freedom of choice work, which we know is not the case, and what you said earlier doesn't exist and we know it doesn't exist.

Mrs. WALTER. That's true. I am assuming that we have the capabilities in this country to educate the people very quickly for a democratic society if we want to. This is what I am assuming when I come to you, that we have the means in this country, with all the know-how, to do anything that we want to do, and I do feel that we can put the people on the right road to democratic procedures if we really want to and imply in that the responsibility that they have to operate the institutions for this country to save this Nation.

Mr. BELL. Mrs. Walter, I certainly appreciate your thinking on that and I think it's very, very good thinking. Although I hate to sound cynical, I think the situation you describe is a long way from the facts of life.

Mrs. WALTER. I said that.

Mr. BELL. I agree with you completely, in theory, but I just don't think it's a very realistic concept in view of human nature as it is today. I don't like it and you don't like it, but nevertheless it's here, and I'm sure that Mr. Hawkins could tell you that I'm as strong an integrationist as you or anybody else is, but I think this problem of schools working out as you described it under freedom of choice would be real troublesome for the present.

Mrs. WALTER. You see, this is what I asked you not to do. I asked you to observe with me, to observe the problems that we have, but, now, we are getting to the point of looking at it not openly, now. We are looking at it as it is, just as it is. But we are going to have to look at it as it is and how it can be, also, without any kind of condemnation, without any fear, without any recognizing that the thing really needs to be destroyed. What you're saying is just what I said earlier. We've reached that shocking point and I really believe, with things so bad as they are, most people would say, "Just tear down and start all over again." But that's impossible. We're reasonable. No, you can't do that. You just can't.

Mr. HAWKINS. If I may get into this

Mr. BELL. This is your time, anyway.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think Mrs. Walter is assuming there is a little more sophistication among public officials than possibly she should. I think she has used some terms which would be misconstructed or terms that are misused, let's say, by men such as Senator Stennis. The other day we were showing-Mr. Knox was showing me an ad from one of the local newspapers about Governor McKeithen when he was talking about the people of his State wanting equal rights and he was making a great pitch for equal rights. Well, he's using the phrase in a different sense. He's talking about their being denied equal rights and he's for equal rights and Senator Stennis and others are talking about freedom of choice, but I don't think they're talking about the same thing that Mrs. Walter is talking about.

When they talk about freedom of choice they don't mean real freedom. They don't intend to give to the blacks of their States freedomto have the actions that Mrs. Walter speaks of. They're talking about this option-these options for whites but not for blacks.

And I think-in the case that the chairman referred to, it seems to me that that was certainly a minority decision in which this particular judge was not upheld-I think it's on appeal but it certainly

is not the decision in the other courts because the facts were to the contrary, that the people did not have freedom of choice.

And as I read Mrs. Walter's statement-she can correct me if I'm wrong her real position is for integration, but a true integration. Mrs. WALTER. Right.

Mr. HAWKINS. Not a phony integration. She's saying-I think she says on page 13, "There must be true integration in this society," and I think that she's not talking, really, for segregation or for a freedom of choice that results in implementing segregation or options that are only available to one group and not to the other.

But I get a feeling, Mrs. Walter, and I wish you'd elaborate on that, that there's a certain amount of cynicism in your remarks, that while you believe in true integration you just don't believe that you're going to get it.

Mr. BELL. This is the part

Mr. HAWKINS. Certain alternatives must be considered. Now, I'm not quite as cynical as you. We have a committee and there are three differing views on this committee-I don't think the three members of this committee are in complete agreement on things-but I think the fact is we do have a committee that is seeking to at least explore the alternatives and to get people such as you talking about the subject, people on both sides.

Mr. BELL. That's the first time I've heard you say we had a disagreement.

Mr. HAWKINS. I'm saying it in a real philosophical sense. I think basically we do agree, but I think that we do express different views at times, but we don't let those differences

Mrs. WALTER. Let me tell you how I think differently from the southern legislators when I talk of freedom of choice and options for freedom and options for self-determination.

They are talking about freedom of choice in a racist society, in an America that is as it is today which practices racism. I am talking about freedom of choice in a democratic society where there is respect for life and where there is respect for humanity and where there is respect for the growth and development of people. Now, there's where we differ.

