Mr. BREHM. Light?

Mr. NIXON. Well, light and honest action.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. And very little sincerity to do anything about it. Mr. NIXON. You mentioned the Republican Party platform on civil rights. But you will recall that in the Democratic Convention the civil-rights plank was adopted by an extremely close vote.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. We feel that that fight is a plus on our side. We were willing to destroy the Democratic Party on that issue. The grass roots, at least, supported us.

Mr. NIXON. But I wanted to indicate that problem to you.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. That is right, and you have. Any time all the Representatives stand up on the other side of the aisle your side, Mr. Nixon-we could wipe out the small number of southerners who vote against us. There is a hard core of Democrats from the west coast and the middle of the country and the east coast who also vote right on this issue. I mean, in the last Congress it was about 70. This time it will be-I do not know-160, or something like that. Now, if the Republicans will stand up with us against that small group of people from the South, we would lose their votes in the House, and still carry civil-rights legislation. I think I am right in my analysis. I am not absolutely sure, but I would think that the same thing could happen in the Senate.

Mr. BREHM. I believe so.

Mr. NIXON. You believe it is the responsibility of Democratic leadership in both the Senate and the House to bring this to action at the earliest possible time?

Mrs. DOUGLAS. And it is the responsibility of the Republican leadership, Mr. Nixon, to fight just as hard as the Democrats.

Mr. NIXON. But we cannot do anything until you bring it to the floor.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. That is right.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

I would like to say that the committee is going to continue to sit to hear Representative Sabath now, and then Senator Humphrey and Representatives Javits, Davenport, Klein, and Biemiller.

Congressman Sabath?

STATEMENT OF HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, I am indeed pleased that I am able to appear before you and urge favorable action upon the bill. I regret that I have been unable to hear questions propounded by Mr. Nixon to Mrs. Douglas, but I feel that she has answered satisfactorily, at least, to him and to the committee, questions that have been asked and propounded to her.

I do not know whether I have given my name. My name is Adolph J. Sabath. I am a Member of Congress, and this is my 43d year of service. And during all that time, I have tried to be of service to the laboring people, fighting for what I believe is fair and just.

I presume you have heard a great deal of evidence yesterday, and I am satisfied that the evidence given by Mrs. Douglas should convince you that we should try to bring about this much needed legislation.

I do not have to repeat that both parties have agreed to it and endorsed it in their conventions and platforms, favoring this legislation.

As chairman of the Rules Committee in the Seventy-ninth Congress, I have tried to get a rule on the bill, but unfortunately I have been unsuccessful. But I hope at this time there will be no such action refused after your committee will favorably report this bill. That is due to the change in the rules that was brought about. So the bill, if and when it is reported by you-and I hope it will be soon-will reach the floor.

In view of having the confidence in the majority of the membership, I am satisfied that favorable action will be had at this session of Congress. I realize that some of my colleagues on my side have been unfriendly and antagonistic to this legislation, but by the preponderance of evidence, I think we have enough Republicans who are progressive and who have the interests of the American people and the wage earner and are against unfair practice, and will join with others on our side and bring about action that the Nation and both parties are in favor of.

I regret it is late. I have a very important matter to take up at 12 o'clock, namely the reorganization of the State Department; and I shall have to be on the floor. So I must deprive myself of the pleasure of saying a few things that I did desire to say, but I notice that several other Members who are just as much interested as I am, wish to be heard, and even some gentlemen from the other side, I understand, desire to be heard.

So I will ask unanimous consent that I may have the privilege to insert in the hearings a statement that I did contemplate to make on this matter.

Mr. POWELL. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH, M. C., ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LEGISLATION

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for the past 100 years efforts have been made to improve race relations in the United States, sometimes by formal legislative enactment, and at others through the activities of citizens organizations. The legislative enactments have been both statutory and constitutional. During the Civil War, for example, amendmens were added to the Federal Constitution designed to emancipate the Negro legally by establishing his freedom and his status as a citizen, and insofar as possible by formal enactment, to insure him the right to vote. Statutory enactments appear on the statute books in many States today, and those relating to the civil service and to public-school teachers date back well into the nineteenth century.

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the problem of prejudice and discrimination are country-wide. In discussing them no State, section, or community should feel that it is being singed out for criticism. The problem varies considerably from one section of the country to another, but unfortunately is everywhere present in some form. It varies because the composition of the minority groups vary from place to place.

