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights which called for the establishment of a permanent Commission on Civil Rights in the Executive Office of the President.

Such a Commission would inquire into and give guidance in specific trouble areas as well as in broad problems and would make recommendations for legis

lative and executive action. It would have subpena powers but not regulatory or enforcement authority.

Bills to establish such a Commission have been pending in the Congress since 1948.

The bill I offer today is a revised version of S. 906 which I sponsored in the 84th Congress. It may be summarized as follows:

1. There is congressional finding that civil rights of some persons today are being denied, abridged, or threatened, and that to protect these rights the executive and legislative branches must be continuously informed concerning the denials, abridgments, or threats.

2. Hence a five-man Commission on Civil Rights is set up in the executive branch, appointed by the President, with the protection that these appointments are to be made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Certain Commission operating procedures and financial compensation are set out in the bill. A full-time staff director and secondary personnel are authorized. 3. The duties of the Commission are essentially informative: to gather authoritative information concerning developments in the civil-rights field; to appraise from a civil-rights perspective current policies and activities of the Federal, State, and local governments, and of private individuals and groups; to assist States, counties, municipalities, and private agencies in conducting civilrights studies; to make an annual report to the President and to the Congress with recommendations for action.

4. The Commission may constitute advisory committees and is expected to consult with representatives of State and local governments as well as private organizations.

5. The Commission is given subpena power to require the production of evidence relating to its studies or investigations. Any refusal to obey a subpena is punishable by contempt procedure in Federal district court.

Until last year, no such bill was brought to the floor of either House for a vote. When the House acted on H. R. 627, it did adopt a measure which has some of the aspects of the bill I propose today. I believe the present version is preferable however, for several reasons. Among them are these: (1) H. R. 627 would have established a Commission only for a period of 2 years; today's bill would establish it on a continuing, permanent basis.

(2) Under H. R. 627 the Commission would investigate denial of the right to vote, unwarranted economic pressure and denial of equal protection of the laws; under today's bill the investigations could be broader, touching on all aspects of civil rights. (3) Under H. R. 627 the Commission would report only to the President; under today's bill it would also recommend legislation to Congress.

The bill I propose today is a very meaningful one to me personally. Since it would be set up primarily as an advisory Commission, it is not at all to be confused with FEPC. It is a Commission patterned after the Mayor's Council on Human Relations which I established while I was mayor of Minneapolis and which is still operating successfully. I consider it to be one of the factors in changing Minneapolis from what Carey McWilliams in 1945 called "the capitol of anti-Semitism in America" to the city which received the annual Brotherhood Award of the National Conference on Christians and Jews in 1948. It is interesting to note that our mayor's commission continues to function in Minneapolis even though we have an FEPC in the city. The idea for such a commission, by the way, was supported by the old Truman Commission on Civil Rights.

On occasion I have had a chance to discuss with, or send, this bill to representative Southern editors. I have had an excellent and affirmative response from them. The long-term, essentially voluntary gradualist approach appeals to them. The necessity for Senate confirmation of the appointees to the Commission should result in a Commission representing many viewpoints.

The provision contemplating bipartisan, local, and regional consultation should also help assure that the Commission would approach its business from a serious but sympathetic perspective, recognizing that the problems which it is called upon to meet are more difficult in some areas of the country than others.

It seems to me that this is a moderate proposal upon which many Senators of varying convictions might agree.

[S. 502. A bill to establish a Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, headed by a new Assistant Attorney General]

III. STATEMENT by Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, on the Bill TO CREATE A CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Recent events have made it more than obvious that we need a statutory Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice, headed by an Assistant Attorney General, with authority to protect the civil rights in all sections of the country.

The need to strengthen the machinery of the Federal Government to provide for more effective enforcement of civil rights statutes was emphasized in the historic Report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights during the Truman administration. At the moment, responsibility for the enforcement of existing civil rights laws is vested in a nonstatutory Civil Rights Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. It has proved ineffective in the face of flagrant civil rights violations. The Civil Rights Section must be elevated to divisional status and given the prestige, the resources, and the authority necessary for the protection of civil rights.

President Truman's Committee urged as its first recommendation, the creation of a Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, with regional offices, a sufficient appropriation to enable the division to engage in extensive research and to act more effectively to prevent civil rights violations, and increase investigative action in the absence of complaints, and a greater use of civil sanctions.

Legislation to accomplish these purposes has been before the Congress continually since 1948. No such legislation was ever brought to the floor of either House for debate and vote, until 1956.

The provisions of the bill I introduce today spell out in detail the proposal which was incorporated in H. R. 627 last year. This bill is similar to S. 902 which I introduced in the 84th Congress, as well as to its earlier counterparts in previous Congresses. S. 902 was favorably reported by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in the 84th Congress. Such legislative encouragements from last year lead me to hope for effective action on this proposal this year.

