I realize this is not the appropriate forum for recommending changes in legislation, but if they were in order, I would suggest relieving CRS of its formal conciliation function altogether, and the emphasis there is "formal." A great deal of informal conciliation can go on in your community work, but I am relating this-when I use the word "formal"-to matters that might be or are under litigation. There is always room for conciliation in the arena of governmental regulation and enforcement. I see no reason why the Department of Justice should not have some discretion about when to press charges and when to resolve issues by consent My second recommendation would be to strengthen and clarify section 1002. It should be eminently clear that the CRS is to foster and promote positive community relations programs wherever local communities are ready to respond, to offer technical assistance, and to provide financial assistance for the kinds of programs I mentioned above. Finally, I recomend against identifying the community relations function with law enforcement. Each function is important and neither can succeed without the other. But each should have its own integrity. For the time being, I should think that Commerce provides as satisfactory an umbrella as any. I would like to add here that I am very much aware that I have taken a somewhat different line than some of the others who are opposed to the transfer, because I put less emphasis upon the formal conciliation function. As far as I'm concerned, from my experience, that kind of conciliation can be carried on by the enforcement arm. What I want to do is to separate entirely from the enforcement concept or the enforcement function another very positive creative kind of program which should involve tremendous numbers of people in every community in a problem-solving process where they can feel they are doing it. This is not to say that the coercive arm of the Federal Government at another point should not be felt. I am in favor of firm enforcement of the law. Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much for a thought-provoking differentiation of functions in the civil rights field. Is it a fair statement to say that your objection is not so much the transfer of what the Community Relations Service is now doing, but a transfer of what it should do? Mr. SCHERMER. Yes. And I think before it can really do what I think it ought to do, there ought to be some clarification of the act. Senator HARRIS. And you would not object if conciliation were in the Department of Justice? Mr. SCHERMER. Conciliation per se, no. But I would not want toI'm afraid that in the process you might move the whole thing over there. I really feel that what I call community relations as distinct from conciliation is a great need. In my consulting work I get around the country a good bit and work with cities, and they need help, especially the smaller cities. Some of the bigger cities have professional staffs. But the smaller cities and suburban areas need help and guidance. And if I did not have to make a living by charging fees, I would be a very busy man. But I cannot spend that much time working-just answering people's questions. Senator HARRIS. Let me say that under the rules of the Senate a committee may not sit during the Senate session without consent of the Senate, leave of the Senate, and that has not been obtained in this instance. So we must now recess. Before doing so, however, I will place in the record at this point a statement from Senator Clifford P. Case, supporting Senate Resolution 220. STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. CASE. The proposal to place the Community Relations Service under the Department of Justice gives me great concern. It is a mistake, I believe, to mix conciliation with enforcement. That is what the proposed transfer inevitably tends to do. The transfer flies in the face of general experience with conciliation functions as well as the legislative intent in establishing the Community Relations Service. When President Kennedy first proposed the Community Relations Service, he put particular emphasis on the need for an independent agency. In his message of June 19, 1963, he said: *** But conciliation and cooperation can facilitate the achievement of those rights, enabling legislation to operate more smoothly and more effectively. The Department of Justice and its Civil Rights Division have already performed yeoman service of this nature, in Birmingham, in Jackson, and throughout the country. But the problem has grown beyond the time and energies which a few otherwise burdened officials can make available-and, in some areas, the confidence of all will be greater in an intermediary whose duties are completely separated from departmental functions of investigation or litigation.” [Emphasis supplied.] A Community Relations Service title in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was eliminated in the House Judiciary Committee. On the House floor, it was, however, restored. Much of the discussion in behalf of restoration centered on the need for a confidential conciliation agency divorced from the legal and prosecuting arm of the Govern ment. Following passage of the 1964 civil rights bill by the House of Representatives, the Department of Justice prepared a detailed analysis of each title of the act. In the discussion of the title "Establishing the Community Relations Service," it was pointed out that: * * in many communities