March 30, 1964
Page 6552
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this is a fair, moderate, and comprehensive bill. It deals with all the major areas of life in which Negroes and other minorities have been discriminated against: voting, education, access to public accommodations and facilities, equal protection of the laws, and employment.
As I have tried to show, all these areas are interrelated; each is bound with the others. A man who would be free must have the opportunity to develop his mind and talents through education, to earn a living with those talents, and to apply his education to public life through participation in the political process. Without opportunities for education, the Negro cannot get a job.
I would not want my remarks in support of this bill to be interpreted as indicating there was nothing left to be done in the fields of education, or health, or retraining, or many other areas of life The bill merely provides a legal framework through which men of good will can work out some difficult, long-term problems. We need to expand educational opportunities. We need to expand housing in America. We need to expand health services. We need to expand employment opportunities. We need a growing and expanding economy. We need to eliminate areas of discrimination and prejudice in order to have the full participation of the American people in their society and in their community life.
All this needs to be done. When I hear the opponents of the legislation remind us again and again that what is needed is more education, I agree. But more education for a person who has been denied equal rights and full participation in community life is no answer to that man's problems.
What is needed is an opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of American life, including opportunities for education, health, job opportunity, and political participation.
Without a job, one cannot afford public convenience and accommodations. Income from employment may be necessary to further a man's education, or that of his children. If his children have no hope of getting a good job, what will motivate them to take advantage of educational opportunities?
In short, the primary ingredients for a full and free life are inseparable from each other. Education cannot wait upon employment or political freedom. Employment opportunity cannot be postponed until the vote is won. The only way to break the vicious circle of minority oppression is to break it at every point where injustice, inequality, and denial of opportunity exist. It is for this reason that we propose enactment of comprehensive legislation that will touch on every major obstacle to civil rights.
This bill is long overdue. Moderate as it is, it insures a great departure from the misery and bitterness that is the lot of so many Americans. This misery has found remarkably quiet methods of expression up to the present. As I said earlier, I marvel at the patience and self control of Negroes who have been excluded from the American dream for so long.
But the passive stage is ending in the history of the American Negro. Within the past few years a new spirit has arisen in those people who have been so long denied. How will we respond to this challenge? The snarling police dogs of Birmingham are one answer. The force of equality and justice is another. That second choice is embodied in the bill that we are starting to consider.
The same Negroes who win our Olympic games, the same Negroes who are the stars on the baseball fields, the same Negroes who in many areas of our country have been permitted to practice in hospitals without discrimination, are rising as one man and asking that their brethren be given the same opportunity.
Freedom requires full freedom. There cannot be half freedom. There cannot be full freedom for whites and little freedom for Negroes.
I say with regret that all over America prejudice exists. It is not confined to one section of the country. It is more visible in some sections of the country than it is in others; but it exists everywhere.
I do not proclaim that the proposed statute will eliminate all the evils which plague us in the area of racial prejudice. I merely say that it sets a standard around which decent men can rally. It lays down the legal framework within which men of good will, of reason, and judgment, can work together. It provides the means for a constructive social policy that is long overdue.
I advise Senators to read the great address of then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered last year at Gettysburg. It should be read every day. The then Vice President -- now President of the United States -- with courage and forthrightness and vision, told us that the American Negro is tired of waiting; that he wants his day of justice. He is going to get it by one means or another.
We cannot afford to have this growing tension in the American community. We need every American to work with full power for freedom and opportunity.
We would be foolish to deny ourselves the opportunity of enlisting in the common cause of freedom the millions of people who cry out to be a part of the great American dream. They are not asking to be left out. They are not asking to be put aside. They wish to be part of our national life. That is what this fight is all about. It is my earnest hope that Senators will recognize that the bill represents an investment of knowledge, energy, and dedication by the executive branch and the Congress, by Democrats and Republicans alike. Its moderation and careful language represent almost a year of patient deliberation, study, and discussion. We know that some Members of the other body wanted a bill that they felt was stronger; while others wanted a bill that made a more modest beginning. Still others wanted no bill at all. H.R. 7152 is a compromise between these points of view. The bill embodies the thinking of literally hundreds of men of good will.
It is my earnest hope that Senators will respect and appreciate this precious investment, that they will realize what a great achievement it is to have brought this bill to its present place on the legislative schedule, and that they will honor the importance of the issue and the good faith of the bill's architects by passing H.R. 7152 as it now stands.
MISREPRESENTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
The goals of this bill are simple ones: To extend to Negro citizens the same rights and the same opportunities that white Americans take for granted. These goals are so obviously desirable that the opponents of this bill have not dared to dispute them. No one has claimed that Negroes should not be allowed to vote. No one has said that they should be denied equal protection of the laws. No one has said that Negroes are inherently unacceptable is places of public accommodation. No one has said that they should be refused equal opportunity in employment.
This bill cannot be attacked on its merits. Instead, bogeymen and hobgoblins have been raised to frighten well-meaning Americans.
A bill endorsed by hundreds of prominent attorneys and professors of law is called by the opponents unconstitutional.
A bill endorsed by every major religious denomination in America is called Communist inspired.
A bill passed by an overwhelming majority of 290 Members of the House of Representatives to 130 for the opposition -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- is called socialistic.
Good Americans, like the Speaker of the House, Mr. McCORMACK, the majority leader of the House, Mr. ALBERT, the minority leader of the House, Mr. HALLECK, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. CELLER, who deserves a special note of tribute, and the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. McCULLOCH, who also deserves a special note of tribute on the floor of the Senate, formulated the bill and carried it through in the other body. I know that 290 Members of the other body are not Socialists. I know they are not Communists. I reject that kind of smokescreen attack upon a sensible piece of legislation.
It is said that the bill would make the Attorney General a dictator, when in fact the only power he is given is the authority to introduce lawsuits to give some American citizens their constitutional rights and require other Americans to obey the law.
It is called a force bill, when in fact it places first reliance on conciliation and voluntary action, and authorizes legal action only as a last resort.
It is called an attack on State government, when in fact the bill specifically directs that State and local officials and agencies will be used wherever feasible, and appeals to the States to perform States' rights rather than States' wrongs.
It is claimed that the bill would produce a gigantic Federal bureaucracy, when in fact it will result in creating about 400 permanent new Federal jobs.
It is claimed that it would impair a property owner's ability to sell or rent his home, when in fact there is nothing in the bill pertaining to housing.
It is claimed that the bill would require racial quotas for all hiring, when in fact it provides that race shall not be a basis for making personnel decisions.
As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. That purpose is to give fellow citizens -- Negroes -- the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. This is no more than what was preached by the prophets, and by Christ Himself. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees.
One hundred and ninety years have passed since the Declaration of Independence, and 100 years since the Emancipation Proclamation. Surely the goals of this bill are not too much to ask of the Senate of the United States.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. KUCHEL. I congratulate my friend the Senator from Minnesota. Perhaps in the lifetime of every Senator no greater challenge will have been presented than that which has been presented today. The Senator from Minnesota has delivered an excellent, moving, lucid, logical presentation of why legislation in this field should now pass.
I congratulate him. I am glad to be associated with him in this fight.
The Senator is an able advocate of one great American political party. To the best of my ability, I shall speak on this side of the aisle as a representative of the other great American political party in our country.
This issue should not be a partisan fight. It should be and is an American fight. The record that is being made in the Senate today will go a long way, not merely to demonstrate that the Senate desires to pass legislation in the civil rights field, but also to provide the people of this country and all branches of government with the clear and unequivocal intention by which the bill will be fashioned in plain English.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from California.
Mr. President, I consumed over 3 hours to make this presentation, which is longer than I intended, but in those hours I attempted to analyze the main titles of the bill, and to lay down the base of discussion.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. KEATING. I congratulate the Senator upon a very well fashioned presentation, which deals
with all the titles of the bill, and reveals extremely diligent preparation. His presentation can serve as a guideline, as this debate ensues, for others of us who will take up and discuss the separate titles of the bill.
I reiterate in the strongest and most emphatic terms what the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] I has said; namely, that bipartisanship in the effort to pass the bill is a "must." The bill cannot be enacted into law without entirely putting aside political affiliations and remembering only that all of us are trying to do something for our country. We must remedy a situation which demands action, which has been too long delayed in the past, and which should have been acted upon as a moral imperative years ago, and not in answer to a situation which has reached crisis proportion. The fact is, however, that it has now reached such proportions.
We are endeavoring to solve one of the most pressing national problems we have ever faced, one which is a great moral problem as well. The Senator f rom Minnesota is one of the leaders in the fight, and he has set forth in excellent fashion the background upon which others of us will follow with more detailed arguments.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from New York. Lest I failed to make it clear, I am proud to be associated in this important debate and, I hope, in the ultimate decision, with my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times, that the bill is not a Democratic bill. It is not a partisan issue. I have always maintained that this is a national issue and a moral issue. It is not only a bipartisan issue, but a nonpartisan issue.
