amendment now, however, would be aimed at any individual, so that it becomes all-embracing.

And the second one, of course, gives the Attorney General the power to proceed civilly, whereas under existing law the initiation of the action must take place by the aggrieved person.

Senator HENNINGS. If I may interrogate the learned Senator, I take it that that is in a sense consonant of the purposes of S. 903?

Senator DIRKSEN. I would think so. I don't have 903 readily in mind.

Senator HENNINGS. That is one reported out by our subcommittee. And the Attorney General, in September, said he felt the bill was laudable in purpose, but the Department did not desire to make any recommendation. The Attorney General does now make a recommendation.

Senator DIRKSEN. Yes. I am not sure whether it is departmental or not.

Senator HENNINGS. It is to protect the right of political participation, and I assume it has generally the same objectives.

Senator DIRKSEN. It could be, of course.

Mr. YOUNG. The part of the 14th amendment which will come up these hearings is section 1 only:

in

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The next provision

Senator DIRKSEN. Did you read all of the 14th amendment?

Mr. YOUNG. No; section 1 only.

Senator DIRKSEN. Did you read all of section 1?

Mr. YOUNG. All of section 1. And it is the only section, I believe, will come up in civil rights.

Senator DIRKSEN. Did you read that provision that no State shall abridge or deny?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Senator BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this has any relevancy, but the sponsorship of all the bills introduced by counsel were enumerated for the purposes of the record, and although you did not suggest the sponsorship of the President's program, is it essential or desirable that you do so?

Senator JENNER. Yes, he did so.
Senator BUTLER. I am sorry.

Mr. YOUNG. The next provision of the Constitution which will come up in the hearings on constitutional rights is the treaty provision. It is article 6, second paragraph:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

The next constitutional provision which will come up in these hearings, Mr. Chairman, is the republican form of government provision. That is article 4, section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on

application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The next provision of the Constitution applicable is the law of nations provision. That is article 1, section 8, subsection 10:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

The next provision that will come up is the poll tax provisions in the Constitution relative to the qualification of electors. The first one is article 1, section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the numerous branch of the State legislature.

The 17th amendment, 1st paragraph:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for 6 years, and each Senator shall have 1 vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Senator JENNER. Would you read that article I, section 2, about the electors.

Mr. YOUNG. Section 2

The Chairman (presiding). Wait a minute. Senator Humphrey wants to submit a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for this privilege extended me. I know I am interrupting what is apparently a procedural course you want to follow on these bills.

My request to submit this statement at this time is due to the fact that I am scheduled to be over at a Board of Army Engineers hearing at about the same time, and I shall appreciate this accommodation. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that as I understand it, you are going to take up the respective bills one at a time.

I have prepared a statement in relationship to the bills of which I am a cosponsor or a sponsor, a brief statement about them, and I will be prepared if the committee feels it is necessary, to come back at a later time when you get into these bills and answer any questions pertaining to those under which I have some responsibility for authorship.

I want to say in the presence of Senator Dirksen here that in the 83d Congress I recall that we participated in the hearings-I believe you were the chairman, or was it Senator Hendrickson?

Senator Hendrickson was the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Dirksen had a bill, S. 1 and I had a similar bill in the 83d Congress on the so-called bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights.

At that time I said it was immaterial to me as to the authorship; what was most important was the substance of it. I found Senator Dirksen's bill and my bill to be relatively alike in substance, and therefore supported his particular proposal.

Now I have a similar bill before your committee, S. 906. And I understand Senator Dirksen also has a bill of which he is the chief sponsor, with many cosponsors.

Therefore my suggestion is that regardless of authorship, that there be some action upon these particular proposals.

The other bills have been listed here by counsel. I have listened to the recitation. I am particularly interested in the bill that relates to a separate Division in the Department of Justice with a separate Assistant Attorney General, the right-to-vote bill, which I believe is absolutely basic to the fulfillment of human rights or civil rights, whatever your terminology may be, and surely the proposals which have been reported out by the subcommittee.

I believe these are S. 900, S. 902 and S. 903.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Humphrey, we have been called for a roll call vote over in the Senate.

Senator HUMPHREY. I will just submit my statement, therefore, for the purposes of brevity.

