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

doubtedly, would foster an even greater breach between the Federal and State Governments.

At a time when we are pouring billions of dollars into a multitude of distant countries for the purpose of elevating their economic and social standards and maintaining political stability, it is inconceivable to me that we would deny all Federal grants of funds, presumably for similar purposes, to one of our own States.

Although its proposal relating to Mississippi may be its most spectacular, it is certainly not the only one which is unconstitutional or devoid of merit.

In its 1961 report on education, the Commission stated that private school "tuition grants-by the States-threaten the quality of publicschool-education, even its existence." Yet, in the same report, the Commission recommended a reduction in Federal funds to public schools which are not completely integrated. I submit that this recommendation also threatens the quality and existence of public school education. In fact, if its Mississippi proposal were adopted, all Federal funds for education in Mississippi would be cut off. In essence, the Commission is advocating that which it decries-destruction of the quality and existence of the public schools. While it is castigating some States for actions which it alleged would also threaten the quality and existence of public schools, it calls upon the Federal Government to do precisely that. The Commission would visit the sins of the elders upon the children. To me, educational advances afford the best hope for a solution of our problems. Tolerance is born of knowledge, not ignorance. The Commission's position is the entirely untenable one that no schools are preferable to segregated schools.

In its 1961 report on voting, the Commission made recommendations which many law professors and the attorneys general of many States throughout the country rejected as violating the Constitution. If adopted, those proposals would abrogate State laws which the Supreme Court had specifically upheld for a century as being fair and valid. The proposals have been introduced in Congress again this year; and I hope they fare no better than they did last year when neither House passed a single bill recommended by the Commission.

It is not my intention to dwell here any longer on the many mischievous recommendations the Commission has made and the Congress in its wisdom has refused to accept. Suffice it to say that its proposals in no way justify continuation of the Commission.

The Commission's annual appropriation is just under $1 million. At a time of huge budgetary deficits, I do not believe we can afford the luxury of the Commission's duplicating the work of the Justice Department. Obviously, the Commission's greatest efforts have been expended in investigating and analyzing the complaints of those who allege a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, the Department of Justice is charged not only with investigating and analyzing such complaints but also prosecuting any violations found. I fail to see how continuation of the Commission can be justified by its interference in the legitimate function of another agency of the Federal Government.

Nor has the Commission even investigated or reported on the complaints it received in a responsible manner. According to the Com

mission, it has received 40 complaints from North Carolina since 1957. Each of these was turned over to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. In not one case did the Justice Department find grounds for prosecution, and the complaints were returned to the Commission. I have personal knowledge that several of the complaints were wholly without foundation. Nevertheless, the Commission reported and publicized the allegations as if they were proven fact. North Carolina officials were made to look as if they were illegally depriving people of the right to vote. Yet I have never heard the Commission publicize the true story. Maybe the Commission is like the old justice of peace I once knew who would never hear but one side of a case because he was afraid he might get confused. Even if it were conceded that the Justice Department needs the help of the Commission in investigating complaints, the inept manner in which complaints to it have been handled warrants its expiration. However, these largely unsubstantiated complaints were in large part the basis of the Commission's reports; and the reports in turn are the greatest, though a questionable, contribution of the Commission. In the 6 years of its existence, the Commission has turned out reports on employment, housing, voting, justice, equal protection, the Emancipation Proclamation, education in the South, education in the North, and education in general. I understand that publications on the Armed Forces and hospital segregation will appear shortly. Of course, this list does not include all the reports and abridgments of reports that the Commission has published or intends to publish; however, it is sufficient to note here that the quantity far exceeds the quality.

Not all of these reports are the work of the Commission itself. Even though it is charged by law with preparing and submitting interim reports, its two 1962 reports on education were prepared by private individuals who were paid approximately $15,000 by the Commission on a contractual basis. This proves that the Commission is not indispensable even for the dubious reports it distributes. Private individuals were hired in the past to conduct a particular study; and, if the need arises, they could perform this function again. The reports are presumably based on the legal research which the Commission is charged by law to conduct, as well as on complaints it receives. Nevertheless, instead of conducting the research itself, it paid $90,000 to the Library of Congress to compile the Federal and State statutes pertaining to equal protection of the laws. Here we have an example of an executive agency farming out its work to the legislative branch. The Commission is not even indispensable for the research it is supposed to do.

However, even if we assume that all of the reports and all of the recommendations in those reports are exemplary, we face the inescapable conclusion that the work of the Commission is now complete. It has studied and reported on every conceivable area even remotely related to civil rights. Now its work is done, and there is no reason to extend a life already too long. The Commission itself realized this when its staff director told a House Judiciary Subcommittee last week that another 2-year extension without an increase in power would not be merited. The request for an increase in authority in itself constitutes an admission that the Commission needs new justification for its existence.

