Слике страница

or inferences to the contrary from the sider it. When one realizes how much
time will yet be needed on the substance
of the matter, 10 days on the simple
procedural question seems to be some-
what lavish if not wasteful.

On March 9, almost 2 weeks later, the leadership moved that the Senate proceed to consider H.R. 7152. Let the meaning of this motion be clear. The leadership did not ask the Senate on March 9 to begin consideration of the civil rights bill, of what it contains, of how well it is drafted, of what its implications may be, and of whether or not it should be passed. Rather, it asked the Senate to decide on March 9 if there were a sufficient reason, in the light of the Senate's other responsibilities, to consider these questions with regard to a major bill passed by a very substantial majority of the House. In short, Mr. President, on March 9 the leadership asked the Senate not to consider the civil rights bill itself but whether it wished to proceed to consider it.

It is now 10 days later by the Gregorian calendar, although it is still March 9 by the Senate Calendar. Something, Mr. President, has happened to the 10 intervening working days. The Senate has been occupied every day, including Saturday. There has been a very substantial discussion and debate on the floor of the Senate. I regret to say, Mr. President, that while much of this debate has been of a very high caliber and extremely informative, it has not been to the point of the leadership's motion. Let me repeat, the leadership did not ask, with its motion, that the Senate debate the civil rights bill-the contents, the substance of H.R. 7152. It asked the Senate to decide whether or not it wished to consider a debate of H.R. 7152. Apparently, the Senate does wish to do so, for in what has been essentially, if not strictly speaking, a largely nongermane debate, it has talked preponderantly about the substance of the bill for 10 days—all without deciding in the first place whether or not it wishes to talk about it.

So I wonder, Mr. President, if the time has not come for the Senate to proceed in a little more normal fashion. I wonder, since we are already doing little else but talk about H.R. 7152, if we ought not to agree at this point that we are going to talk about it.

Normally this question of agreeing to proceed to consider the leadership's motions-is disposed of in anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes. Just a few days ago, for example, the question insofar as it involved the military construction authorization was decided in that time range and billions of dollars were involved as well as the security of the entire Nation. Normally, we decide to consider the simple questions of private claims bills in a matter of seconds. In short, Mr. President, from the most trivial to the most awesome questions which confront us, the time range on whether or not to consider is usually somewhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes. Now surely, the civil rights question falls somewhere between the most trivial and the most awesome of our responsibility. I am at a loss, therefore, to understand why it has already taken 10 working days and we have still not reached a decision on whether to con

It seems to me that the Senate is prepared to debate this issue on its merits, on substance, because it has already begun to do so at great length even before the matter is pending. I wonder, I wonder, therefore, whether or not the Senate might curb its eagerness long enough to keep the records neat and proper by deciding the issue of making H.R. 7152 the pending business.

I say that, not to be facetious, Mr. President, but rather because there is an important procedural question still to be disposed of and that cannot be done under the rules until H.R. 7152 is the pending business. I refer to the intention of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] to move to refer the measure to the Judiciary Committee. His intended motion represents a different approach to a consideration of the question than that which is now being followed. A continuance of the debate on the substance of the bill such as has been going on, and will go on for much longer, denies an opportunity to consider the approach offered by the Senator from Oregon. If he is denied that opportunity much longer, he may in the end find that his motion has become somewhat anachronistic.

Therefore, Mr. President, I should like to propound at this time a unanimousconsent request. I propose that the Senate agree to vote on the leadership motion to proceed to consider 1 hour after the Senate convenes on Monday next, with the further understanding that a motion of the Senator from Oregon to refer H.R. 7152 to the Judiciary Committee shall be the next order of business before the Senate, in the event that the bill is laid before the Senate and made the pending business.

body. It was met at the door of the Senate and placed upon the calendar, without reference to any committee.

The majority leader says-and correctly so that a majority of Senators have voted that the procedure that has been followed with respect to this bill is ordinary, or is proper, or is in accordance with the rules. Unquestionably, in most instances, a majority of this body can ravish the rules of the Senate if it sees fit. It can disregard them. It can depart from them. It can discard them when it can get to a vote. But in this case we have a lesson that should be very clear to everyone, and that is that when Senators depart from the ordinary procedure of the Senate, when they undertake to the shortcuts, they do not actually save any time. When Senators abandon the ordinary procedures in an effort to circumvent the ordinary procedures, a Senator should not complain later when he encounters some extraordinary procedures.