(The prepared statement of Senator Humphrey is as follows:)

CIVIL RIGHTS TESTIMONY BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1956

Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend you for your fairness in calling this hearing on an issue of vital concern to all America, knowing of its deep emotional impact in your own home State.

All of us in the Congress must find a reasoned balance between the interests of our own States which we are privileged to represent, and the entire United States which we represent together.

All of us in the Congress share common responsibilities that go beyond the needs, the desires, and yes, even the views of our own States.

The question of human rights is one of those common responsibilities.

It goes beyond any partisanship. It involves fundamental concepts of our democracy that must be of grave concern to all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, whether our geographical background happens to be from the North or the South. It involves problems we must squarely face with reason rather than emotion, with a spirit of tolerance rather than a spirit of recrimination.

Perhaps this occasion can be an historical milestone, of responsible men reasoning together as Americans all-not as hostile blocs arrayed in bitterness against each other.

My views on human rights-and that is the term I prefer, for it is the rights of fellow human beings we are talking about when we discuss civil rights-are well known to this committee.

They are nothing new, and they are not politically inspired.

They are the result of deeply held convictions, spiritual convictions, that it is a blemish on our democracy to permit in our midst any discrimination against fellow Americans because of their race, religion, color, or national origin. The struggle for civil rights has been a continual one since the beginning of our Nation, paralleling our country's growth as an expanding democracy. Our Nation stands today as the freest and most democratic power in the world.

We are justly proud of the progress that we have made as a country in expanding opportunity, security, and human welware of our citizens.

There is no area of our life which has not developed toward greater democracy. To be proud of our Nation and its progress, however, is not be be blind to the imperfections that still remain within our society.

The most evident of those imperfections, and the one which cries loudest for immediate remedy, is in the area of civil rights.

Discrimination based upon bias and prejudice still exists, and so long as it is alive, we must be vigilant to eliminate the cancer from our body politic.

Democracy is more than achievement, more than material progress, more than elections and government.

Democracy is essentially a faith of freedom, of equality, of human dignity, and brotherhood.

This is the beacon of hope we now have to offer a troubled world. This is the lesson which we must now strive to get accepted in the world, if our Nation is to avoid war and preserve its liberty.

The struggle against the totalitarian forces of communism is not merely of a military character, as recent events have made even more clear than ever before. It is political and ideological in nature as well.

We stand opposed to the doctrines which enslave men, and reduce men to mere automatons.

We believe in the inherent dignity and worth of man, that man is an end in himself, that only in a genuinely free society can man attain his true nature. We believe that given equality of opportunity, each individual, irrespective of color, religion, national origin, or race can realize his true self.

These are the great values for which we are currently engaged in the struggle against communism, values which we must preserve from within our society as well as safeguard against attack from without.

Those of us who strive for the enactment of civil rights legislation by the Congress do so because we are convinced that the enactment of such legislation will help us as a nation in the world struggle against communism.

We do so also, however, because we must constantly strive to strengthen the spirit and fabric of democracy itself. We do so because we believe that even if there were no Communists in the world, the discrimination which exists within our country must be eliminated if our democracy is to survive and be true to itself.

With democracy now on trial in the world, it ill behooves us to leave any chinks in our armor.

We must never forget that the image we as a nation cast abroad is mightily affected by what we do at home. One of the best criteria for predicting how a nation will behave in its international relations is its record of achievement among its own people. We judge the Soviets in this manner and part of our skepticism about their sincerity on world issues is grounded in our awareness of how brutally the Kremlin has conducted its domestic policies, how little regard it has had for human rights.

We should consider our own behavior from the same perspective.

At times we have forgotten that we shall not enhance freedom by aping the enemies of freedom.

Democratic institutions are not safeguarded by totalitarian techniques.

The central principles on which America was founded are now being considered by others, in their evaluation of us.

Brotherhood and equality of opportunity have now become central aspects of America's national image, as it is seen abroad. Just as Lincoln decided upon emancipation of the Negro slaves not only as an "act of justice" but also as "a military necessity," so the achievement in America of racial equality is now urgently needed on both these grounds.

Gandhi asked of the whole Anglo-Saxon world: "What can conquer your unpardonable pride of race?"

