You will recall when we were before this committee we said that if and when the Civil Rights Act passed, we would probably have to double the appropriation as our best estimate of what we would need under the new act.

The estimate before the Senate covers 56 attorneys and 52 clerks. This supplemental now being presented, which totals $1,093,000, covers 49 attorneys and 60 clerks, making a total of 109 positions in this supplemental.

The total personnel in the Civil Rights Division if this estimate is approved will then be 217 persons. They will have a total appropriation of $2,348,000. There is a detailed justification on page 4 of the personnel that is being requested. You have put the justification sheets in the record. I refer you to that.

Also on page 5 there is a detail as to the other expenses that we will need to match the increase in personnel. The increase represented in the $1,093,000 covers $700,000 more for personnel costs and $393,000 for other expenses, the chief elements of that being that we have to provide equipment and supplies and space for the new personnel. Also some travel expenses.

TRAVEL

Mr. ROONEY. How is the travel situation at present with regard to this particular area of the Department of Justice? Has it improved to any extent? It was entirely out of line with the other divisions of the Department when we considered the regular bill.

Mr. ANDRETTA. I suppose that is because of the character of their work. The men are in the field continuously.

Mr. ROONEY. Do they all have to travel first class?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not think they are doing that.

Mr. ROONEY. That was the testimony when you were here before. Mr. ANDRETTA. I think there has been some improvement in the travel.

Mr. ROONEY. Can you tell us how much improvement in terms of dollars?

Mr. BROWN. I might give you this. For the month of July this year, a total of $8,485 was spent for travel. Last July the total was $9,216. There has been some reduction in travel for that particular month.

Mr. ROONEY. Go ahead, please.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, this is our best estimate of the amount of increased personnel

INCREASE IN PERSONNEL IN CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Mr. ROONEY. Before starting, you now have how many positions in the Civil Rights Division?

Mr. MARSHALL. 108 now.

Mr. ROONEY. Your present request is for a hundred percent increase, and additional 108?

Mr. MARSHALL. That is correct. I do not think it is a 100 percent increase in money, but it is about a 100 percent increase in personnel. Mr. ROONEY. I am speaking of personnel.

Mr. MARSHALL. This is our best estimate of what we will need to enforce the new responsibilities which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 puts on the Department of Justice. Necessarily, it was made early and is just an estimate, but it is our best estimate and it is our lowest

estimate.

If I could just run through the act

Mr. ROONEY. It is $93,000 more than when you were here on the regular bill, is it not?

Mr. MARSHALL. $93,000 more than I said that we might need?
Mr. ROONEY. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. I do not recall that, Mr. Chairman. I would have to look at the estimates.

Mr. ROONEY. Did you not give the figure of $1 million when you were here on the regular bill?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I think they said we were going to double the appropriation.

Mr. ROONEY. I seem to recall the figure of $1 million.

Mr. HOLLORAN. $1.5 million, Mr. Chairman, page 155.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Marshall, you then gave us the figure of about $1.5 million as has been pointed out. This appears at page 155. I find myself utterly incorrect. The Attorney General's testimony was also $1.5 million. Go ahead, Mr. Marshall.

NEW RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT

Mr. MARSHALL. The act gives us some new responsibilities in connection with voting rights, Mr. Chairman, and completely new responsibilities in connection with public accommodations under title II; public facilities in the 14th amendment sense, parks and other muncipal facilities under title III; schools under title IV; the implementation of the requirement of no discrimination in Federal programs under title VI. There is also a responsibility in connection with private_suits filed to enjoin denials of equal protection of law on account of race or color under title IX.

Starting on July 2, 1965, the Department will also have new responsibilities under title VII to prevent patterns or practice of resistance to the rights created by that title. But whatever responsibilities the Department will have then are not included in this submission, Mr. Chairman.

Under title I, I think the main increased load on the Division will come from the expedition features. The first part of title I, which deals with literacy tests and forbids certain practices by registration officials, is intended to simplify our litigation. The other part of title I, which basically provides for expedition in the use of three-judge courts, will not increase over the long run the number of cases or the responsibility, but over the short run will because the main burden of the Division's work, of course, is in litigation.

The effect of title I will be to expedite the litigation under the 1957 and 1960 voting rights acts so that cases that might come to trial in the next fiscal year or the fiscal year after it will come to trial within the next few months.

I may say that, in regard to the subject of voting generally, our experience during the past year is that the burden of litigation under the 1957 and 1960 acts has increased a great deal and I hope may be at a peak during the next 2 years. They are cases that have been brought and are being brought to trial. Trials and hearings in this require a great deal of lawyer time and do account in good part for the travel problem. But I am hopeful that, particularly with the expedition sections, that is going to peak and then tail off maybe after 2 more years.

Title II gives the Department entirely new responsibilities. It creates entirely new rights and duties on businessmen and rights of citizens. The obligation of the Department of Justice under title II is to prevent patterns or practice of resistance to the rights that are granted by the title. Those rights are the rights not to be discriminated against on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin in the places that are defined in the title. Those places, briefly, are hotels and motels, other places of lodging, theaters, gasoline stations, places that serve food. It also covers the places that are within a covered place or which have a covered place within it, so that if the establishment is open at all, it is open completely.

