prosecuted, and convicted those persons who have resorted to violence. State and local governments appear to have enacted adequate statutes to protect their citizens against this type of civil disorder. However, if existing penalties should prove insufficient or it it is felt that the statutes fail to prohibit a broad enough range of conduct, the answer as of now should be appropriate amendment of the State statute or the municipal ordinance. While we all abhor those who provoke, incite, or encourage others to commit street violence, we should be slow to turn to or request Federal intervention before the inadequacies or helplessness of State or local law enforcement are established.

We restate our belief that the bill is constitutionally unsound and represents premature Federal intervention. We urge that H.R. 421 be voted down.

DON EDWARDS.
JOHN CONYERS, Jr.
HERBERT TENZER.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. MCCULLOCH, MR. CAHILL, MR. MAC GREGOR, MR. MATHIAS OF MARYLAND, MR. McCLORY, MR. SMITH, MR. MESKILL, MR. SANDMAN, AND MR. BIESTER

This legislation as reported out of subcommittee would have not only prescribed traveling and the use of facilities in interstate commerce with intent to incite riots but would have also protected and safeguarded the exercise of certain enumerated civil rights which Congress has already recognized. Under impending threat of a jurisdictional ouster by the Rules Committee, which dictated the prompt production of an "antiriot" bill without alloy, this committee has chosen to sever the two parts of the original bill. This, we report two bills simultaneously— an antiriot bill, H.R. 421, and a civil rights bill, H.R. 2516.

These views are submitted because of the bifurcation of this vital legislation. We deeply regret this course. The two parts are inextricably interrelated. The amalgamation of the two parts would have presented a balanced and unified Federal view on what is protected and what is forbidden civil rights conduct. The function of law is to guide the conduct of the citizenry. Thus it is essential that the law speak with one voice in outlining what is permitted and encouraged on the one hand and what is forbidden on the other.

The original bill would have indicated that while the law encourages the unfettered exercise of civil rights in the areas of public transportation, public accommodations, jury service, and government programs and facilities, the answer to the violations of those rights that might occur is to be found in courts of law and not by rioting in the streets. Each of the present bills loses something when it stands alone. We must not overlook that we do not have two unrelated problem areas in the civil rights movement. Rather we have one focus-what is proper conduct for those seeking to extinguish "discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin." Nor should we overlook that those who by force, violence, and threats interfere with the equal enjoyment of civil rights and those who incite riots and lootings share a common guilt. For both resort to tactics repugnant to our lawful traditions and reprehensible to our people.

Although it is unfortunate that these companion provisions have been wrenched apart, we support each in its separated form. We support H. R. 421 because riots like those that recently occurred in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Boston, Buffalo, and elsewhere must be stopped. Countless law-abiding citizens have been injured in their person and in their property. Many of these summertime race riots have been traced back to roving troublemakers who purposely travel about this Nation to incite riots. The need for this legislation shouts for itself. No one doubts our power to act. Seldom is the people's voice as clear as it is on this legislation. Hence, it is imperative that we rid interstate commerce of these agitators and unlawful troublemakers.

We support H. R. 2516 since it makes effective and enforceable civil rights legislation that has been with us for a century. As the chairman's views (which the committee adopts) point out, H. R. 2516 would legitimately dispense with the burdensome requirement of proving that the defendant specifically acted with the intention of depriving another of his 14th amendment rights. This requirement has made present laws a dead letter. But since the language of H.R. 2516 is clear and specific, the requirement of "specific intent" is not necessary to save the bill from the shoals of unconstitutionality.

We support H.R. 2516 also because it would protect the exercise of civil rights in the basic enumerated areas from all sources of discriminatory attack. This step is essential if we wish to give our past civil rights legislation real meaning. We would have preferred to support these provisions in one bill. But since that opportunity, is denied for the present, we support the two bills separately and simultaneously reported.

WILLIAM M. MCCULLOCH.
WILLIAM T. CAHILL.

CLARK MACGREGOR.

CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, Jr.

ROBERT MCCLORY.

HENRY P. SMITH III.

THOMAS J. MESKILL.

CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jr.

EDWARD G. BIESTER, Jr.

о