The situation is somewhat unusual. That I do not deny. We who oppose this measure have insisted, from the time the bill came to the door of the Senate, that it should have ordinary handling. It did not receive it; yet we are expected to stand quietly by and acquiesce in the discard of all the practices of the Senate at a time when our voices are beginning to be heard.

Now we are asked not to speak because the majority leader wishes at this late date, at this 11th hour, after having disregarded the ordinary practices of the Senate, to recall the ordinary procedures of the Senate and to vote at a fixed time upon this motion to proceed to consider the bill.

I am not being critical of the majority leader. I can appreciate his feelings. He naturally would like to use any avenues that are open and available to him to expedite all legislation on the floor of the Senate. But there are those

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- of us here who have strong convictions pore. Is there objection?

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have listened with extraordinary interest to the remarks of the distinguished majority leader. He was eloquent, as he always is.

I was particularly impressed by his appeal for the ordinary procedures. I think he mentioned "normal procedures" and "normal fashion" seven or eight times in the course of his eloquent discourse.

He said that normally it requires from 10 seconds to 10 minutes to determine whether or not the Senate will consider a bill on the floor of the Senate when the motion is made by the leadership.

The big difficulty that the Senator has encountered in his appeal for normal procedure, for the ordinary procedure of the Senate, is the fact that he has refused to follow the ordinary and normal procedure of the Senate in this matter until it was in his interest to do so.

As I said at the outset of the debate, this bill has not been handled in the ordinary and regular legislative fashion at any stage of its career. It was not given ordinary consideration in the other

with respect to this legislation. Our convictions not only go to the purport and intent of the legislation and its impact upon the lives of the American people, but also to the procedures that have been followed up until now to bring the bill before the Senate.

We have the strong and deep-seated feeling that the bill has not been presented in the proper light to the American people through the media of communications that are supposed to carry to the American people the proceedings of the Congress.

I was not in the Chamber when the subject was discussed, but I read in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this morning the account of an effort which has been made on the part of some who oppose the bill in placing an advertisement giving their construction of the bill. This effort was met on the floor of the Senate with a short and ugly word that is not ordinarily used in debate; the effort was characterized as being a lie.

Until now all the odds have been against those who oppose the proposed legislation. We feel that we have been making some progress in this debate. We may be completely in error, but we feel

that if we could persuade Senators to approach the subject with open minds, as they would in the case of ordinary legislation, the bill could be defeated in the Senate.

We believe that even though the progress is slow and tedious, we are getting across to the American people some of the pitfalls and dangers in the bill. The majority leader stated that we would have the opportunity to call attention to them when the Senate reached the stage of consideration of the bill after the vote to take it up.

Mr. President, with the strong-arm methods being employed, we have a better opportunity to debate now than we shall have when the bill is laid before the Senate and made the unfinished business.

If the proponents of the bill are to use brute strength and say, "We have a majority, and we will treat you as we like. We will impose the views of the majority upon the minority," we have a better opportunity to debate now than we would if we were in the amendment stage and amendments were being laid on the table without discussion.

There is another reason why we felt justified in debating the motion. The The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] who unfortunately has not yet had the scales stripped from his eyes with respect to the evils of the bill, but who is conscientious and keenly sensitive to flagrant abuses of the parliamentary processes, has stated that he intends to make a motion to refer the bill to committee, with instructions to report it back within a specified time. I regard the time the Senator would specify as being short for a bill of this magnitude but at least, it would be referred to the committee, and would have at least one dip in the ordinary procedures of the Senate.

It has not been dipped in the ordinary procedures up until now. It did not have the opportunity for the bill to have its face washed in the House committee before it reached the floor of the House. While the bill was before the House, something very remarkable happened. Ordinarily, the House of Representatives does not amend legislation on the floor to the same extent as does the Senate. It is a somewhat unusual procedure for the House of Representatives to amend legislation on the floor when it has come before the House under ordinary processes. But despite the fact that the opponents of the bill were in a hopeless minority, in spite of the fact that they were caught up in the vast lobby in the Capitol to force the bill through the Congress, the House of Representatives did approve some 35 amendments to the bill on the floor.

When has that happened before? It showed the need for committee consideration of this bill as nothing else could do.