Thus far, Mr. Chairman, it is hard to judge the impact of this but my figures show we received about 245 complaints under title I during July. In the past week a daily check of it shows approximately 60 to 65 complaints daily under titles II, III, and IV. I do not have that broken down by title II alone. We have five cases in litigation now under title II, which is a very rapid bringing of the matter into court. Two of them are in Atlanta, one in Tuscaloosa, Ala., two that were brought against the Attorney General which we did not initiate, in Birmingham and in New Orleans. We have other cases under active preparation although our policy will be to try to avoid litigation wherever that is possible.

We also have discovered thus far on title II that there is a very large burden and pressure for immediate action because of interference with the rights covered under the title. I mentioned that we had brought a case in Tuscaloosa. The reason for that case was that the owners of the restaurant facilities that were made defendants in the case had complied with the act and then stopped complying because of interference with their businesses from persons who objected to the act. They put a pressure on the businesses such that they felt they could not comply with the act until told by a court they had to do it. Those pressures came from a number of elements which included Klan groups. We have had instances of violence also in connection with that; the murder of Colonel Penn in Georgia was one instance of that. There have been a number of others in other places.

We have lawyers working on potential cases, as I say, in several other places.

Under title III the Department of Justice has a new responsibility on the receipt of complaints to bring suits to enjoin the deprivation of the right to the equal protection of laws on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin by being denied the equal use of any public facilities owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, which is really language that was in

tended to cover all establishments which are covered by the 14th amendment.

This title did not create new rights as far as citizens are concerned, but it did give the Department of Justice a new responsibility as well as authority to bring suits when we have a complaint signed by a person whom the Attorney General deems unable to enforce his own constitutional rights because of a lack of opportunity to have a lawyer, because of his economic situation, or because of the possibility of reprisal.

The number of public facilities that are potentially affected by this is very large. It includes a number of State, county and city courtrooms, parks, zoos, playgrounds, swimming pools, other facilities as to which there is now a constitutional obligation of nondiscrimination on these grounds.

Title IV similarly gives the Department of Justice an entirely new responsibility. Until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the responsibility of the Department had been limited to deal with desegregation problems in schools only where there was a defiance of a court order or a law enforcement problem of that sort. It was in that way that the Department participated in litigation in New Orleans, in connection with the University of Mississippi, in connection with the University of Alabama, Prince Edward County, Va., Macon County, Ala., and other places.

What this title does, as in the case of title III, is give the Attorney General the power and, as I say, the responsibility to initiate suit when he receives a complaint that schools are being operated on a racial basis from a person who is unable to initiate litigation on his

own.

The number of school districts that are potentially affected and amount of litigation that is potentially there runs to about 1,900 school districts at the present time between 1,900 and 2,000-which are also potential lawsuits.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we still face a good deal of potential problems in connection with the enforcement of court orders in pending litigation. We have scheduled for this month and next month school desegregation in a number of counties and one parish in Louisiana which have had problems in the past and might have problems in the future, though I would always hope that they will not. However, the potential for it is still there.

In connection with Macon County, Ala., where the problems existed last year, my guess is that it took about 150 lawyer-days of personnel in the Division to deal with that problem, which is just one county. We have maybe six or seven where we could have problems of that sort again.

In title VI, I think the responsibility on the Department of Justice is not predictable really at the moment. The agencies of the Government that are affected by title VI are now preparing regulations in accordance with that title, which will be issued on a tentative basis so that they can be reviewed by the persons affected. Some of those regulations at least will call for contractual clauses in grant programs which will be enforcible in their terms by litigation. We have had some litigation of that sort in the past in connection with the impact

area school program where we brought six school desegregation suits and then recently one suit to enjoin a school district from, in our view, going back on its commitment to educate Federal children in the school district on the same basis as local children were educated. This was in Sumter County, S.C. Nevertheless, there is going to be a burden on the Department. It is hard to predict what it will be.

In title VIII the responsibility for enforcement in the Department does not, as I said, become effective until July 2, 1965. So there is no estimate on that in the present budget.

Title IX is the other title which gives the Department responsibility. That title authorizes the Attorney General to intervene in actions which allege denial of equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment on account of race, color, religion, or national origin, when the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. That title is in the act. It was added by the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, and it is in there, as I understand it, because of the desire of Congress to give some implementation to the intentions of part III of the 1957 act which failed of passage.

That summarizes the new responsibilities which we have. As I said, the budget that has been submitted is our best estimate of the needs that we will have at the moment.

EFFECT OF PAY RAISE ACT

Mr. ROONEY. These positions set forth at page 4 of the justifications, 109 new positions, $649,000, with a lapse of 1 month to the extent of $59,669, are based on what, the present pay scale or the new one which will go into effect July 1?

Mr. ANDRETTA. It will be July 5 when the President signs it. This is on the old scale.

Mr. ROONEY. It is expected, then, that you will have to add the increases to this?

Mr. ANDRETTA. It will be meshed in with the rest of the Department's pay increases and will be the basis of a supplemental appropriation for the pay raise.

Mr. ROONEY. So that in computing the amount of lapse, since this budget is based on a 1-month lapse for the month of July, we may rectify this subsequently in connection with any supplemental request for the pay raise; is that correct?

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Smith?

ACCELERATION OF LITIGATION BY THREE-MAN COURTS

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Marshall, would you explain further how the operation of three-man courts accelerates the litigation as much as you indicated?

Mr. MARSHALL. Instead of a case going on the regular trial docket, it is moved to the head of the calendar. A case that we filed today, without this act in effect, might come to trial a year from now. Under the new act, it could come to trial 3 months from now.