"Where Are We At Here?"

Civil rights legislation last week was in a terrible tangle in the House Judiciary Committee. It would have been laughable if it were not so lamentable.

Still at issue was a civil rights bill produced by an eleven-member Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Brooklyn's civil righteous Democratic Representative Emanuel Celler, who also heads the full Judiciary Committee. That bill went far beyond what the Kennedy Administration had asked--and far beyond what either the House or the Senate would accept.

The Administration, fearful that the barbed-wire subcommittee bill would snag all chances for civil rights legislation this year, put Celler under heavy pressure to back down and support a more moderate measure. He agreed, and with the help of Ohio Republican William McCulloch, ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, put together a shaky coalition in favor of modifying the subcommittee bill.

The Face on the Screen. Early last week that coalition was busted wide open--and the unlikely Congressman who started the smashing was Roland V. Libonati, 62, a pudgy little machine Democrat from Chicago. Elected to the House in 1957, "Lib" Libonati has been known only for his devotion to the bidding of Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley and as a master of the malapropism--he once welcomed autumn as the time when "the moss is on the pumpkin." Gingerly handling the prickly political pear that the civil rights bill had become, Manny Celler needed someone to make the necessary Judiciary Committee motions to delete the toughest sections of the subcommittee package. He picked Libonati, partly because of Lib's record of strict party obedience, partly because Lib did not need to worry about political repercussions in his machine-run district.

Libonati was happy to oblige, and all might have gone well--if Celler had kept his mouth shut and if Lib were not a televiewer. But Celler submitted to a television interview, Libonati caught the show, and did not like what he heard. Explained Libonati later:

"So then I'm sitting down, just like you and me are sitting here now, and I'm watching television and who do I see on the television but my chairman. And he's telling 'em up there in his district that he's for a strong bill, and that he doesn't have anything to do with any motion to cut the bill down. So when I hear that, I says to myself, 'Lib, where are we at here, anyway?' And I think that if they're gonna get some Republican votes anyway, and if the chairman says he doesn't have anything to do with my motion, then certain representations that were made to me is out the window. So I withdraw my motion."

Delayed Decision. Thus, when the Judiciary Committee met on Tuesday morning last week, Libonati demanded that he be allowed to withdraw his motion. As soon as he did, the trembling bipartisan coalition collapsed. Never firmly convinced that they should turn against the tough subcommittee bill, liberal Democrats and Republicans immediately bolted back to support it. Moreover, the Southern Democrats on the committee were being urged by two foxy old Confederates--Virginia's Representative Howard Smith and Georgia's Senator Richard Russell--to support the stiff bill. Their reasoning: since it had no chance of becoming law, its approval by Judiciary would probably kill civil rights legislation for this year.

After Libonati withdrew his motion, West Virginia Republican Arch Moore moved that the full committee then and there approve the subcommittee bill. This was the one move that Celler and McCulloch feared more than anything else: if Moore's motion had passed, the bill would have gone to Judge Smith's Rules Committee, and subsequent death. Before they could vote, the noon bell rang to convene the House, and the committee had to adjourn. Later Celler canceled committee sessions until at least this week.

That was the signal for administration aides to go frantically to work. At one point Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach phoned Minnesota Republican Clark MacGregor, a member of the Judiciary Committee, and asked: "Do you know of anything we can do?" Replied MacGregor: "Of course I do. You can go get the Republican civil rights bills that you told us this summer you hadn't bothered to read, and you can look at what's in them and you can draw up a package containing what's in them and have the President say publicly he's glad to work with Republicans on a bipartisan bill and to accept Republican proposals, and you can put that package forward as a unity bill. You do that, and you'll get Republicans to vote for it."

Scarcely an hour later, Katzenbach attended a White House meeting with President Kennedy and House leaders from both parties. The worried President said: "We've got to do something about this present situation because the subcommittee bill doesn't have much chance to pass Congress. We've got to do something." MacGregor's proposal was discussed, and Kennedy asked the Congressmen what they thought. Manny Celler seemed willing, and the President appeared ready to consider it.

Next day, House Republican Leader Charlie Halleck and G.O.P. members of the Judiciary Committee held a strategy session in the office of Minority Whip Leslie Arends. They were discussing MacGregor's "unity bill" proposal when a telephone call for Halleck came from the President. Halleck asked his colleagues, "What shall I tell him?" Said MacGregor: "We've got the leverage on this thing now and I don't think we'll get anywhere unless we use it." The Republicans quickly came to a decision, and Halleck delivered it to President Kennedy. In effect, it was an ultimatum saying that unless the President backed a bipartisan bill encompassing G.O.P. civil rights proposals, Republicans would do nothing to stop Judiciary Committee approval of the too-tough subcommittee bill.

Reading the Signs. The G.O.P. civil rights proposals--one introduced in January, the other in June--are not far different from the President's.

Where the Administration would rely chiefly on the Constitution's interstate commerce clause to impose a ban on discrimination in public accommodations, the Republicans would use the 14th Amendment, and their prohibition would apply to a wider range of public accommodations. Also, the Republicans would give the Justice Department broad authority to bring suit on behalf of any person denied his 14th Amendment rights--as long as that person can prove he has no other way of getting legal satisfaction.

But even though the differences were not broad, it would be a bitter pill for Democrat Kennedy to have to accept a Republican civil rights package. But at week's end White House aides were busy trying to draft a compromise package. Still, Judiciary's Senior Republican McCulloch was hopeful. "There is more evidence," said he, "of a desire to write legislation in this field, where legislation is desperately needed, than there has been in a long time. The disposition in both parties to accept responsibility without relation to the partisan issues or benefits involved is better." Added he: "I hope I'm reading the signs right."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.