I think the legislators from the South are talking about freedom of choice in this society which is in a syndrome of death and decay, and that is as I see America. It's caught up in a syndrome of death and decay, where they love to see people stifled, not grow to their fullest. potential, but where they glorify money, property, and material goods. I am not talking about that kind of society. I am not talking about freedom of choice in that kind of society.

I am talking about freedom of choice in a society where there is a syndrome for love and life, where there is honor given to growth and development for the fullest potential of human growth and develop ment. That is the kind of society I am talking about.

Now, whether there are enough legislators, enough leaders, and enough people in this country who opt for life rather than death, you

see

Mr. PUCINSKI. You know, Mrs. Walter, what you've just proven here is what we as legislators see almost every day and that is that the same words mean different things to different people.

Mrs. WALTER. Right.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Moreno, who just testified before you, talked about how he and his group saw the bilingualite and they put it down and then when the people read the same language they saw it a different way and they put it down. And obviously you understand freedom of choice one way. Senator Stennis obviously understands it another

Mr. PUCINSKI. I would like to read the words that you used here as "a syndrome of death and decay" respectfully in a different way also. I, like my colleague from California, Mr. Hawkins, respect your testimony tremendously, but I do not think I share your cynicism although I am concerned that apparently somewhere along the line there is a very bad job of communications being done. There must be some communications gap that a very distinguished person like yourself who has presented a very learned statement to this committee would read the actions of our society in as cynical a way as you do, while we here at the committee table see it a little differently.

I like to think of the revolution that we are now seeing-and it is a revolution-it is a great revolution of philosophy. When the smoke clears, as it will, and you know and I know it will, we will be the first nation, hopefully, that will not only have addressed itself to the whole problem of race relations, but hopefully found the answers. And while right now there are troubled times and turbulent times and there are different attitudes and philosophies as expressed during this past discussion here between yourself and those of us here on the committee, I am impressed by the fact that the United States is the first nation in the world and, so far as I know, the first nation in history that has recognized a problem and at least is trying to find some answers in perhaps a very clumsy way and perhaps at a pace much too slow to satisfy someone like you-and perhaps you're absolutely right in being dispirited about the delays, but the fact remains that this Nation is the first nation that is trying to address itself to the problem.

We have passed a series of civil rights bills; we have passed a series of education bills. I am impressed by the fact that today one out of five black families in America are earning in excess of $10,000 a year, when 10 years ago that looked like a goal that was never capable of achievement, and there were reasons for that. Is it enough? No. I'll be much happier when 80 percent-I'll be much happier when four out of five families are in the upper income level as are the white families.

The fact remains that we are groping for solutions and when we find them we'll be so much ahead of the rest of the world.

Now, this is a problem, whether we like it or not, that is going to be universal. I was in England just a little while ago and I ran into a Member of Parliament over there who is now urging the British Government to bar the immigration of nonwhites into the British Isles. That's his solution to the race problem in England today. And he wants to do the same thing they did in Washington 30 years ago and it created a great problem, of course, in the Capitol. He wants to cut off all services and all aid to nonwhites and he says, "If we make things miserable enough for them, they're going to pack up and go back where they came from."

51-937-70-pt. 3—6

Now, that is, of course, an archaic attitude, but it's being espoused today, in 1970, in London."

So you can see here that this is a problem, race relations, human relations, understanding among people, respect among people, equal opportunities, equality, all of these things are phenomena that are going to be a worldwide problem in our time.

I find some comfort in the knowledge that my country, my Government, is at least moving toward a reasonable and a responsible solution and when we find it-like we've been with everything else—we were the first people to put a man on the moon, we're the first nation to reach a true economy, we've made all sorts of other social and economic breakthroughs-I believe the United States will be the first country in the world to find a solution to this problem of human dignity and race relations.

Mr. HAWKINS. I'm afraid you're losing me.

Mr. BELL. You're almost losing me, as a matter of fact.

Mr. HAWKINS. I suspect that

Mr. PUCINSKI. I'm not as cynical as Mrs. Walter.

