Mr. MADDEN. I am one who believes that had legislation of this type, and the educational legislation that was passed in the 89th Congress, been enacted 20 years ago, we would not have had any riots over the Nation this last year.

The people participating in these riots are people who are influenced by agitators and are gullible due to lack of intelligence or lack of education, and just swing in a frenzy. Had legislation of this kind been passed 20, 30 years ago, we would have no ricts in this country whatsoever.

I think the timing, when the chairman remarked of the hurry, is very, very essential. I think that it is essential that this legislation be passed just as quickly as possible. It is the first step I have heard of any legislature or any Congress taking to stop the disturbances and riots that have gone on. I think that is one reason why we should get this bill passed and acted on this session.

Now, regarding the statement that was made that the Government is taking over too much authority. I think it is time that the Government should take over some authority in regard to some segments of our population in this country, and give them a chance to enjoy what all citizens should enjoy. From the standpoint of education or lack of education in certain areas, I think that, in itself, has brought about most of the disturbances in this country. We have not had riots in the Calumet region of Indiana-we have a large Negro population there. A lot of the Negro people came up from the South during the war and worked in the industries, and a lot are there without any education at all.

But, they came up there and got jobs. Naturally, some are getting older and they would like to get some kind of a job where they do not have to do manual labor. And they are not equipped for it.

Some people say the Federal Government is taking the powers away from the States. Well, some people would not have an education if it were not for the Federal Government.

I get tired of this thing that the Federal Government is taking all of the power away from the State.

I was a delegate to the national convention in 1964 at Atlantic City. I was on the platform committee and Governor Wallace got up and made a speech and he told about the education down in his State, and I happen to have a breakdown of every State in the Union on the boys who were rejected during the draft. There were some States where 33 out of a 100 boys could not get into the Army or Navy because they could not read or write. The Governor was could I have a little order?

Mr. COLMER. The committee will be in order.

Mr. MADDEN. I hear people talking about-let us not touch the power of the State. It is too bad we did not do this 30 years ago and we would not have these riots that we are having today.

So, we hear every time a civil rights bill is brought up, and every time an educational bill is brought up, that you are infringing on the power of the State. It is too bad it was not done 25 years ago. I think one of the most important things that Congress can do this year is to get the resolution out of here and let the House vote on it, up or down. Even some of the Members over there in the Senate, who always

opposed civil rights and housing, voted for this bill in the Senate. Senator Mundt was one who voted for this bill, Dominick and a lot of Members that never voted for civil rights, never voted for housingthey voted for this bill. So, there is nothing that anybody should fear about this legislation being enacted into law this year.

Mr. COLMER. Gentlemen, we have not finished with the first witness. We have 11 more who have signified their intention or desire to testify on this matter. Obviously, we cannot go any further right now. I would like to know what the will of the committee is. As far as the chairman is concerned, I see no reason why we should not come back here at about 1:30. At least we can finish with Mr. Celler.

Mr. CELLER. May I be excused; Mr. Rogers, Mr. Corman, Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Mathias of Maryland, and others are here. I have a very important engagement in New York. As I said, I am in a primary fight. Self-preservation is the first law of

Mr. BOLLING. I have one comment. I suggested that the hearing on this matter start some time ago and if there is any squeeze developing on the hearing it is not the fault of the then minority of the committee.

Mr. COLMER. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's observation.

The Chair would like to make one of his own. One, that this matter is going to be concluded before April 9 and I was just addressing myself to the desires and wishes of the committee. If the Chair is going to have to make the decision, I will make it.

Mr. QUILLEN. I think we will have some questions.

Mr. COLMER. So far as the gentleman from New York is concerned, the chief proponent or I should say, the key proponent-there might be some other people who would like to interrogate him.

I would like to accommodate the gentleman from New York, just as I want to accommodate the wishes of the committee.

Could the gentleman be here in the morning?

Mr. CELLER. I would prefer Monday morning. As I said, this is a contest that I have to address myself to and it is a very important matter developing, and I want to be back in New York for that purpose. The other members of the committee could

Mr. COLMER. Very well, sir. Mr. Chairman, we will have you come back next week.

Then, the committee will recess until 10: 30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Friday, March 29, 1968.)

TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 11 a.m., in room H313, the Capitol, the Honorable William M. Colmer (chairman) presiding.

Present: Messrs. Colmer (chairman), Madden, Bolling, O'Neill, Young, Matsunaga, Smith, Anderson (Illinois), and Latta.

Staff present: Laurie C. Battle, counsel; Mary Spencer Forrest, assistant counsel; and Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel.

Mr. COLMER. The committee will hear from Mr. Rogers on House Resolution 1100.

We are sorry we detained you here so long, but we have had a little difficulty of our own.

Mr. Rogers.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear this morning before the Committee on Rules to urge prompt approval of House Resolution 1100 so that the Members of the House may work their will and approve H.R. 2516, as amended by the Senate. Yesterday, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Celler, outlined the salient features of each of the 10 titles contained in H.R. 2516, as amended. This morning, I should like to outline the main provisions of titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII which deal with Indian rights.

