Mrs. DOUGLAS. And to have the two-thirds of the people in the world who are colored move toward democracy, they must have faith in us.. We are the greatest and most powerful democracy in the world. And the only way they can have faith in us is to admire our performance, have faith in our performance. We must set the example here at home if they are to believe that we respect all people regardless of the difference in pigmentation of their skin. So, there is an immediate pressure on us to act now, in view of the world picture.

I do not understand why people who have nightmares about communism don't understand this. I, personally, do not have nightmares. about communism, because I have such faith in democracy. I think communism has nothing to offer, if we will only live up to our democratic principles.

But to live in a democratic pattern fully up to the ideals which we profess takes some doing.

Mr. BREHM. That is a splendid point.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I takes some doing.

Mr. BREHM. That is a splendid point. I agree 100 percent with the lady. I am on record as opposed to monopolies and cartels, and I know their evils.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I know that.

Mr. BREHM. The point that is in my mind, and I think the lady has developed it, is that perhaps this was just a precedent which has been established over the years. Did Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York employ the same type of questionnaire as Goodrich or Goodyear before the FEPC law was enacted in those States? Mrs. DOUGLAS. The Goodyear employed the same type of application. in those States, and withdrew them with the passage of FEPC.

Mr. BREHM. The motive back of this was what I was concerned with. That is, whether this was some philosophy that has been going on for years and years, or whether it was just expressed.

I will say this again to the lady

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I will say this to the gentleman. I do not think it is an evil thing to have prejudices, if they do not affect the lives of thousands and millions of people.

Mr. BREHM. I agree with you.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I think one instinctively has preferences. You would not follow through with some vicious act or some act of discrimination. And as I said in my testimony, we have a right to our prejudices. For Heaven's sake, some men like blondes and some like dark-haired women, or short ones or tall ones. Some like girls to wear low heels. and some to wear high heels. One is not trying to legislate away prejudices.

But the point is, when a prejudice carries over and affects the living standards of not just a few people

Mr. BREHM. I am with you 100 percent.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. And in the bill, of course, the bill does not apply, either my bill or the administration bill, to household servants, or to small shops. It only applies to businesses in interstate commerce, and to your large operations.

Mr. BREHM. Again I want to congratulate the lady. I think you have made a splendid statement.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. Mrs. Douglas, the problem that I have been particularly concerned with in the hearings to date, as you may have noticed from the questions I asked Senator Ives, is the practical problem of how any legislation in the civil-rights field can be passed. As you will recall, here in the Eightieth Congress we passed a poll tax bill. And looking back on that action, both when the action was taken by the Democratic Congress which preceded the Eightieth Congress, and by our Congress, I think any action that we did take was a rather cynical action insofar as the enactment of that bill into law is concerned, because it is generally assumed that if it got over to the Senate side, it would run into a filibuster, or would never be brought up for consideration.

Now, in the case of the fair employment practices bill, we have, of course, the same political situation. I think a bill something along the lines of the one we have before us could possibly pass the House. But we do have the problem of gaining sufficient support for our bill from a practical standpoint among the Representatives from the South if we hope eventually to enact it into law. And that is the reason why I have put the question in each case to the witnesses as to, first, whether or not they think the law would be effective in their own State. You have already indicated you think it would be effective in California. And second, whether or not the law would be effective in the Southern States where the major opposition, of course, to such legislation is to be expected for obvious reasons.

I wanted to make that statement particularly so that you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee can see the reason for the line of questioning. It seems to me that too often in this field, as I think the chairman of our subcommittee indicated quite eloquently in his speech on the floor of the House a few days ago, it is very easy to talk for the purposes of the record and the voters back home about how we oppose discrimination when we know in our own minds that nothing is going to be done about it.

For that reason, I am hopeful that in the consideration of this legislation by this subcommittee, we can hear, as we are hearing, not only from people like the witness today who eloquently expressed the case for antidiscrimination legislation in employment, but from those who have the practical problem, particularly in the Southern States, of putting such legislation into effect, because we are going to need some support there, I am convinced, in order to pass it.

As I say, this is more in the nature of a statement rather than a question, but if you have an observation on that point as to how, frankly, a better selling job, shall we say, on this particular type of legislation can be done where it has to be done, I would be interested.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. I have an observation to make. First of all, as to how this law would work in the South. How did the FEPC work in the South during the war? It would be interesting to know. Of course, the Federal Government program during the war lacked enforcement powers. But may I point out that it has not been necessary to use them in those States where they now have them. It is just something that you have as a stand-by measure but it is not actually used. I think that could be pointed out to the southerners. Then I think in bringing this program on the floor, we ought not to stress the need for FEPC legislation in the South. As a matter of fact, the

Negroes, if my figures are correct, get a better break in the South than they do in the rest of the country.

Mr. POWELL. Surely.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. And Negro leaders will tell you that. That is the point I make with southerners all the time when they say, "Stop pointing to the South." I say, "I am not pointing to the South. We are worried about our part of the country.'

I think we ought to be very careful to make this point, and say, "We need this legislation all over the country. We are not pointing the finger at the South."

And we are not. You go into Alabama, for instance. In one of the big steel plants down there, the head of the union in the plant is a Negro. And we can give you instance after instance of that kind of progress. I think that is the way to present this legislation.

Now, as to the practicality of passing this legislation-this is one of my pet subjects as well as yours, Mr. Nixon-I do not think when both the major parties have promised the American people that they will try to support this kind of legislation they can avoid doing so on the theory that the American people in electing Congress failed to elect enough representatives whose thinking is in line with the party platforms. I do not think that is good enough.

The leadership of both parties is obliged to make good its promises. The initiative must come, of course, from the Democrats, because they are in the majority. The Democrats ought sincerely to try to mobilize their forces. The Republican leadership has the same obligation. And I want to state right here, and I have said it in public and I will say it before the committee, in the Eightieth Congress I would have given all of my energy toward the passing of civil-rights legislation had the leadership chosen to bring it out and force it through, both in the House and in the Senate. A half-hearted attempt was made to pass the anti-poll-tax bill. If a proper approach is made now, I believe we can put through civil-rights legislation.

I do not think this issue is partisan, from any point of view. Now, if both sides of the aisle are trying sincerely to mobilize their forces, we can overcome in the House the 40 to 50 southern votes that we will lose, and in the Senate we can break the filibuster if everybody who has said they are for this legislation will go on the Senate floor and vote for cloture.

I would like to sit down with you and make an analytical study of the votes in the Senate. My feeling is that it can be done. But even if it could not be done, I say to you, Mr. Nixon, a sincere effort ought to be made on the part of those who want to live up to their campaign pledges so that the voting public can see where the weaknesses are in Congress and what Congressmen failed to support their party platforms.

How on earth, otherwise, is the public going to know?

Mr. NIXON. I will say that I certainly agree that simply because there are obstacles in getting legislation passed, that is no reason for not trying to get what we consider to be good legislation passed. On the other hand, I think that any objective analysis of what has happened during the past few years, when both party platforms have had at least some sort of statement on civil rights, would indicate that there has been on this issue a great amount of talk and very little

90748-49- -7

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