We must answer him. We must answer him soon. We should answer him now that the true spirit of democracy is bigger than racial pride and prove we mean it.

Our responsibilities and the requirements of our national security no longer permit us the luxury of temporizing and evasion on civil rights here in the United States.

Communist propaganda has recognized that issue clearly, and has effectively gone to work against us with it.

You can rest assured that the Kremlin will not permit even these hearings to go unnoticed, and will gleefully exploit any failure on our part to truly exemplify the democracy we preach to the rest of the world.

You can rest assured the eyes of millions of uncommitted peoples throughout the world-people who may sway the balance between a world of freedom and a world of totalitarian oppression-are upon this issue in the United States, and upon what we do about it-upon what we do about it at this very hearing, and in this very Congress.

Our proper response, both to the Kremlin waiting for us to falter and to the other vast areas of the world looking desperately to us as mankind's greatest beacon of hope for universal recognition of the dignity of man, is to do what we should have done anyway, to do what is right and just; to do what we eventually must do, regardless of external threats, to fulfill the vision of our Founding Fathers for creating a nation fully respecting the individual dignity of man, as an inalienable, inherent right, under God.

Communism and the atom have only heightened our age-old dilemma of good and evil, and raised the stakes of moral choice.

Ever since I have been in the Senate, I have consistently and continually sought greater fulfillment of human rights by legislative action aimed at eliminating discrimination.

Three years ago, at the start of a new Republican administration, I again introduced a series of bills aimed at my continuing objective. At that time, in the hope of bipartisan action for a cause that should be above partisanship, I declared:

"We have just completed a national election. Both political parties came to the American people and said that they were champions of civil rights. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of these remarks excerpts from the platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The President-elect came to the American people and on many occasions stated his opposition to discrimination and his convictions in favor of equal opportunity. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of these remarks, excerpts from some of his statements."

It remains for the Congress to act in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of the American people.

In addition to reintroducing, for the third time, the Humphrey-Ives bill for a fair employment practices commission to guarantee equal opportunity of employment, I introduced at that time nine other measures covering legislative improvements needed for adequate civil rights protection.

Unfortunately, despite the campaign pledges of the Republican Party, no action was taken on any of these measures by the Republican 83d Congress.

Included among my measures introduced on January 16, 1953, was a new and more moderate approach that I hoped would at least be accepted as a minimum step in the right direction.

It was a bill to create a Federal commission on civil rights, providing for a commission to study continuously the problem of civil rights and discrimination and measures being taken to deal with the problem.

At that time I declared:

"I have never believed in an all-or-nothing approach to any of the major social, economic, or political problems which face our Nation.

"I therefore urge the Senate to find a middle approach, and take some steps to spell progress. *** It is my belief that a commission on civil rights would provide a constructive and factual approach to a problem which is torn with emotionalism. It is not a substitute for other legislative proposals, but it may in fact turn out to be a preliminary step which must be taken to bridge the gap between divergent opinions and establish a foundation for a more constructive, positive legislative program. I shall, in fact, continue to devote my efforts to the enactment of a full program which I have presented to the Senate." That was 3 years ago, but I stand by those words today. They are even more meaningful today.

Regretably, no attempt was made by the Republican administration and Republican Congress to act on even such a minimum approach to a crucial national problem.

When the Democrats regained control of the Congress in 1955, I again introduced a civil rights package program of 11 basic bills, including the same commission proposal.

For a year, I am told, this committee has been awaiting administration views on such a program.

Now, at long last, the administration has recommended enactment of such a commission, along with some other minimum steps all covered in long-pending legislation.

As belated as it has been, I welcome this administration support. I hope sincerely it is offered in good faith, in sincere intent that will be backed by concerted efforts for Republicans to vote side by side with Democrats for enactment of such legislation. If they do, we can make progres of which all of us can be proud. If they do not, America's conscience will have a continued burden upon it.

When I introduced this group of legislative measures a year ago, I declared enactment of any part of them would be striking a blow for freedom all over the world.

I reiterate that statement today.

Instead of conflict and bitterness, my hope and prayer is that the 84th Congress can earn a place in history by symbolizing instead a feeling of good will and brotherhood in consideration of this vital program, with mutual respect and mutual tolerance for deeply held convictions however opposite they may be.