Now. Mr. Chairman, almost all Americans are very familiar with these words of the Declaration of Independence. However, I fear most of us cannot so easily recall to mind the statement of facts set out in the Declaration by our Founding Fathers to prove to the world the necessity of their action. A number of these -tatements are closely related to the issue involved in the pending voting bill and their restatement may allow us to see more clearly our responsibilities and obligations.

Referring to the King of Great Britian, they said:

"He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; given his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent;

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms.

"Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." These statements tell us how significant to freedom our Founding Fathers considered the right to vote. They also tell us that the patience of freemen can only be tried so far by dilatory and evasive action which denies liberty. They tell us that freedom demands action.

One hundred years ago the law of the land was changed to correct a great evil which our Nation had allowed to exist. Slavery was abolished, and the right to vote was guaranteed against discrimination because of race, color, or previous Condition of servitude. At the same time, Congress was given the power to implement and to enforce these changes in our basic law. Unfortunately, in ertain parts of our Nation the right to vote free from racial discrimination remains today a mere change in our Nation's basic law. This right has yet to become a reality. Congress has attempted on a number of occasions to implement the 15th amendment but has failed in its efforts due to dilatory and evasive action by certain State and local officials and in some instances by outright defiance of the law.

Mr. Chairman, it is 'way past time when our patience must come to an end. Freedom demands that legislative action be taken now to remove effectively all racial barriers to the right to vote. Men and women of all races must have an equal voice in their government and this can only be obtained through equal access to the ballot box.

Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States has sent to the Congress a proposal of great merit. It is the subject of these hearings. With a few modifications. I believe it would make possible the ultimate achievement of the promise of the 15th amendment. At least, it would go a long way in making good on this century-old promise.

The changes in the bill which I believe should be made relate to the poll tax where it is used as a means to deny the right to vote because of race and to areas where racial discrimination in voting exists but which would not be reached under present provisions. The hearings and debate may well bring out other needed changes.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite hopeful that this committee will report favorably a sound and effective voting measure and that the Congress will take final action on such a measure without undue delay.

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement. I hope that we proceed as the Senate has directed, expeditiously to consider the hill and to report our judgment to the Senate in order that legislation which the overwhelming majority of the people of America expect us to enact will be on the books without further delay.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make at this time. I do wish to voice the observation that I think it is a rather tragic thing for the Senate to put a time limitation on the con sideration of this bill by the committee, because certainly, it is not very wise to put a time limit upon the search of the Constitution or for the search of ways to direct and legislate a situation. The people of America instead of taking this time for this legislation might well spend all the time they have between now and the Easter vacation praying that those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution will apply their knowledge.

Senator TYDINGS. I have nothing.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission to submit a statement as of the opening of the hearings which I will prepare and submit as soon as possible.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR HUGH SCOTT, OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to make known my views on the critical subject of voting rights.

The events of recent days in the State of Alabama underscore the urgency in the need for additional legislation to implement the 15th amendment of the Constitution. The 15th amendment provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race or color.

The 15th amendment applies to all citizens and to all States. Its meaning is clear-no matter where he lives, a man's right to vote shall not depend upon his race or color. If he is a Negro, he shall have the opportunity to register and to cast his ballot with the same ease as do white citizens of the same State.

The record is clear, Mr. Chairman. The facts are all in. Nearly a century of experience demonstrates that the Negro is systematically and deliberately being denied the right to vote in several States and counties of the South. So widespread is this discrimination and so purposeful is its application that the Department of Justice has been unable to make substantial progress in securing Negro voting rights with the statutory tools now available to it.

The Negro has patiently waited 85 years since the ratification of the 15th amendment for the enfranchisement to which he is entitled. His patience is now at an end, and so is that of every American who believes in democracy and the fundamental equality of man under law.

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the basic purpose and policy of Senate bills 1517 and 1564, in which I have joined as a cosponsor. Both of these bills provide for the appointment of Federal voting registrars where the percentage of persons registered and voting in a State or county is so low as to suggest that existing officials have persisted in discriminating against members of the Negro race. Both bills provide severe criminal remedies for interference with the registration or voting process. However, they employ somewhat different formulas in determining those States and counties to which their provisions will apply. The basic improvements which I feel can be made in the bills now before us relate to these formulas.