Mr. HAWKINS. I'm not as cynical as Mrs. Walter. I think I expressed that. But I'm not as hopeful as you are, and I want to disclaim that. I don't share the same optimism.

I agree with Mrs. Walter when she speaks of-for example, you indicated we're moving toward a solution and when we find it we're going to be the first country. Well, honestly, I don't think we're moving toward a solution and I think that I agree with Mrs. Walter when she makes the reference to the Kerner and Coleman reports.

The Coleman report was authorized by us and we have not implemented that report. As a matter of fact, I doubt if many Members of Congress have ever read it.

The Kerner Commission was a Government commission led by a great citizen of Illinois and I know that it's collecting dust. And I think a dozen other reports could be enumerated.

But I quite agree that if one were to read these reports and see how little we're done about them--and here's another hearing being held in Los Angeles and the chances are that we will make a good report, a good recommendation, but how many of our colleagues are we going to really be able to convince that what we have heard should be seriously considered?

I don't share, certainly, as much optimism, and I suppose I'm one who still believes that there is hope.

Mr. BELL. If I might inject something here--I seem to be somewhere between the chairman and yourself, Gus

Mr. PUCINSKI. That's the way this committee operates.

Mr. BELL. I am not sure about some of the approaches to this. I'm not so darn sure that a different approach, a stronger emphasis in a different direction, might not be helpful at this particular time, and it's not because this man happens to be President and happens to be in my party, but I do think it is true that it should be looked at.

I think an approach of trying to tie this problem to a greater degree to the economics of an individual might be, to some extent, an aid in this direction in which we're going.

FEPC now may become more important than a lot of other things in this administration. The opportunities for people to get jobs, for more of them to get a living salary. This. I think, may be

Mr. HAWKINS. That's one of the reasons that I'm cynical.

Mrs. WALTER. Yes.

Mr. HAWKINS. Is because of this administration, because I don't think there's a single thing that's been done by this administration of a tangible nature. When you speak of the economics

Mr. BELL. The economic aspects

Mr. HAWKINS. But I think the economics are much worse today in minority communities. I don't think that people realize-I don't know what the understanding of the President is and I'm not going to charge him with being insensitive and not having an understanding.

But, personally, I would rather have Mrs. Walter's views on this rather than my own views, which could be interpreted as being political.

But I think the feeling or the attitude in the neighborhood community today-in the Negro community today and every Negro community that I've had any experience with is one of great disappointment-not that it was completely unanticipated, but I think there is complete disappointment over conditions. I think conditions and I hate to use the word-are just lousy and I think that it's almost a sickening situation that is being allowed to develop in black communities.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I wonder if I could just ask Mrs. Walter about her testimony here because she does put her final thrust in her testimonywhich, incidentally, is excellent on this appeal that, "Policy for institutions which directly serve the people should be formulated from this premise: those directly affected by it must make it."

Now, I must, in good conscience, agree with you, but just about the time that I want to agree with you, I look at the experiences that we've had and then I have to ask you if you could elaborate on this, for the simple reason that this Republic was started with the so-called townhall form of government where everybody in the community participated in trying to find the solutions to the problem and they then discovered that it just doesn't work. You've got to have a leader, you've got to have somebody who takes responsibility, right or wrong he's willing to suffer the consequences, but somebody has got to call the signals like a quarterback on a football team. And, so, we rejected the townhall meeting approach as unworkable.

Now, in the poverty program we again experimented with maximum feasible participation, residents of the community or whatever the language was. And there, again, we found that there was more time spent on power struggles and various other phenomena that virtually wrecked the program in many communities, scared away the very people of the immediate community from the program, and we almost lost the program as a matter of fact, I'm not sure yet that we'll be able to save it.

And, so, Mrs. Walter, I wonder if you could elaborate on how can we follow your very wise counsel-and I agree with you because I think Mr. Moreno and Mrs. Tackett earlier today and Mr. Richardson, I think was his name, the young fellow here-I mean, everybody pointed in that direction. But I wonder if you would care to venture a suggestion on how can you do that and still not get yourself all wrapped up in a lack of action for lack of agreement and consensus.