I am saying that the reason that they are now throwing up the strong objections that they are is because they are fearful of losing thi exclusive entre to this administration and to Judge Bell, in particular Senator MATHIAS. That isn't a fantasy. I think that is a very rea concern. If any one person, I don't care who they are or what they represent, is to have the ear of any public official it is certainly a very substantial kind of concern.

You feel that, do you think that you will have an equal ear with other people?

Mr. INNIS. I would hope it could be equal. I don't know whether i would be equal. I think it is reasonable to seek that, reasonable to expect that the old style of the NAACP and Mr. Mitchell acting as the 101st Senator from the black community speaking for all of us i

over.

Senator MATHIAS. You want to be consulted and you think you wil be consulted?

Mr. INNIS. I want to be consulted. I want some of the guys who dis agree with me in the community to be consulted. I want some of the guys who agree with me to be consulted. And I also want Mr. Mitchel and the NAACP to be consulted.

Senator MATHIAS. Were you consulted about the selection of Judge Bell?

Mr. INNIS. No; I was not.

Senator RIEGLE. Would the gentleman yield just for a moment? Senator MATHIAS. Surely.

Senator RIEGLE. One of the questions that was raised is to the point of whether Judge Bell had at all counseled or talked with or made an initiative to meet with members of the Black Caucus here in the Congress because they, while not by any means a monolithic group, are the black Members of Congress from across the country. He had made no initiative in that direction. That was troubling to me. I'm just wondering if that might not be something that would, as you think about it, trouble you.

Mr. INNIS. I believe that Judge Bell would meet with the Black Caucus. I don't see why he would not want to meet with them.

Senator REIGLE. No. I guess my point was that he had not made any initiative to do that in this time period although obviously he has been calling on members of this committee as he might properly do What I'm saying to you is that, to me, seems to be sort of an early example of whether or not there's going to be much energy put into that kind of a consultative process. I'm just asking: Wouldn't it sort of raise the question in your mind, not having taken initiative to meet with that groups or members of that group here, I'm just wondering what the chances are that a group in New York or some other place is like to be consulted with.

Mr. INNIS. What I believe we have seen here, and I hope this is true is similar to the promise made by President-elect Carter that he is going to try to sweep with a new broom and try to bypass the old Washington power structure and bring a fresh air to this area.

We might be seeing this reflected down to Cabinet level in the case of Judge Bell. Maybe Judge Bell is trying to hear from a few other first. Maybe he has heard sufficiently over the years from that group and he is willing to hear from a few other people.

But I think eventually he'll get to them, too.

Senator REIGLE. I don't want to impose any more on the time of the gentleman from Maryland except to say that I think that was a lapse on Judge Bell's part and I don't mean for political reasons.

I mean just for reasons of the kind of legitimate concern that exists with respect to the record, with respect to the sensitivity of this post and I am troubled about it. I just share with you my view on it.

Mr. INNIS. I have talked to Judge Bell's wife once by phone, yesterday for the first time in person. I have no difficulty reaching Judge Bell by phone.

Each time I have talked with Judge Bell the conversation came to a close with his saying: I want to be open. I want to meet people. I want to hear different points of view.

I can't believe that he doesn't want to meet with and hear the points of view of the congressional black caucus.

Senator RIEGLE. If I may impose on the time of the gentleman from Maryland for just 1 more minute.

Senator MATHIAS. Go right ahead.

Senator RIEGLE. I thank him.

I

guess I'm making a different point because that was the case of you initiating a phone call to him and I'm pleased with the conversation and response you got and so forth. I'm making a different point and I think you understand the point I'm making.

That is that we are now talking about a national post for the entire country and there are a number of black elected officials here at the Federal level who represent a significant slice of the American public and there's lot of apprehension in the black community.

I'm not suggesting it is universal. Your appearance here makes it clear that it is not universal. But it would seem to me that a basic step that one would take who really was sensitive to the realities of the concern that exists would be to make some initiative, some effort to meet and talk with the members of the black caucus here in the Congress.

Mr. INNIS. Forgive me for not wanting to yield status to the congressional black cancus.