Under S. 1564, the so-called leadership-administration bill, Federal examiners can be appointed only in a State (1) which has a "test or device"-basically a literacy test-as a qualification for voting, and (2) in which less than 50 percent of the persons of voting age were registered or voted in the last presidential election. By requiring the existence of such a literacy test for the bill to apply, the formula fails to take in several States and counties which have extremely low Negro voting percentages.

Most notable among this excluded group is the State of Texas. Those responsible for drafting this bill did not feel it necessary to arrive at some formula which would include Texas. Yet, only 44 percent of those Texans of voting age went to the polls in this last presidential election. In 137 counties of Texas.

I feel very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that the formula should be expanded to include all States and counties where voting figures indicate that qualified citizens are being denied the right to vote on the basis of race or color. The discriminatory application of a literacy test is but one means by which this 15th amendment right is being abridged.

I believe that the bill can be validly expanded, Mr. Chairman, to include States such as Texas, which have no literacy tests, by the addition of an alternative formula. Such formula should provide that the bill would be equally applicable if less than 25 percent of the Negroes of voter age residing in any State or county were registered or voted in the last presidential election.

Although census figures are not compiled by race, the statistics of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights could certainly be used for this purpose. If it is deemed necessary to place the burden of proof as to the validity of these statistics on the Government for constitutional reasons, this burden could quite properly be eased by requiring the Government to show only that these figures are "substantially correct." A possible procedure is to require the Government to show the method by which its statistics were compiled and the probability that they are substantially correct. It would then be entirely constitutional to compel a party challenging these statistics to show more than just isolated instances of error, but a pattern of error which destroys the validity of the figures for the purpose for which they are being employed-that is, not to prove an exact statistical fact but to raise a rebuttable presumption of discrimination in violation of the 15th amendment.

Such an alternative formula would enable the bill to hit the whole target rather than just a part. It would apply to every State where voting rights were being abridged on the basis of race or color, and not just those which have a literacy test. It would provide not just a single weapon, but an arsenal of weapons to be used wherever discrimination in violation of the 15th amendment is practiced.

Mr. Chairman, I further feel that S. 1564, as presently drawn, unnecessarily raises a constitutional question by voiding any literacy test in a State or county where the percentage of persons voting in the last election was less than 50 percent. The right to proscribe a literacy qualification is seemingly reserved to the State by article I of the Constitution, so long as that test does not discriminate on the basis of race or color so as to violate the 15th amendment.

I personally favor the abolition of literacy tests as a prerequisite to the right to vote, and originally urged the adoption of a provision outlawing all kinds of literacy tests. However, upon reflection, I believe the bill would be much less vulnerable to constitutional attack if its provisions were limited to (1) the discriminatory application of a literacy test, and (2) the substantive provisions of such a test which incorporate standards achieving de facto discrimination.

The crux of the problem here is the discrimnatory application of a literacy test or similar device by a State official. The 15th amendment does not prevent the imposition by a State of a literacy test or other voting qualification reasonably adapted to legitimate ends. It only prohibits the administration of such a qualification so as to discriminate on the basis of race or color.

If a State has seen fit to adopt a literacy test or other voting qualification which is nondiscriminatory by its terms and is reasonably adapted to its legitimate purpose and historically has never been used for any purpose of discrimination, I see no reason why such a test or other qualification could not be applied by the Federal voting examiners appointed under this bill. To the best of my knowledge these tests are capable of fair and impartial administration and could be so applied by the Federal voting examiner. I believe such an approach would avoid the constitutional perils implicit in the present bill without forfeiting any of its vital goals.

Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is fundamental to our way of life. It is a tragedy that we must enact further legislation to protect that right which the Constitution guarantees to all citizens. But the fact of the matter is that violations of the 15th amendment are still widespread in some States. Many of our citizens are still being denied the right to vote because of their race or color. The 15th amendment specifically authorizes legislation to implement its provisions. Let us now move to correct a century of inequity. But let us enact a solution which is constitutional beyond any doubt, and one which meets the problem of discrimination in voting rights wherever it may occur.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, in response to Senator Ervin, I am going to pray for myself.

The CHAIRMAN. You need prayer.

