thrived within this framework. Legal prohibitions against sponsorship would unnecessarily encroach upon that private enterprise system. Broadcasters can and should be relied upon to be guided by public interest considerations in the exercise of their business judgment. ABC recognizes that certain patterns of commercial sponsorship in conjunction with live hearings would not be consistent with contemporary public interest standards of propriety and decorum, as for example, the periodic interruption of a hearing in progress for commercial announcements. However, patterns of sponsorship may be utilized which would pose no problem of taste or decorum. We strongly urge that the determination as to sponsorship, as in the Senate, be left to the individual judgment of the broadcaster and not be flatly prohibited by law. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed amendment to the House rules be modified so that decisions as to commercial sponsorship be left to the discretion of the broadcaster. Very truly yours, MARK D. ROTH. THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, Washington, D.C., December 1, 1969. Hon. B. F. SISK, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SISK: I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to present testimony before your Subcommittee with respect to the proposed Legislative Reorganization Act. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to take the time of your Subcommittee unless you have specific questions that you would like to address to me. I have followed closely action on this proposed bill both in the House and in the Senate, and I have studied the Committee print issued by your Subcommittee. In general I endorse those provisions of the bill that relate to improving the information resources for the Congress, particularly with respect to the proposed Congressional Research Service. You can be assured that as Librarian of Congress I will do everything possible to implement the provisions of the Act relating to the Congressional Research Service in order to carry out the intent of the Congress. I greatly appreciate the attention that your Subcommittee has given to the Legislative Reference Service and the confidence that you have placed in the Service and the Library of Congress. Sincerely yours, L. QUINCY MUMFORD, TO EXTEND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCRIMINATORY USE OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 4249 TO EXTEND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 WITH TO EXTEND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCRIMINATORY USE OF TESTS AND DEVICES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1969 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, the Honorable William M. Colmer (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Colmer (presiding), Madden, Delaney, Bolling, O'Neill of Massachusetts, Sisk, Young, Pepper, Matsunaga, Anderson of Tennessee, Smith of California, Anderson of Illinois, Martin, Quillen, and Latta. Also present: Laurie C. Battle, counsel, and Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. Celler, the committee will be glad to hear you on the annual civil wrongs bill. Mr. CELLER. My annual pilgrimage; is that it? The CHAIRMAN. Right. STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I and Mr. McCulloch, my counterpart on the Republican side, are very grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee to request a rule on H.R. 4249, which renews for a period of 5 years the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today requesting an open rule with 3 hours of debate on this bill. The Voting Rights Act was designed to enfranchise millions of citizens who have not been able to Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear the witness up here. Mr. CELLER. I am sorry. The Voting Rights Act was designed to enfranchise millions of citizens who had been unable to secure their 15th amendment rights under prior congressional enactments. Congressional efforts in 1957, 1966, 1960, and 1964 to banish racial discrimination proved seriously inadequate. Federal remedies took the form of expedited Federal court litigation, but court orders were ineffectual in overcoming massive and widespread violations of the 15th amendment. |