Senator RIEGLE. I'm not suggesting that.

Mr. INNIS. I have the feel that the congressional black caucus, although not a monolith, does represent a particular point of view in reference to a solution of the black problems and that that point of view is not shared by the majority of black people in the black community.

Senator RIEGLE. Let me just say to the gentleman that we don't have a quarrel about that because I think you established the point that there is a diversity of opinion and everybody ought to be heard. I'm simply saying, is that not then a very important part of the fabric of opinion that probably ought to be listened to?

Mr. INNIS. They are a very significant part. But I am saying that I almost feel that you are suggesting that there be a primary

Senator RIEGLE. No, I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting, what I'm worried about is the possibility of a blind spot, a blind spot. What I'm looking for is evidence by either overt behavior or by things that have not been done that would give me a way to measure whether or not, in fact, there is a significant blind spot. That's what I worry about and I really don't feel I should take anymore of the gentleman's time and I thank him for yielding.

Senator MATHIAS. That was a very interesting and useful dialogu I am really through. As I said, it was that word "fantasy" that con cerned me.

Mr. INNIS. Maybe I should have said strawman?

Senator MATHIAS. I think what concerns me is this, that there ca be greater and lesser worries on a problem of this sort, there can I the sort of things you're going to take a chance on, but when the trai leaves this station it is rolling.

It isn't going to stop for 4 years. If there is any baggage that yo want to put on board this is the time to do it. If you have a fear, if yo have a concern, if you have an apprehension, now is the time to stat it because I've been around here long enough to see this thing happe Mr. INNIS. It is a very good point you're making. Let me tell yo that I am not oblivious of the gamble we are taking.

Let me say to Mr. Riegle and to you, Senator, that if I had a choic and it certainly is not mine, I would have been much more comfortabl with my sister, Barbara Jordan from Texas, being appointed, or Judg Higginbothom from Philadelphia, but that is not the choice.

The choice is someone with the background of Judge Bell. I don think that is a bad choice, all other things being equal.

The other problem I have is that I am very concerned about th American racial dilemma, not just concerned about it in the ordinar sense. I am concerned that after all these years we have not move toward the solution. I am concerned that after the great hopes of 195 Brown 1 and Brown 2, that we have not been able to comply with th constitutional mandate to desegregate America. I am concerned tha we have been trying to move the ball in one direction only, the ex clusive path of integration through busing.

I am concerned that no one has had the guts to go up against th civil rights aristocracy and say: Enough is enough. Let us be bette generals. Let us get out of the trenches. World War I is over, This i now a jet age. Let us use tanks, different strategies, flanking move ments. Let us do something else. Let us desegregate America by som other means, some other constitutional means.

That is my concern and that is why I am willing to gamble with Judge Bell. I think he is willing to look in other directions. I thin he is willing to say to the NAACP; I respect your views, but I wan to hear some other views and I want to try some other things.

Senator MATHIAS. Of course, what you're doing now is just makin my speech. I've said time and again that we've spent so much tim right here in the U.S. Senate, as well as in other places of the coun try, choosing up sides, making speeches for busing or against busin that we are not spending the time we ought to be spending finding some sort of a rational alternative to busing because at best it is n more than a temporary expedient.

It is not an answer to a problem. I think this is true, but I have to respect the concerns of others that have been expressed here to us. We are very grateful to you for coming and adding your voice and your experience to this deliberation. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a couple of quick ques tions here?

Senator SASSER. Yes, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Innis, I just want to touch back on Mr. Rauh testimony which I thought was rather an effective presentation in

which he, under his fourth category of roadblocks which he indicated that Judge Bell had presented to integration, referred to two cases, the Austin school case and the Corpus Christi case, both decided apparently in 1972.

Apparently in the dissent there-Judge Bell certainly participated in the majority, I guess he wrote the majority opinion-the dissent was very, very vigorous as I understand it in saying it's a step backward in Judge Bell's opinion, toward the goal of integration.

In the Corpus Christi case it said the majority's remedy is a regression, very strong language.

Have you any comment on those cases and are you familiar with them? I would like to hear your views.