[S. 504. A bill to extend to members of the Armed Forces the same protection against bodily attack as is now granted to personnel of the Coast Guard]

V. A STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO PROTECT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY BODILY ATTACK

Not long ago the papers reported the beating of Airman Paul Ferguson at New Albany, Miss., by police officers and a bus driver. Similar instances of attack on our servicemen, motivated by racial intolerance, have occurred in sufficient numbers to warrant Federal action.

The proposed bill is identical to H. R. 5205 of the 84th Congress which passed the House of Representatives in January 1956, and was favorably reported by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights last spring. The bill would amend 18 U. S. C. 1114 to include members of the Armed Forces under its protection. The present statute makes it a Federal criminal offense to murder or assault the Government personnel named herein while they are in the performance of their duties. The proposed bill would extend the protection, presently guaranteed to Coast Guard personnel, to all members of the Armed Forces.

In no single area where discrimination presently occurs does the Federal Government owe a more distinct obligation than in the protection of its servicemen and women. Nowhere is racial violence a more direct insult to American democracy than here. Nowhere is the necessity for Federal action more obvious and impelling.

[S. 505. A bill to protect persons within the United States against mob violence of lynching]

VI. STATEMENT by Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO PROTECT AGAINST LYNCHING

What has been done in Congress to make lynching and other assaults by public officials or private citizens, acting either in concert or individually, on persons or property because of race, color, religion, or national origin, a Federal crime? Legislation to make lynching a Federal crime was killed by filibuster in 1922. This matter has been before Congress continually since that time but has not been brought to a vote in the Senate.

That the old style of lynch-type action is not dead (i. e., removal of a prisoner from jail and inflicting violence on him) has recently been illustrated in the Jesse Woods case in Florida. According to reports, Woods was removed in October 1956 from jail in Wildwood, Fla., by a mob, taken to an isolated spot, and flogged. Fortunately, he was not killed.

Organized mob violence and terror of the Ku Klux Klan variety, in collusion with enforcement officials, are reappearing in new forms. The modern-day lynchers organize economic boycotts and reprisals, or bomb or otherwise injure individuals who do not conform to established patterns in the community.

Examples of the worst of these incidents are the George W. Lee, Lamar Smith, and Emmett Till murders in Mississippi, and the wounding of Gus Courts in that State.

Each legal victory by Negro citizens brings a series of bombings or other violence by antidemocratic forces. The total is too large to enumerate, but a listing of some follows:

On Christmas 1956, in the evening, the home of Rev. F. L. Shuttleworth in Birmingham was bombed and his children were injured. Reverend Shuttleworth is the leader of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights.

Two days prior to this, mobsters had fired into the home of Rev. Martin Luther King, the leader of the Montgomery bus boycott.

In August 1956, the home of Lutheran minister, Rev. Robert Graetz, a sympathizer with the Montgomery bus boycott, was bombed.

In August 1956, the home of Booker T. Gulley, in Mobile, Ala., was burned after it had previously been blasted by shotgun fire. Mr. Gulley had moved into a previously all-white section of town.

A similar incident occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, on January 3, 1956, when the home of Attorney John G. Pegg was bombed. No successful prosecutions have taken place in any of these cases, either by State or Federal Governments. It is essential that antilynching legislation apply in all circumstances where the violence is precipitated because of race, color, religion, or national origin, and not just in those instances where law-enforcement officials are involved. Otherwise, acts of violence by private citizens will continue to go unpunished, and many of our citizens will remain inadequately protected.

The bill I now introduce is a revised version of S. 900 which was favorably reported by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in 1956. It is designed to make it a criminal offense, punishable by a sentence up to 20 years, for 2 or more persons to commit violence on a person because of his race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or religion, or for the purpose of punishing such person for alleged crime. It also makes it a criminal offense for any governmental officer charged with the custody of a prisoner to neglect to protect such prisoner or to fail to apprehend or prosecute any member of a lynch mob. It authorizes the Attorney General to investigate violations of the act. It provides civil remedies for the victim or his next of kin against lynch-mob members.

[S. 508. A bill to strengthen existing civil-rights statutes]

X. STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, OF MINNESOTA, ON THE BILL TO STRENGTHEN EXISTING CIVIL-RIGHTS STATUTES

This bill is identical to S. 905 of the 84th Congress. The need to enlarge the scope of Federal legislation protecting the rights of individuals to liberty, security, and citizenship is very clear. This can be achieved by enacting new legislation, and it must also be achieved by strengthening existing civil-rights laws. One such law to be strengthened is a criminal-conspiracy statute (18 U. S. C.