We hope to point this out on the floor of the Senate when the time comes. We do not intend to make the main fight on the bill in connection with the motion to take up; but having been victimized once by the sheer force of numbers, in what we regarded as a motion in derogation of the rules of the Senate, and un

questionably a derogation of the ordiquestionably a derogation of the ordinary procedures of the Senate, availed ourselves of the opportunity to discuss the bill to some extent before it was laid before the Senate as the unfinished business. We did it in the hope that the majority of Senators would that the majority of Senators would come to realize what violence had been done to the rules and ordinary procedures of the Senate, and would wish to dures of the Senate, and would wish to return to them. There has not been There has not been even a pretense of following them until


We hope that Senators, even though they support the bill as vigorously as does the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], will be willing to have the bill sent to committee for at least a brief study. I would hope that the Senator from Oregon would make his motion on the basis of 2 weeks instead of 10 days, because there are 11 titles in this 56-page bill, and 10 days would not even allow 1 day's consideration by the committee for each title in the bill.

Mr. President, we have debated the bill to this point on a line of defense that could not be overrun as summarily as was done in the case of the motion to table the appeal. A motion to table is about as summary a gag rule and about as quick a way to accomplish a legislative "lynching" as is possible under the rules. rules. But the distinguished majority leader is not likely to move to table his own motion to take up the bill. If he decided to make such a motion, I would support him; but it is highly unlikely that he would do so.

Thus, we who are opposed to the bill find one strategic defensive position available, and we have availed ourselves of this opportunity to undertake to overcome the massive and overwhelming odds that have already been arrayed against us by discussing this legislation, in an effort to convince our colleagues at least of the propriety, and decency of approving the motion of the Senator from Oregon to let the bill have one little sojourn in normal legislative procedure.

No bill of greater magnitude has come before Congress in a great many years; and its supporters expect to put it on the statute books without its ever having touched the ordinary legislative procedures anywhere along the line. It has It has not touched even one up until now, unless it is considered ordinary procedure for the chairman of the House committee to allow himself 1 minute, and the ranking minority member 1 minute to debate this 56-page bill, as actually happened.

I am glad that the majority leader has come around to appealing for ordinary procedures. I regret that the light dawned so late to let him see the importance of following regular legislative procedures.

We do not propose to debate indefinitely. I shall be glad to confer with Senators who have felt that they not only have been put to a disadvantage outside the Chamber, but also within the Chamber by the processes which have been followed up to this time.

We have not taken all of the time in debate during the past 9 days. There has been a great deal of discussion on a wide range of other subjects. The

distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] enlightened the Senate in several addresses on the situation in South Vietnam. I am glad the Senator from Alaska brought that matter to the attention of the Senate, because there is nothing more important or of greater concern to the American people. We also have heard a great deal about what is called the Bobby Baker case. I suppose all that debate will be charged against the opponents of the bill.

There was discussion on a subject of great importance to a great many Americans; namely, a proposed constitutional amendment to undertake to set aside the decision of the Supreme Court in the public school prayer cases. I shall not go into any details.

However, Mr. President, we are not apologizing. I am merely pointing out the facts. I do not believe we need to render any excuse for not following the ordinary procedures when no attention has been paid to them up to now. We have stuck to the subject as long as we were able to debate the bill.

I shall be happy to discuss the matter with those who are associated with me in this effort to bring the evils of the bill to the attention of the American people. We encounter all kinds of collateral matters, side issues, and things of that kind. I had hoped that the debate might be kept on a high level.

Of course, there are those who wish to bring it down to the barroom level. I am not referring now to what I said a moment ago, but to some other statements that have been made on the other side.

We can play the game that way too, if they wish. I realize where they are. We do not propose to be frightened off the floor. I believe we are making progress before the country. We have faith in the innate fairness of the Senate.

In order that the Senator from Oregon may present his motion, as only he can present it because he is above suspicion of any ulterior motive and has great ability in addition, we hope that some time in the next several calendar days, or so many days on the Gregorian calendar, as the Senator from Montana has stated, we shall be able to vote on the motion to take up the bill. Then the Senator from Oregon may make his motion and present his reasons why this matter should be referred to committee.

For the time being, I feel constrained to object.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I was interested in what the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia had to say, especially in his remarks about group strength, and also in what he had to say about normal procedure.