While the Jews, colored, and foreign born are the most numerous, minority groups in wide variety exist in sections, States, and cities throughout the country. All are the victims of unjustified local prejudice, oftentimes of actual discrimination.

Unfortunately this local prejudice and actual discrimination existed in the past as well as in the present. For example, in 1790 one of the most outstanding Americans of his day, Ben Franklin, resented and opposed the advent and influx of Europeans to America. A commission was appointed to investigate the situation, and they reported that they "viewed with alarm the great influx of unde

sirables who have come to America and who are presently filling up our penal institutions." All this notwithstanding that our population then was a little over 3,000,000 people in all. Nearly all of those who were desirous of entering the United States in those days were Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, and not of the so-called newer immigrants who came here in the middle of the nineteenth century.

But it must be conseded that the prejudice and fear which the early Benjamin Franklins entertained was unjustified and unwarranted because most of these newcomers to America have made good and have aided in building up our Nation-increasing our production and helping to develop all of our resources, to the end that today America is the most prosperous country in the world. A great deal of the credit for our present prosperity is due solely to these brave immigrants. Therefore I feel that the prejudice that we aim to eliminate by this legislation is something that does exist, notwithstanding the fear expressed by many employers that it will force employers to employ people whose rights we are trying to safeguard.

Since 1941 there has been considerable interest in fair employment practice and related problems at the Federal level. The Federal Government, as a matter of fact, pioneered in the fair employment practice field. By an Executive order of June 25, 1941, the President established the Committee on Fair Employment Practice within the Office of Production Management. Its organizational history was complicated by many changes, but its purpose remained the same throughout-namely, to promote the fullest utilization of manpower and to eliminate discriminatory employment practices. This order provided that all agencies of the Government of the United States shall include in all contracts a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. Thus was established the pattern on which much of the legislation in State and local units was subsequently based. This committee was continued in operation throughou the war period, until in July 1945 the Congress discontinued its appropriation. Request was made by the President that such a body be established by law on a permanent basis, but to date there is no such permanent body. In 1948 the President's Committee on Civil Rights recommended that a Federal Fair Employment Practice Act be enacted prohibiting all forms of discrimination in private employment, based on race, color, creed, or national origin. Since the Federal Act would not reach activities which do not affect interstate commerce, the committee also recommended the enactment by the States of similar laws. These recommendations and others were incorporated into the President's civil rights program which he has several times urged upon Congress for adoption. The President has continued to press his demands for the enactment of the program, proceeding meanwhile to use his powers to realize some of its objectives, and rightly so. July 26, 1948, he issued two Executive orders, one establishing a Fair Employment Practice System for Federal Employment, the other establishing a President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services.

On

There can be little quarrel with FEP legislation, for the practical working of democracy requires that no person possessing educational and experience qualifications necessary for doing a particular job should be excluded from consideration for appointment on the basis of purely extraneous matters over which he has no control. It is basic democratic theory that a person shall have opportunity in accordance with his ability and qualifications.

The report of the Committee on Civil Rights created a tremendous public reaction, for reasons that are not clearly apparent. National party platforms of both political parties had for years declared for the goals which the committee report sought to implement and translate into practice. The new party platforms for 1948 were no exception. With reference to discriminatory practices in education, this report stated that "the public cannot long tolerate practices by private educational institutions which are seriously conflicting with the patterns of democratic life. Further, in order that this mandate of public obligation shall have equal force everywhere, and not lead merely to pronouncements by individual colleges, the invoking of legislation along lines of the proposed legislation against discrimination in New York, seems the logical way of advance." The Commission concludes that to assure a universal and equal regard for a policy of nondiscrimination the legal method becomes both fair and practical. Prejudice of course cannot be eliminated by legislative act or edict but discrimination—the outward social manifestation of prejudice, can be corrected by

legislation and perhaps only by legislation. The record of the work performed by enforcement agencies in half a dozen States seems to indicate clearly that these laws can be made to produce results. Some say that education as offered in the public schools of the Nation presents a dynamic approach to the problem of intergroup relations, however this is fallacious. It is unfortunately true that the official records do not bear out the claim that education as now organized and carried on has made any substantial progress in eliminating either prejudice or discrimination. In the aggregate, stupendous sums of money have been spent on public education in this country. Although a constantly increasing percentage of the adult population is the product of this training, both prejudice and discrimination are very much in evidence. FEP legislation does work. There is ample evidence to support this by viewing the experience of the several States with laws in operation on this vital subject.