experiencing racial tensions a lack of communication between white and Negro leaders precludes even a start toward solutions. In those communities it is necessary that third parties attempt to bring these leaders to the conference table. Thus, officials of the Department of Justice, acting informally on a situation-by-situation basis, have been able in a number of situations to aid in resolving disputes by conferring with the parties and helping to establish lines of communication. However, it is apparent that neither the Department of Justice nor any other existing Government organization can accomplish what is needed in the field of mediation. This task can best be carried on by a congressionally constituted agency concerned solely with mediation assistance. [Emphasis supplied.] Title X would establish such an agency in the Department of Commerce under the name of the "Community Relations Service." It would be authorized to help in the resolution of racial disputes on a voluntary basis and in cooperation with State and local agencies. The disputes which the Service would seek to conciliate are those relating to racially discriminatory practices "which impair the rights ings are concluded--not in those words-that it would be this coming week, and that at the last meeting of the conference this issue was raised in very strong form, about 3 or 4 weeks ago, and there are many of us who are deeply concerned that a meeting has not been held so that a position can be taken on this issue. Senator HARRIS. May I say, not responsive to that particular point, but more in general response to it-the chairman has asked me to state that when these hearings are adjourned, the record will be kept open for 1 week for further submission of any views or statements that anyone has for the record. Mr. HIGGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, because leaving the record open would, I think, make it possible for these views to be felt. I might add that I was quite a bit disturbed by a couple of points that Mr. Wilkins made in his statement, in which he says, for example, on page 3, that the Director of the Community Relations Service needs the advice, the guidance and the assistance of a Cabinet officer. I have some problems with that-if he's receiving the guidance in his activities. I also have some deep concern about his, as he puts it, wanting to be where the action is, and this disturbs me, frankly, about being too closely involved with the action. That's all I have. Senator HARRIS. For Senator Javits, whose very sharp questioning of witnesses before this committee has helped us immeasurably, I want to ask some questions which he left. As you know, he had to leave for a while. He wanted to ask about a subcommittee report which you make reference to, I believe, in the second paragraph of your prepared statement that you served as one of six on a subcommittee of the leadership conference to study the problem before this subcommittee. He wanted me to ask was there a report, and if so, who prepared it, and at whose direction was it prepared? Mr. HIGGS. Well, in response to Senator Javits question, there was a report, there was a meeting, a luncheon meeting. The chairman of the committee was Dr. Ben Sissel of the United Presbyterian Church, a member of the leadership conference. And at this meeting waslet me see this was on December 16, 1965. It had followed, I suppose-followed by 2 weeks or so a leadership conference meeting which set up the committee. At that time, frankly, I think I can say that the sentiment within the conference in general terms-not specifics--the sentiment was very much that there would be opposition to this, and there would be very active opposition to this transfer. At any rate, the committee was set up. The committee met on December 16. I believe there were four of the six voting members who were present, and of course, Dr. Sissel, the chairman. We did adopt a report, not in so many words, but we discussed the whole matter, and Dr. Sissel took notes from which he prepared the report. All of this was approved unanimously, and four of the six members were there. Then--for almost all we knew, for about a month-this was it, this was basically the report. Then we were notified that there had been another meeting. I frankly did not receive notice even though I was a member of the committee. That may have been my fault, sometimes I don't always get notices at which three of the six members-not a quorum as I see it had participated, and the report was totally reversed, it had been about a seven page-the original report was seven pages in which the recommendations were the recommendations were very short. I would just like to read them to you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HARRIS. That was Senator Javits' next question, to give us the gist of the recommendations of that original report. So on behalf of him, I ask the question. Mr. HIGGS. I don't see any other way I can answer it without giving the recommendations. The recommendations to the leadership conference, unanimously by the committee, at this meeting were— That an appropriate letter with press release be drafted by those experienced in such matters and sent from the leadership conference to the President making the following points as strongly as possible. First, general critical comment about the administration's seeming abdication of its former substantive commitments to civil rights. B. General positive suggestions to