Mr. INNIS. I am not prepared to comment directly on those cases. I have not reviewed them for a very long time but let me say, you used the words "the goal of integration". You see, this is the fundamental problem facing America, the problem of semantics around the question of race.

We need to find somehow a commission of semantics to help us with the proper language to talk about race. The goal should not be the goal of integration. It should be the goal of equal opportunity, the goal of good education, and the goal of finding the most pragmatic path to achieve that.

Unfortunately, we have ordained and annointed integration as that goal. It is not true. It is not a constitutional mandate.

The Constitution mandates desegregation. Desegregation is not synonymous with integration. Integration is only one of many means to desegregate and that is the problem because once we define integration as the goal then any defeat for integration becomes a defeat for equality, a defeat of black people, and that is most unfortunate.

Anyone who is opposed to integration for integration's sake becomes a racist or a segregationist. It is not true. One can be anti-segregationist, be for desegregation, and be opposed to forced integration.

None of these things need be that way if we use the proper definition so I would prefer to use the word "desegregation" instead of "integration".

I think if we notice as we read the various Supreme Court rulings very carefully, the word "integration" never shows up in the decisions of the Supreme Court.

In some of the lower courts, a little sloppy language creeps in. But I have never yet seen a decision where the word "integration" was used. They have always used "dismantle the segregation system", "desegregate", "create unitary school district", but never "integration" and I am so glad that they have not gotten sloppy with semantics and further confused the issue with improper use of words.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you.

Senator SASSER. Mr. Innis, thank you very much. I must say that you've lived up to your reputation as an articulate spokesman for minority groups in this country and as a real intellectual leader in the black community.

I would like to thank you also, Mr. Yates, for appearing here today and you also, Ms. Dennison.

Thank you very much.

I am informed the next witness is Brother Greene.

Brother Greene, I, as a member of this committee, welcome you her today and I want to thank you for being so patient over the past: days.

I also want to give you a special welcome as one of my constituent from the city of Memphis, Tenn., and to say that we are delighted t have you and look forward with great interest to what you have to tel

this committee.

TESTIMONY OF BROTHER GREENE, CYPRESS HEALTH AND SAFET! COMMITTEE, MEMPHIS, TENN.

Mr. GREENE. Thank you, Senator Sasser.

My name is Brother Greene. I am from the Cypress Health and Safety Committee in Memphis, Tenn., and I also would like to con gratulate you, Senator Sasser, as being in Washington as the Senato from the State of Tennessee and acting chairman.

I think that the people back in Tennessee will be quite pleased to hear that when I go back because I'm going to tell them that. Senator SASSER. I hope you will, Brother Greene.

Mr. GREENE. Rest assured, I will.

Senator SASSER. If you need any help in telling them, I'll be happy to help disseminate the information.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GREENE. I have some informal remarks and then I have a pre pared statement.

Even though I am very happy that you are sitting here, Senato Sasser, as Chairman. I wish that Senator Abourezk had been able to remain here. But I spoke to him in the hallway and he informed me that he had to go and hold a press conference and I personally agreed with the substance of that press conference.

The reason I wanted to address the Judiciary Committee with him present is that I wanted to do publicly what I did in the hallway there a few moments ago, that is express on behalf of the Cypress Health and Safety Committee our deep appreciation to him for his action back in September 1976, regarding the proposal, by the soon-to-beformer President of the United States, of Federal district court, Judge Harry W. Wellford of the western district of Tennessee for the posi tion of filling a vacancy on the sixth circuit court of appeals in Cin cinnati.

As you very well know, the people in Tennessee and certainly in the mid-South are aware, that our little two by four civic groups started something back in April and eventually it came to the U.S. Senate here. On September 1, we appeared and testified, and Senator Abourezk was able to put the final touches on one of the most beautiful episodes that I know of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I am just sorry that he's not here to hear that in public because we feel very happy about that.

Further, I have not been here only for 3 days, Senator. I came here Monday morning at 12:15 and unfortunately because of the way the testimony went, this is my fifth day here and I brought my luggage with me this morning because I have no place to live after today. Our