I am sure the distinguished Senator knows that certain duties are laid down which are the responsibility of the leadership; and that if those duties were not carried out the leadership would be derelict in discharging the responsibilities which have been thrust upon it.

Mr. RUSSELL. I intended to say that, if I did not say it. I fully appreciate the feeling of the distinguished majority

leader, that he is primarily charged with seeing to it that the business of the Senate is expedited. If I did not say that, I amend my statement now to include that statement.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Very well. I point out, speaking of normal procedure, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings over a number of days-9 days, I believe and heard one witness, with one Senator doing the questioning. Other witnesses were present to be heard. They were not called. Other Senators were there to question. They were not given the opportunity. We know that no bill would have been reported from the Judiciary Committee.

We did follow a procedure which is in accord with the rules of the Senate. All one has to do is examine rule XIV.

I know that there are arguments on both sides to be heard. I do not think that one side is made up of the "good guys," and the other side is made up of the "bad guys," to use a colloquialism. I want to see the arguments advanced, so that this matter can be debated, sifted, and discussed, title by title, and a consensus arrived at. I do not care about any particular group in this body, from any part of the country.

I do care about the Senate as a whole, including all Senators from all parts of the country.

I believe we have a responsibility. Our responsibility is to get down to a discussion of the business of the Senate. After the Senate in its wisdom agreed to put the civil rights bill on the calendar, the majority leader asked unanimous consent to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report it back on a day certain, without recommendation or amendment. The Senate, with one exception, was prepared to go along with that suggested referral-with one exception.

So I believe we have tried to follow at least the letter of the law and the rules of procedure. It would be a good thing if in some way, not through brute strength, the bill which we are considering taking up could be laid before the Senate and made the pending business so that we could consider the motion of the Senator from Oregon to refer, which motion, of course, I will oppose all the way; and if that is defeated, to get on to the bill itself, on as high a plane as possible, and not on the basis of barroom brawling. Senators should discuss the issue, which is very important. It applies not only to the South, but also to all segments of the country, and all parts of the country. There are differences which should be brought out into the open. The American people should have the benefit of the discussions, and the discussions should be legitimate; they should not be sidetracked by matters of other interest.

I would point out that the Judiciary Committee has had 121 civil rights bills referred to it in the 10-year period from 1953 to 1963; that in those 10 years 67 days of hearings were held; that in those 10 years only one bill was reported, and that one in 1960, when the bill was sent to the committee with instructions to report it back on a day certain.

That is why the procedure of the Senate under rule XIV was chosen. It is a prescribed procedure. It is fully within the rules of the Senate. It was the only way we could place the bill on the calendar. The leadership had no other choice. It has no apologies to make.

But I would hope that at an appropriate time a meeting of minds could be arrived at, so that this issue could be faced, and that this travesty of spending at least 10 days, and possibly longer, merely on the question of considering taking up the bill, could be done away with.

May I say to my colleagues in the Senate, on both sides, that they also have a duty to perform; namely, to keep as much extraneous material out of this debate as possible, so that Senators who desire to speak on the bill, even under these conditions, may have that opportunity. If they will do that, I think the chances for bringing this motion to a vote and making the bill the pending business will be furthered to that extent. Mr. HOLLAND obtained the floor. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr HOLLAND. Mr. President, both the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from North Dakota have asked me to yield to them. I intend to yield to both of them, provided I may have unanimous consent to do so without losing my place on the floor. I first agreed to yield to the Senator from North Dakota. But I take it the Senator from Oregon desires to discuss the subject just discussed by the majority leader, so if the Senator from North Dakota is agreeable to my doing so, I will first yield to the Senator from Oregon, provided my doing so will be without losing my place on the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. With that understanding, the Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to comment on some of the observations made by the majority leader with respect to the procedural problem that confronts the Senate concerning the pending motion. I want the majority leader to know that I completely agree with him. I believe we should proceed at the earliest possible moment to consider his proposal to have the civil rights bill made the pending business of the Senate, after which I shall make my motion to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee for 10 days for appropriate hearings.

I am somewhat at a loss to understand all of the observations of the majority leader in regard to the handling of the bill. Assuming that it was appropriate to proceed under rule XIV, instead of rule XXV, the fact remains that after that choice was made, the majority leader himself, following the vote on Senator RUSSELL's point of order, which was laid on the table, asked for unanimous consent to have the bill referred to the Judiciary Committee until March 4.