rectify the present sad state of the administration's noncommitment to civil rights by the creation of an independent agency, adequately staffed and budgeted and directly responsible to the White House to coordinate, oversee, and advise Federal agencies and departments in their implementation of existing civil rights legislation. This agency should have the authority, if necessary, to bring the power of the White House directly to bear upon any agency that does not live up to its mandate under existing legislation. Finally, specific denunciation of the proposed transfer of Community Relations Service to the Department of Justice with the recommendation that the apparent decision to do so be reconsidered so that for the time being at least the Community Relations Service remains where Congress placed it, in Commerce, pending the time when the Department of Housing and Urban Development becomes fully staffed and operative, at which time consideration of the feasibility of relocation of the Community Relations Service there may be appropriate. Senator HARRIS. What was the date of that original report? Mr. HIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now, I do not see the date. As I recall the report was approximately 2 weeks later, because that was the time we had decided at the meeting. So it would be just about around the first of January or so. Senator HARRIS. To get to what you may be about to say, let me ask Senator Javits' next question. What action has the leadership conference taken on this recommendation, the one you just read? Mr. HIGGS. Well, Mr. Chairman, this recommendation was never formally presented to the leadership conference. Dr. Sissel apparently was contacted by the leadership of the leadership conference, as I understand it, and was requested to convene another meeting. This meeting occurred on January 25. Now, I personally, as I say, did not receive notice of that meeting. But as I understand, three voting members were there, Dr. Sissel and the two members who did not show up at the first meeting that was called-and at this time the original unanimous report was reconsidered and rejected and a new report of one page was approved as the report of the full committee by a vote of two to one, Dr. Sissel abstaining from the vote. 60-816-66--10 Senator HARRIS. By what vote? Mr. HIGGS. Two for, none against, and one abstention, Dr. Sissel. No one else present could vote. Senator HARRIS. Would you present that report to us? Mr. HIGGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is dated January 28, 1966. This is to the members of the committee, a memo from Dr. Sissel. At the January 25 meeting of the ad hoc committee on Federal Reorganization of Civil Rights Functions a long discussion took place relative to the report you have all received on which you were asked to comment. Although three members of the committee subsequently could not be present, the meeting was held that day because all of the six members either personally or through a secretary had indicated they would be present. Following the discussion, a majority of the committee present voted not to make to the LCCR the report as circulated among the committee. Instead, the committee voted to report the following to the LCCR. After study and discussion of the reassignment of Federal civil rights responsibility in accordance with the Vice President's memo of September 24, 1965, the ad hoc committee recommends that the LCCR: 1. Keep close watch on the actual effectiveness of the reorganization during the coming months, and 2. Give special attention and energy to the enforcement and implementation of title VI. So, Mr. Chairman, the next meeting of the LCCR was held, as I recall, the first part of February, the first week or so in February, and again, in answer to Senator Javits' question, the action that was taken was that this was the only report, the one I've just read, that was presented. There was objection to that by a number of people, several of us did object, and a motion was made to substitute the report that was first read essentially. Then the chairman of the conference, Mr. Mitchell, representing Mr. Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, then stated that the report of the committee would be circulated to all members and that we would have a meeting soon, shortly thereafter, at which we were to decide whether or not to accept the report, and would not finish it that afternoon. A number of us insisted that the original report also be sent to all members of the conference. We were overruled by the chairman. But to my knowledge, not even the one-page report has been sent. I personally do not recall having received it. And, of course, there has been no meeting to date to take a position on this, though of, course, many of us again have great concern, because of these hearings, and frankly have the feeling that this committee should have the views of the leadership conference or at least of the constituent members of the conference. Senator HARRIS. Do you have anything further to add? Let me say that I hope that I shall again have the pleasure of appearing before a committee that is chaired, even though temporarily, by such a courteous Member of this Congress, and I thank you very much for the opportunity of being here. Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Your appearance has been helpful to us. The committee will now be pleased to hear from Mr. George Schermer, human relations counselor. |