Mr. CELLER. I do not think he would disqualify.

Mr. AVERY. Would?

Mr. CELLER. He would not.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. CELLER. He would not because what he does is not embraced within the program or activity to any recipient.

Mr. AVERY. Frankly, I do not care whether he is or is not, but I think we ought to know.

Mr. CELLER. He is not.

Mr. AVERY. If it is the gentleman's opinion and the committee's opinion and conclusion, the bill should specifically so state because I think it is very ambiguous under the present language.

Make it so either way, but so it is clear.

Mr. CELLER. If he practiced discrimination

The CHAIRMAN. The law says beneficiary. The beneficiary would suffer.

Mr. AVERY. The farmer is more specifically in perspective than the case of the school district?

Mr. CELLER. Ordinarily it is the agency that is carrying out the program that is the recipient.

Let us take the acreage program I mentioned before.

Mr. AVERY. All right.

Mr. CELLER. The farmer can get certain funds from withholding land from farming.

Mr. AVERY. Diversion payment, they call it.
Mr. CELLER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. AVERY. Diversion payment, they call it.

Mr. CELLER. Diversion payments. That is the program where if the farmer, in turn, discriminates with his farmland, or with his farmhands, and refuses to employ Negroes and so forth, he is not affected by receiving these diversion payments. These payments are under the acreage program. He can receive it because it is not his discrimination as far as he is concerned. This has nothing to do with the program or activity.

Mr. AVERY. With the program, except amendments to that effect on the floor?

Mr. CELLER. I will be glad to accept any clarifying amendments, certainly.

Mr. AVERY. Either way?

Mr. CELLER. I will be glad to confer with the gentleman later on and if it needs clarity, I would be the last man to avoid clarity.

Mr. AVERY. My final question is this: If this bill should come back from the other body with FEPC stricken, and public accommodations stricken, how would the gentleman counsel us to vote on the bill? Mr. CELLER. I would have to take it with my committee. Mr. AVERY. This was a personal opinion I was asking for. Mr. CELLER. I would want to keep it in the bill but I would have to bow down to the wishes of my own committee on a matter of that sort. I would not act on it. It is too important for me to act on it alone.

Mr. AVERY. We rely on the gentleman for guidance on all of these

matters.

Mr. CELLER. I do not think, as the chairman, I should be compelled to do other than confer with my committee members on a matter as important as that.

Mr. AVERY. It would be good public relations. I do not know that you should be compelled to.

Mr. CELLER. I should morally.

Mr. AVERY. You made quite a contribution toward carrying on

Mr. CELLER. I would not want to take any action of that kind without conferring with my colleagues on a matter as important as that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Celler, I hoped to get through with you this

afternoon.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Bolling?

Mr. BOLLING. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elliott?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, I have some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot finish this afternoon.

Mr. YOUNG. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions?

Mr. SISK. Yes, I wanted to question Mr. Celler on title 7.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that will take too long. You said it was not convenient for you tomorrow?

Mr. CELLER. I will naturally wait until each gentleman is ready. I will be glad to wait.

Mr. MADDEN. How long?

The CHAIRMAN. Not this evening, because I will not.

Mr. CELLER. We might be able to finish shortly.

The CHAIRMAN. Could we get you back say the next day and then go on with Mr. McCullough tomorrow?

Mr. CELLER. Could I finish tonight? It probably will not take long. The CHAIRMAN. I am compelled to go because I have got to go over slippery roads and attend another meeting at 7:30. I would like to get a little something to eat before then.

Mr. CELLER. I have a bill coming on the floor tomorrow and that is the trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. Get Mr. McCulloch tomorrow and then we will come to you at a later time.

Mr. BROWN. His bill comes up at noon. Can you be here in the morning?

Mr. CELLER. No. I have a meeting. I have to go before the Administration Committee tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. Could we get you back here at some convenient time?

Mr. CELLER. It is my understanding I have to be questioned by just two members, Mr. Elliott and Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SMITH. Mrs. St. George is not here this afternoon and I do not know if she has any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will meet tomorrow morning at 10:30 when Mr. McCulloch will be on the stand.

(Thereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.)

A

CIVIL RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:30 a.m., in room H-313, the U.S. Capitol Building, Hon. Howard W. Smith (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

We shall resume the hearings on H.R. 7152, the civil rights bill. Mr. McCulloch, we shall be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come before the committee this morning.

I have first a prepared statement which I should like to have your permission to read, and then I shall try to answer any questions that any member might have.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed as you like.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, the bill now before the Rules Committee may be correctly and generally described as comprehensive in scope but moderate in application. There are no primary criminal sanctions provided in the legislation. A sincere effort has been made to eliminate from this bill all provisions which improperly invade personal liberties and the rights of States and localities. Similarly, efforts have been made to surround each title with judicial safeguards and administrative limitations in order that fundamental rights and liberties be protected. Undoubtedly, other amendments or limitations could be made from the vantage point of hindsight. Perhaps such amendments or limitations will be in order in the House or in the other body. But, the bill before you is basically a good bill and a bill that faces a pressing need for enactment.

There is considerable agitation for civil rights legislation from certain quarters on the ground that unless legislation is enacted there will be rioting in the streets, heightened racial unrest, and the further shedding of blood. This kind of activity, in my mind, is improper behavior and could do much to retard the enactment of effective civil rights legislation.

After the tragic death of President Kennedy, one would assume that certain uncontrolled groups would recognize the futility of riotous behavior.

No people can gain liberty and equality through storm troop or anarchistic methods. Legislation under threat is basically not legislation at all. In the long run, behavior of this type will lead to a total undermining of society where equality and civil rights will mean nothing.

I am sure all the members of this committee read within the last day or two of planned marches on the State capital in Albany, N.Y.

Behavior of this type also creates the false sense of hope that once legislation is enacted all burdens of life will dissolve. No statutory enactment can accomplish that.

Intelligent work and vigilance by members of all races will be required for many years before inequality completely disappears. To create hope of immediate and complete success can only promote conflict and brooding despair.

Not force or fear, then, but belief in the inherent equality of man induces me to support this legislation.

I believe in the right of each individual to have guaranteed his constitutional rights and to shoulder the burdens of citizenship. But, I also believe in the obligation society owes to each citizen to afford him equality of opportunity.

I believe in the right and the responsibility of State and local authority to be primarily responsible for the conduct of all but limited areas of governmental activities which it cannot do alone. But, I also believe in the obligations of State and local governments to ever work for the common good.

I believe in the effective separation of powers and in a workable Federal system whereby State authority is not needlessly usurped by a centralized government. But, I also believe that an obligation rests with the National Government to see that the citizens of every State are treated equally without regard to their race or color or religion or national origin.

Where, then, individuals or governmental authorities fail to shoulder their obligations, and only stress their rights, it is the duty of the Congress, under constitutional authority, to help correct that wrong. To do otherwise would be to forego our responsibility as national legislators and as human beings who honor the principles of liberty and justice.

No one would suggest that the Negro receives equality of treatment and equality of opportunity in many fields of activity today. Wellinformed persons everywhere admit that in all sections of the country-North, South, East, and West--the Negro continues to face some barriers of racial intolerance and discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of citizens are denied the basic right to vote, the very conerstone of representative government.

Thousands of school districts remain segregated. Decent hotel and eating accommodations frequently lie hundreds of miles apart for the Negro traveler. Parks, playgrounds, and golf courses continue to be off limits to Negroes whose tax moneys go to support them. Surplus agricultural supplies, State employment agencies, and vocational training programs continue to be operated in a discriminatory manner. These, and many more facts, point the way toward the need for additional legislation.