In the debate in recent days, the majority leader has referred to that point several times, and has stressed that only one Senator objected to his unanimous

consent request. If Senators will read the RECORD, they will recall that the majority leader said, in making his unanimous-consent request, that he had been impressed by the position taken by those of us who thought the bill ought to be referred to committee for a period of time. If he thinks there is merit in having the bill referred to committee, he ought to be one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the motion to refer the bill to committee, because if he was willing to refer the bill to committee under a unanimous-consent agreement, he ought to be just as willing to have it referred under a motion, when a majority vote of the Senate will determine whether or not it should be referred.

The majority leader speaks of the large number of civil rights measures which have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and mentions that only one, in 1960, was reported by the committee. Then he quickly points out that it was reported by the Judiciary Committee because it was referred to that committee under instructions. That is what the senior Senator from Oregon proposes to do with regard to H.R. 7152. We all know what would happen. Let us take judicial notice of it. Let us not parry over it any more. We know there is not a committee of the Senate which, if it were given instructions by the Senate, would not report a bill in accordance with such instructions. We all know the position any committee would be in. A committee of the Senate is our agent. It is bound by the instructions of the principal. If the committee did not report the bill under those instructions, the Senate would have the authority to take it back.

I stress again that in the Judiciary Committee a majority of the membersI believe 9 out of 15-favor a strong bill. The majority leader seems to be a little concerned because there was a bill before the Judiciary Committee as to which one witness was called, and that for many days only that witness was examined, and no bill was reported.

I want to ascertain whether a substantial majority of the Judiciary Committee, when the bill is referred to it under instructions, will permit that kind of procedure. I would like to believe that my Judiciary Committee-and I say "my Judiciary Committee” in the sense that it is the Judiciary Committee of each one of us—is the kind of Judiciary Committee that will respect the spirit and intent of the instructions given to it by the Senate under majority vote, if the majority of the Senate votes to refer the bill to the committee for 10 days. I believe it will. believe it will. I think the committee will act in good faith.

If the committee proceeded to divide its time and did not do the best it could to hear representative witnesses on the major issues involved in the bill, so that it could prepare a report that could be used as the legal foundation so essential in litigation ahead for the making of an adequate record for use by the courts as to what the congressional intent is, the committee would be the loser. In any event, do not forget that if the Judiciary

Committee followed the dilatory tactics that the Senator from Montana seems to imply it might follow, based upon what it did in some past Congress, the majority of the Judiciary Committee, at the end of 10 days, could still file a report with the Senate. It is that report that I want. I want a report on the basis of which we can cross-examine the so-called managers of the bill in committee, in the debate on the civil rights bill. The law is perfectly clear that that is the best way-not the only way, but clearly the best way to express legislative intent. Ten days is not very long. The 10 days will fly, for the Senate has other important business to consider. In Washington today are the U.S. ambassadors to all the Latin American countries. Talk with them. They will tell us how vital to United States-Latin American relations the coffee treaty is, and that such a treaty ought to be considered by the Senate. While the civil rights bill is in committee, the Senate could consider a coffee treaty and vote it up or down. Take a look at the Senate Calendar. The consideration of bills pending on the calendar would make 10 days flit by almost like an eyelid flash. Time will move fast, so far as the work to be done by the Senate during that 10-day period

is concerned.

I hope Senators will thaw themselves out of their frozen positions on this procedural matter. Many Senators-some are sitting in the Chamber now, looking at me have said to me in the cloakroom, "Wayne, you are right about it; but it comes too late. We cannot do it now. We should have done it in the beginning. We should have sent the bill to committee, but we cannot now because the pressures have become too great."

I refuse to accept that kind of rationalization. If any Senator thinks the kind of legislative record for which I am pleading ought to be made, he has a clear duty to support my motion, because when the 10 days have expired, I am satisfied that he will come to me and say, "I am glad we referred the bill, because we now have a committee report. Let us move on and have the kind of debate that the committee report will make possible. It will be a better debate than without the committee report."

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I can well understand the concern of the majority leader about having the Senate get on with the business at hand; and I must say, too, that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL] has presented some very persuasive comments in regard to why he cannot agree at this time to such a unanimous-consent request.