This is as vital to American security as is our national defense and our foreign policy. We must deal with the subject above party politics, and face the issue as we see it.
I respect those who hold different points of view. It is my desire that after those points of view have been explained and refuted, and after the debate has progressed, the Senate will come to a decision. I am sure that no Senator will be criticized for taking some time in the discussion of the bill. But we do hope that a decision will be reached. The President of the United States asked for this legislation in the state of the Union address. He asked that ultimately we come to a decision, and vote on it yea or nay. That is our responsibility.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for his able, detailed, and inspiring address.
Some of our opponents have from time to time charged us with trying to force the bill through under a form of gag rule in the Senate. Already there have been 3 weeks of discussion, in which Senators who favor the bill took a very minor part.
Now the Senator from Minnesota has made a thorough analysis. It will be followed, I understand, by an address by the distinguished whip on the Republican side. He will be followed by a discussion of the bill in detail, title by title.
It cannot be said, therefore, that any attempt will be made to jam the bill through. Every effort will be made to inform the Senate and the country on the contents of the bill, to acquaint Senators and the public with the arguments in favor of the bill, and to consider the objections raised against the bill.
The Senator from Minnesota has made a magnificent beginning.
Coming from Chicago, following a visit to my, home State over the weekend, I bought, at a book stand, and received through the mail, copies of an excellent book which the Senator from Minnesota has edited. It is entitled "Integration Versus Segregation." It is really a collection of vital and essential documents, which I have found highly enlightening.
The Senator from Minnesota rightly begins the book with the text of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We sometimes forget the 14th amendment. Attention is frequently concentrated upon the 10th amendment, which denies jurisdiction to the Federal Government of subjects not specifically allotted to the Federal Government. I believe it would be well to read aloud once more, on the floor of the Senate, the 1st and 5th sections of the 14th amendment to the Constitution:
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.
In other words, there is no differentiation between citizens. There are no first-class citizens and no second-class citizens; all white or black, rich or poor, are citizens on equal terms. Citizenship, moreover, is not merely a matter of residence in a State; it also means that a person is a citizen of the United States.
The second sentence of the first section reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
This provides that no State action shall be taken to diminish the privileges or immunities of citizens.
The provision continues:
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.
Finally, the fifth section of the 14th amendment reads:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The 14th amendment was proposed in 1866. It was adopted in 1868. It is now 1964, 96 years after the adoption of the amendment.
We are proposing in the pending bill a strengthening of the 14th amendment, to carry out the specific authorization granted in the 5th section of the amendment.
I particularly liked the way in which the Senator from Minnesota made no claim for sectional superiority of the North over the South. I have always said that we are more or less children of history. The South has suffered from slavery and the fact that the Civil War was fought on its ground. Only an accident of climate and geography spared the North from slavery.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Maine.Mr. MUSKIE. In my judgment, the Senator from Minnesota has performed a real service for the Senate and for the country. I have been receiving mail pertaining to the bill, a great deal of it from my own State, and a great deal of it from other States also. Much of the mail reflects a real misunderstanding of what the bill is all about.
The Senator from Minnesota has given us in considerable detail this afternoon a comprehensive and lucid explanation of what the bill is, what it does, and what it would accomplish. I like particularly the fact that in the discussion of the bill, the Senator touched upon many of the constitutional points that have been raised in the last 3 weeks by opponents of the bill.
The Senator has placed these points in excellent perspective, for a non-lawyer, in beautiful fashion. There are arguments on both sides on many of these points. However, the Senator has presented clearly the points which I think ought to be reassuring in the extreme to many of our correspondents of the North who are laboring under serious misapprehensions about the bill.
I commend the Senator from Minnesota for doing what I think the Senator has done so well, and that is to describe in one or two simple sentences the real purpose of the bill, which is to contribute to the elimination of discrimination.
In the very last sentence of the Senator's speech, he points out that 190 years have passed since the Declaration of
Independence which set out certain inalienable rights.
The bill is a recognition of the fact that many of the rights which were declared by Thomas Jefferson to be inalienable are still being compromised and denied to millions upon millions of Americans, and that the fundamental purpose of the bill is to assure to those people the inalienable rights which the Declaration of Independence proclaimed in 1776.
I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am very grateful. I thank the Senator.