I may state that the provisions of the titles were contained in a bill that was approved by the Senate on December 7, which is S. 1843. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Rogers, would you pardon an interruption right there, please?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLMER. As one member of the committee I would hope you would go into detail and explain what this Indian bill is. I know the House has taken no action, but your able colleague from Colorado, as chairman of the Interior Committee, is now in the process of conducting hearings on that. If this committee has to take action before next Friday, it would be before his committee finishes.

It would certainly be helpful if this could be covered so we could understand what is involved in that.

Mr. ROGERS. I will be most happy to try to comply with the request. If you will bear with me, I will try to outline what the intentions are

92-367-68-pt. 1

in connection with the six titles that are contained in the rights of the Indians which begins on page 12 of the bill and extends down through line 3 on page 23-about 10 pages as it deals with the Indian rights.

Mr. COLMER. I understand that Mr. Aspinall will appear rather, he has requested to appear in opposition to this provision.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, as I understand that, the subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee headed by the Honorable James Haley, of Florida, who incidentally is probably the most outspoken champion of Indians, is going to conduct hearings in connection with this legislation.

It is my understanding that Senator Ervin, at the time that S. 1843 was put together, arrived at the conclusion that under his subcommittee dealing with constitutional rights of individuals, this was a good place to protect the civil rights of the Indians and hence, he brought about the passage of it in the Senate and it is pointed out to me that it passed without opposition.

Title II gives the Indian the basic rights and privileges in his relationship with his tribal government that every other American citizen now has in relationship with his State, local and Federal Government.

More specifically, title II makes the Bill of Rights applicable to an Indian when he is charged with a crime by a tribal court.

Now, I may state that most tribes have a tribal council and that throughout the years, this tribal council had certain jurisdiction, especially as the white man moved him on west and they exercised probably the only authority of government among themselves and the story is, in Oklahoma, it is often told of when they moved the Cherokees and the Creeks from Alabama and Georgia, part of them from Mississippi, that the Creeks were not satisfied with the agreement that was made by their chief for their removal to Oklahoma and on the way to Oklahoma they had a tribal council and hanged the chief who made the agreement for them to be transported there.

And, that shows the powers that the tribal council had in dealing with the Indian. Now, as I have pointed out, they have had their own form of government and certain rights to conduct tribes.

What we are attempting to do here is to extend constitutional rights to the Indian, as all other citizens of the United States have, as it relates to his tribal council.

The tribal governments have been considered by the courts as quasisovereign entities to whose actions the Bill of Rights along with other constitutional provisions, do not apply. In many instances tribal governments have deprived Indians of the right to be represented by counsel, the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the right to freedom of religion-rights that others take for granted.

Now, title II, prohibits Indian tribes from first, making or enforcing any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech, press or assembly, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition governmental units for a redress of grievances.

Second, violating or abusing individual Indians in their person, home, or possession and securing protection to individual Indians against abuses in the search and seizure of their persons, homes, and possessions.

Third, subjecting any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.

Fourth, compelling any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Fifth, taking any private property for a public use without just compensation.

Sixth, denying to any person in a criminal proceeding the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense at his own expense.

Seventh, requiring excessive bail or fines and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The penalty of a $500 fine or imprisonment for a term of 6 months or both would remain the maximum limitation as to the punishment for any one offense.

Eighth, denying to any individual Indian within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.

Ninth, passing any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

Tenth, denying to any person accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment the right upon request, to a trial by jury of not less than six persons.

Title II also provides that any Indian detained by order of a tribal court is entitled to the right of the writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States to test the legality of detention by the tribal court. In order to give the Indian tribles an opportunity to adjust to this new system of jurisprudence, the provisions of title II will become effective 1 year after the date of enactment.

Now, I may say that this is an inhibition against the tribal courts from violating the various sections of the Federal Constitution. I am sure that each of you recognize that these are the first, fourth, and fifth amendments together with the sixth, and eighth amendments and article 1, section 9 and article 3 of section 2 to the Constitution.

Now, this is a limitation upon the tribal courts. In order to facilitate this matter, title III of this bill, which begins on page 15, is designed to compliment the provisions of title II; that is, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to recommend to Congress a model code governing the administration of justice by courts of Indian offenses on Indian reservations.

The present code found in title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part II, is outmoded, impractical, and fails to provide for adequate administration of justice.

For example, under the existing code, the total number of challenges in selecting a jury, challenges for cause and preemptory challenges is three, and the fee for jury duty remains 50 cents a day.

In carrying out the provisions of title III, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to consult with the Indians, Indian tribes and interested agencies of the United States.

Title IV, repeals Public Law 83-280 which permits States to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian tribes regardless of the wishes of the tribe.

In 1953, Public Law 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, conferred to certain States civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian tribes.