I wonder whether this impasse could be resolved in one of two ways: first, instead of agreeing to handle that business on Monday next, it be agreed that it be handled on Wednesday next; or, second, as an alternative, if the Senator from Georgia is still concerned regarding the possibility of having extraneous matters come into the debate in the interim, that we agree to get on with the motion on Wednesday next, provided that if Senators on the opposition side have not then completed their speeches, they be

permitted to do so without interruption,
following which the Senate would then
act on the motion to make the civil
rights bill the pending business. In that
way there would be something definite to
go on.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
wish the Senator from Iowa would not
press for action on that request at this
time. Although personally I would
favor it, I should like to continue to dis-
cuss this matter with the distinguished
minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] and the
distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.

Inasmuch as one unanimous-consent request was made today and was objected to, I believe that at least for 1 day we should permit things to lie as they are. Mr. MILLER. Of course I shall defer to the preference of the majority leader on that point.

However, I have observed that on many occasions when a unanimous-consent request has been made and when an objection has been raised, when suitable modifications of the request have been made, it has been possible to reach a meeting of the minds, and thus to have the Senate proceed with its business. I was trying to reconcile the two viewpoints which have been expressed here

in the last few minutes.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator's sug

gestion is a helpful one, and is appre-
ciated. I have arranged with the distin-
guished minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN]
thank the Senator from Iowa for what
a meeting in regard to this matter. I
he has said.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator
from Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield without losing his right to the floor so that I may suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for that purpose, provided I do not lose my right to the floor, and that it does not count as a speech against me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McGOVERN in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and, as usual, it will be a live quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll.


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is necessarily absent.

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] is detained on official business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has asked me to yield to him at this point without losing my right to the floor, and I am

glad to yield to him for that purpose provided that I do not lose my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 11 o'clock a.m. tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business tomorrow, it stand in recess until 11 o'clock a.m. Saturday.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Senator from Florida for yielding to me for this purpose.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of Mr. MANSFIELD that the Senate proceed to consider the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to

extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I Mr. President, I have twice attempted to make this speech on title IV of the pending bill the title which deals with public school education-but, as most of the Members of this body know, on each occasionafter waiting patiently for some hours— I was prevented from doing so because, through no fault of anyone's in particular, inadequate time remained to do so.

On each of those occasions, however, to accommodate the interests of both the acting majority leader, and also my leader in the debate on this matter, the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], I made some preliminary remarks on the subject-the first time on Wednesday, March 11, of last week, and the second on Monday, March 16, of this week. My remarks may be found in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of those dates.

Before I begin my principal remarks on this subject, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the acting majority leader [Mr. HUMPHREY] who on both of those occasions accommodated himself to my reluctance to attempt to deliver what I believe to be a constructive speech on this subject when there was not adequate time available. I thank him-and the other Senators-who have cooperated in this matter.

Mr. President, with regard to title IV— and the education of the Negro in particular.

I believe implicitly that what the Negro youngsters of America and their parents need and want, and what most of them would gladly accept, is better schools rather than integrated schools.

We all know that too many of the Negro schools are inferior-are substandard-not just in the South, but in the North and the East and the West-and especially in the great metropolitan areas of the North where slum conditions exist-and the great problem of Negro education is to improve the schools in those areas.

I shall call as my witness on this point not a citizen of the South-because we are always suspect, somehow, in this kind of debate-but a very distinguished citizen of this Nation, the Honorable James B. Conant, formerly president of Harvard University and one of our greatest Americans, relied upon by all of us as one of those who is best in a position to advise the people of the United States as to how they may make progress in the field of education.

Mr. President, in his recent book, a commentary on schools in metropolitan areas, entitled "Slums and Suburbs," Dr. Conant deals with the question of nonuniformity in schools. He deals with it not in the southland, Mr. President, where there is, of course, nonuniformity, also, but in the great metropolitan centers in which he conducted a very careful survey.

Dr. Conant was authorized to conduct the survey by a great foundation which

put up the money for the survey and put up the money for the survey and which likewise gave him adequate staff personnel to make it. I should like for personnel to make it. I should like for the record to show the name of that organization which made possible the effort by Dr. Conant.

In the foreword, appearing on the flyleaf of the book I have mentioned, Dr. Conant says:

The present volume is based primarily on observations made during my study of education in the junior high school years, which was financed by a grant from the Carnegie Corp. of New York to the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, N.J.