Our very heritage was founded upon principles of conduct which must still be preserved. But we can do this only by readapting them to modern economic realities. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in a frontier economy meant that the nonconformist might move into the wilderness and make himself a new homestead. However, in a modern industrial society, life itself has become dependent upon the individual finding suitable employment. His happiness depends upon his ability to utilize his capacities in rewarding and productive employment under favorable working conditions. To those who have been discriminated against in seeking or holding such employment because of their race, color, or religion, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," mean absolutely nothing.

Witness the last war where soldiers of every race and creed fought side by side to make victory possible. Duty and patriotism knew no artificial barriers. There were no minority groups in terms of sacrifice. This legislation represents a constructive approach to the fulfillment of the democratic ideals for which men sacrificed so much. It places our democracy on record as striving to fulfill the ideals of equality of opportunity upon which it was founded. Education and legislation is the only effective panacea for the discrimination evil that exists today. The bill under consideration by this committee (H. R. 4453) is certainly a step in the right direction, and I strongly urge that this committee report the bill out in the very near future. After 43 years in Congress, I would like nothing more than to be able to vote on and witness the passing of the present legislation. It is very close to my heart.

In conclusion, may I call your attention to the fact that the very last request our great and revered President Franklin D. Roosevelt made was one wherein he urged me to endeavor to obtain a rule making possible the adoption of a resolution establishing a Federal Fair Employment law. Not only that, but on the day of his funeral, President Truman assured me, and has demonstrated beyond a doubt, that it is also his aim and intention to bring about this legislation.

Mr. SABATH. With that, I thank the committee for hearing me briefly, and I hope that favorable action will be had without great delay, because time is running, and if we do not act speedily, we are liable again to find ourselves in the position where the legislation might be delayed until the next session of Congress, which I would regret exceedingly.

I think both parties at the 1944 and 1948 conventions had planks in their platforms, endorsing this legislation. I feel we should act, and hope you will act favorably.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. No questions.

Mr. POWELL. Senator Humphrey?

Senator, I am sorry that some of the members had to leave, but we shall hear you.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that some of your members had to leave, too. I have been dashing in and out of subcommittee meetings myself this morning.

TESTIMONY OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator HUMPHREY. I appreciate

Mr. POWELL. Could I just interrupt a minute? Representative Nixon has an engagement at 12 o'clock, and he has a burning question in his heart that he would like to ask, which should come normally at the end of your testimony, and he is asking for unanimous consent from your side to ask a question now.

Senator HUMPHREY. I would be delighted to receive a question from Congressman Nixon. It is very nice to meet you, too, Congress

man.

Mr. NIXON. Senator, the problem that I think we are all confronted with in this field of civil-rights legislation is a very practical one in which you have had considerable experience, particularly in the last Democratic convention, and that is that of getting action as well as getting a lot of very good declarations about how we personally feel about civil-rights legislation.

Now, my question is this. Do you think that the bill which we have before us, H. R. 4453, either in its present form or incorporating substantially the provisions in that bill, could be acted upon favorably by the Senate, having in mind the present make-up of the Senate from a political standpoint? I recognize that is a question which probably should be put to Drew Pearson, or somebody who can predict. But if you would take the predicter's chair for a moment, I would appreciate your comment on that point, because it seems to me that what we should try to do here is to approve finally a bill that has a reasonable chance for passage, rather than to work for days on a bill simply for political purposes and to put that bill up knowing very well that there is no chance for its passage. I would appreciate any comment you might have on that point.

Senator HUMPHREY. Í must say first, Congressman, you prefaced part of your remarks by referring to my prophetic knowledge, or ability that I might have, and I have none. I recognize the difficulty, however, of civil-rights legislation in the Senate.

I concur in the expression and the points of the House bill, as I do in those that were presented by Senator Ives in the Senate. The bills are not too far apart. It is really a matter of detail.

Now, with respect to your question as to whether or not this would be adopted by the United States Senate. Frankly, Congressman, it seems to me that civil-rights legislation in the Senate can pass. I know it should pass. And I say it can pass. Here is why I say that. Many of my friends and your friends continuously lay the blame for the lack of civil-rights legislation upon our southern colleagues. I do not want to make any comments about the number of southern Congressmen in the House, but I think I can speak with some accuracy as to the number of southern Senators in the Senate, that is, the number there that represent States where there is considerable feeling in opposition to civil-rights legislation.

The maximum number would be 22 Senators who have in some way or another in the last few years expressed themselves unalterably opposed to civil-rights legislation such as is embodied in House bill

4453.