The Commission on Civil Rights was initially established in 1957 for a 2-year period for the purpose of preparing a report to Congress and the President. Six years have come and gone and this supposedly transitory body is still with us. Not only is it still with us but it is growing by leaps and bounds. Its staff, which initially consisted of 38 employees, now numbers 73. Its appropriations are now just under $1 million.

Yet today the Commission has the unmitigated audacity to return with the request that it be allowed 4 more years to complete what we were assured would be done in 2. It is time we discontinued this ever-growing body before its continuing expansion overwhelms us all. I spoke a moment ago about the fact that the request of the Commission for an increase in its authority constitutes an admission that it needs a new justification for its existence.

And what authority is requested? That it be allowed to act as a "national clearinghouse" for civil rights information and that it be allowed to furnish technical assistance to government agencies, industries, organizations, and individuals. However, both of these functions are presently being performed, rightfully or not, by the Department of Justice. The Department in justifying its appropriations for 1959 and 1962 made the following statements to the House Appropriations Committee:

The Department will take on a program of liaison and consultation with law-enforcement agencies and other officials of the States in order to promote understanding of the problems and to place the State and Federal responsibilities in their proper perspective.

We have in mind the great importance of the collection of far greater information-both factually, and legally, in the whole civil rights area.

*

In the field of civil rights the Department's basic policy is to seek effective guarantees and action from local officials and civil leaders, voluntarily and without court action where investigation has disclosed evidence of civil rights violations.

Therefore, according to the Justice Department, it has been performing the very functions for 3 years which the Commission now requests authority to perform. The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division has for the past month been giving technical assistance in Alabama to "government agencies, organizations and individuals."

The Commission's staff director stated recently that there is a need "for an agency able to give the kind of advice and assistance which will contribute to peaceful and permanent solutions to racial problems." Again, I take it, that is what the Justice Department has been trying to do. In any event, in light of its controversial and divisive activities in the past, I hold out very little hope that the Commission can ever contribute to "peaceful and permanent solutions."

S. 1117 would also increase the rulemaking power and subpena power of the Commission. S. 1219 has no such provision. If by any chance legislation extending the Commission is reported, I shall do my best to see that it includes a provision restricting rather than broadening its rules. Specifically, I am thinking of the Commission's rules providing that the names of complainants need not be revealed to witnesses summoned, and witnesses cannot cross-examine their accusers

or other witnesses called by the Commission. Even though the testimony and charges may produce a Federal criminal offense, there is no right of confrontation. To me this constitutes a clear denial of due process. However, these rules were upheld by the Supreme Court over the constitutional objections of two dissenters, by the unfortunate decision in Hannah v. Larche (363 U.S. 420 (1960)). Therefore, it is up to Congress to see that the Commission observes constitutional guarantees in its future proceedings. However, it is most distressing to me that an agency, designated the Civil Rights Commission, is oblivious to our most basic rights.

S. 1219 would make the Commission a permanent agency; and thus the bill would adopt the pessimistic view that civil rights problems will be with us permanently. I personally continue to hope that through good will and intelligence racial problems will be solved on the local level where the individuals live; and this is the only place such problems can be effectively and truly solved. The liberties of a minority will not be made more secure by destroying the concept of orderly, constitutional government for all races and all generations. Senator Keating, do you have a statement?

Senator KEATING. Yes, I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEATING. The Commission on Civil Rights, which was created under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, has been confronted by one obstacle after another. Uncertainty and opportunities for harassment and obstruction arise during each of the periodic requests that its life be continued. Certainly, it seems to me, the time has come to relieve the Commission of the burden of periodic renewal and to allow it to plan its activities and operations without wondering if there is any point in looking beyond September. It is for that reason that Senator Saltonstall, joined by Senators Beall, Case, Cooper, Fong, Javits, Kuchel, Pearson, Scott, and myself introduced S. 1219.

When I consider the difficulties that have confronted every attempt to extend the life of the Commission on Civil Rights, I wonder what those who claim we have moved too far in the field of civil rights have in mind.

pro

We created, many years ago, permanent agencies to prevent unfair trade practices and unfair labor practices. If any working man or woman has been discriminated against because of his union activities the full resources of the Federal Government are available for his tection. This is as it should be. If any consumer has been deceived by fraudulent advertising the Federal Government does not hesitate to appoint counsel, conduct a hearing, issue a cease-and-desist order and take the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary, and this is as it should be. But let someone suggest that there should be a permanent agency to study and recommend steps to protect the constitutional rights of Americans and howls of protest are heard. This is very definitely not as it should be.

The chairman of this subcommittee and I and others have joined in legislation to provide a public defender for the defense of alleged

20-982-63- -2