I think it is of interest to the whole Nation that Dr. Conant had no thought at all of ever being quoted in this debate. He was not interested in the question of legislation pending in the Senate. He was interested solely in the inequality of opportunity of students at various schools in our country. As a great educator, a great research head, he reports the results of his investigation in this very fine book published in 1961. I commend the reading of it to

every Senator.

On page 2 of his book, Dr. Conant writes:

The contrast in money available to the schools in a wealthy suburb and to the schools in a large city jolts one's notions of the meaning of equality of opportunity. The pedagogic tasks which confront the teachers in the slum schools are far more difficult than those which their colleagues in the wealthy suburbs face. Yet the expenditure per pupil in the wealthy suburban school is as high as $1,000 per year. The expenditure in a big city school is less than half that amount. An even more significant contrast is provided by looking at the school facilities and noting the size of the professional staff. In the suburb there is likely to be a spacious modern school staffed by as many as 70 professionals per 1,000 pupils; in the slum one finds a crowded, often dilapidated and unattractive school staffed by 40 or fewer professionals per 1,000 pupils. contrast challenges any complacency we may have about our method of financing public schools-even within a rich State like New York.


In chapters 1, 2, and 3, Dr. Conant considers, and I quote him:

The special educational problems in the big central cities of our largest metropolitan areas-especially New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis.

He states in chapter 1, on page 7: In each one of these cities one can find neighborhoods composed of various minority groups. *** In particular one finds large Negro neighborhoods and often somewhat smaller areas made up entirely of Negro slums. The schools serving such neighborhoods must be visited in order for one to

understand the nature of the difficult tasks

which the teachers face.

And he continues on page 7 and page 8:

The slum areas of certain big northern cities are today largely inhabited by Negroes. *** New York State now has the largest Negro population of any State in the Union.

Since I am going to be completely frank about Negro education in the largest cities, it may be well to take a few paragraphs to set forth my own interpretation of the distressing history of the Negro in the United States. At the outset I must make it plain

that I approach the delicate and complex problem of interrace relations with the background of a 100-percent New Englander.

My family tradition was that of the strong abolitionists. My mother, who remembered the Civil War, used to say that as a child she was brought up to think Negroes were, if anything, better than white people.

On page 9, Dr. Conant makes this additional statement:

The idea of the Negro and the white living together peacefully on equal terms in a free society was literally inconceivable to Jeffer


Yet after nearly 200 years we are endeavoring to accomplish the building of just that type of society

This is Dr. Conant speaking, let me say to Senators

We make a great mistake, I believe, if we fail to recognize the rough and weary road we have had in our attempt as a free and independent people to remove the social consequence of the inherited curse of Negro slavery.

Dr. Conant there lays emphasis upon the social implications of this question,

and I invite the attention of the Senate

to the fact that this is a great, internationally respected northern educator, the son of an abolitionist family making that statement in his book.

This statement, Mr. President, appears on page 19:

These Negro slums seem to vary considerably with respect to the social mores. In some there are very bad gangs with gang warfare among the boys. There are also vicious fights outside of school between Negro girls. The condition in one such neighborhood was summed up to one of my staff by a principal of a junior high school who said even he was shocked by the answers to a questionnaire to the girls which asked what was their biggest problem. The majority replied to the effect that their biggest problem was getting from the street into their apartment without being molested in the hallway of the tenement.

Mr. President, those are not pleasant things to read into the RECORD, but they come from Dr. Conant, a source whom everyone must respect.

I continue; from page 21:

I ask the readers of this volume, many of whom live in wealthy suburbs, to ponder the contrast between the lives and the education of their children and the lives and education of the boys and girls in the neighborhoods I have been describing. It is after visits to schools like these that I grow impatient with both critics and defenders of public education who ignore the realities of debate about educational philosophy, purschool situations to engage in fruitless poses, and the like.

From page 24:

In one school I visited, the teachers them

selves, mostly Negroes, felt that the only way to improve the reading of the children in the first three or four grades was to do something with their mothers. If the head of the family unit could be located and brought into communication with the school, attempts were made to stimulate an interest in newspapers, magazines, and possibly even books.

From page 68:

Within the large cities the problem is complicated by the fact that the turnover rate of teachers in the slum schools is very high.

« ПретходнаНастави »