Senator ERVIN. I would like to assure the Senator from Illinois that I intend to do my praying also.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Attorney General.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. It is quite a long statement. If the Chair would permit, I would like to read it and I may omit parts of it in the interest of getting on, but I would appreciate it if the record would contain the entire statement.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be so ordered. I will order it into the record.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear here today to testify in favor of S. 1564, The Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill represents an attempt to effectuate the most central and basic right of our political system.

Any society composed both of freemen and those who are not free cannot be a true democracy. Thus with the passage of the 13th amendment, ending slavery, this country took a giant step toward this great goal.

But until all the members of our society are afforded an effective opportunity to participate in its political processes that is, to cast a ballot freely-the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled.

Beginning in 1956, Congress attempted to meet this problem. Since that year three Presidents have asked Congress for additional legislation to guarantee the constitutional right to vote without discrimination on account of race or color.

Three times in the last decade-in 1956, in 1960, and in 1964 those who oppose stronger Federal legislation concerning the electoral process have asked Congress to be patient; and Congress has been patient. Three times since 1956 they have said that local officials, subject to judicial direction, will solve the voting problem. And each time Congress has left the problem largely to the courts and the local officials. Three times since 1956 they have told us that the prescription would provide the entire cure this prescription aided by time and Congress has followed that advice.

But while the legislative process of the Congress should be deliberate, while comprehensive laws should be enacted only after all the facts are in, and while reasonable alternatives to broader Federal control of elections should, of course, be attempted first, there comes a time when the facts are all in, the alternatives have been tried and found wanting, and time has run out. We stand at that point today.

As President Johnson so simply and eloquently said in his message to the Congress last week:

Many of the issues of civil rights are complex and difficult. But about this there can be no argument. Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty to insure that right.

Nearly 100 years ago the ratification of the 15th amendment prom

to enact legislation to carry out the promise. In the words of the late Mr. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the Court in Lane v. Wilson (307 U.S. 268, 275 (1939)), the framers intended the amendment to "reach contrivances by a State to thwart equality in the enjoyment of the right to vote *** regardless of race or color." The amendment thus "nullifies sophisticated as well as simpleminded modes of discrimination," and "hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race, although the abstract right to vote may remain unrestricted as to race." The amendment has in fact eliminated such "simpleminded"—in the Court's words-Mr. Justice Frankfurter's words-devices as the grandfather clause and the white primary, which were struck down in 1915 and 1944. But to date, the amendment has not been nearly as successful against more 'sophisticated" techniques for disenfranchising Negroes. While, in theory, the amendment devitalizes these techniques, in fact, they flourish. It is now apparent that its promise is yet to be redeemed, and that Congress must meet the obligation, expressly conferred by the amendment, to enforce its provisions. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is to meet that obligation. Current voter registration statistics demonstrate that comprehensive implementing legislation is esential to make the 15th amendment work. In Alabama, the number of Negroes registered to vote has increased by only 5.2 percent between 1958 and 1964-to a total of 19.4 percent of those eligible. I am using the word "eligible" there, Mr. Chairman, in terms of literacy and age. This compares with 69.2 percent of the eligible whites.

In Mississippi, the number of Negroes registered to vote has increased even more slowly. In 1955, about 4.3 percent of the eligible Negroes were registered: today, the approximate figure is 6.4 percent. Meanwhile, in areas for which we have statistics, 80.5 percent of eligible whites are registered.

In Louisiana, Negro registration has scarcely increased at all. In 1956, 31.7 percent of the eligible Negroes were registered. As of Janmary 1, 1965, the figure was 31.8 percent. The current white percentage is 80.2 percent.

The discouraging situation these statistics reflect exists despite the best efforts of four Attorneys General under three Presidents, Republican and Democratic. It exists largely because of the judicial process, upon which all existing remedies depend, is institutionally inadequate to deal with practices so deeply rooted in the social and political struc

ture.

I will not burden this committee again with numerous examples of the use of tests and similar devices which measure only the race of an applicant for registration, not his literacy or anything else.

And I need not describe at length how much time it takes to obtain judicial relief against discrimination, relief which so often proves nadequate. Even after the Department of Justice obtains a judicial decree, a recalcitrant registrar's ability to invent ways to evade the ourt's command is all too frequently more than equal to the court's pacity to police the State registration process.

By way of example of the delays and difficulties we encounter, let The describe our experience in Dallas County, Ala., its neighboring inties, and Clarke County in Mississippi.

45-755 0-65-pt. 1--2