Mr. POWELL. Line 3. It reads:

Provided, That the Commission is empowered by agreement with any agency of any State, Territory, possession, or local government, to cede to such agency jurisdiction over any cases even though such cases may involve charges of unlawful employment practices within the scope of this act, unless the provision of the statute or ordinance applicable to the determination of such cases by such agency is inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this act or has received a construction inconsistent therewith.

That would definitely tie in, and give the State the jurisdiction. Mr. BATTLE. It would tie in. It would be a mighty weak tie-in, when you say that the Commission is the one that is empowered by agreement with an agency of any State, and so forth. The Federal agency is the one that would make the decision as to whether or not it will consult local governments or turn it over to them. And I can see a Federal agency coming down to Birmingham and saying, "All right, boys. We will turn this problem over to the city commission to settle."

If that is the way you are going to do it, why not just forget the law to start with, which I think would be a good thing to do?

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POWELL. Is Representative Howell present?
Mr. HOWELL. I am here, sir.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES R. HOWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. HOWELL. I have a brief statement here that I would like to read, and then I shall be glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Charles R. Howell, a Member of Congress from the Fourth District of New Jersey, and a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, to which this subcommittee will make its report and recommendations. Since I had a rather substantial part in the passage of our New Jersey fair-employment legislation, as a member of the New Jersey House of Assembly, I feel somewhat competent to testify on the bill which you are now considering.

Our New Jersey act, which follows the general pattern of H. R. 21and I assume that the current bill is not too different, from what you have said, except that I notice it leaves out the provision for regional councils, which I think possibly might have some merit-places a greater emphasis at the conciliation and education level, as contrasted with the use of the penalty provisions of the act. It has worked well in New Jersey. Members of minority groups-Negroes in particular— have been employed in many industries which previously were closed to them, and in many higher positions for which they were substituted. I have heard of no employers who felt that they were being imposed upon, especially after they had given it a trial, and after they realized that the law did not compel them to hire persons who were not fitted, but that it only asked that they not turn down, or fail to upgrade, applicants who had the necessary skills and ability solely on account of their race, color, or religion.

So far in New Jersey, after nearly 4 years of operation, unless there had been a very recent case which escaped my attention, it has not

been necessary to resort to formal hearings or use of the penalty provisions. All cases have been adjusted at the conciliation level. It is necessary, however, to have the enforcement powers in the background to obtain the cooperation of employers and others covered by the act. Evidence that this type of law has worked well in our State is provided by the fact that our legislature at its recent session and without one dissenting vote has placed the enforcement of its other general civil-rights laws against discrimination in public facilities and so forth, which have been on the books for many years, under the division against discrimination, which is handling the enforcement of the Fair Employment Act so successfully.

In my opinion, fair-employment legislation is the most fundamental and important phase of the civil-rights program. Guaranty of employment opportunity in accordance with one's ability, education, and talents can accomplish more than anything else in the solutions of the problems of Negroes and other minority groups.

There is very little incentive for members of minority groups to become more educated and more useful and more responsible members of the community if they continue to be denied the right to be employed in positions for which they are qualified by education, training, and natural ability, solely because of their race, color, or religion. The right to be employed and to contribute to the full extent of their abilities will provide Negroes and other minority groups with a real incentive to develop and become more responsible, more useful, and more acceptable citizens.

This legislation has worked well in New Jersey and in several other States and cities. It can work elsewhere, even in the South, if administered wisely.

I think if we revert for a moment to the situation which has been suggested by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Battle about how it would work if tried in the South, we may be fearing more there than actually exists. I think if it could be understood by the people who will be affected by the law, both the potential employees and members of minority groups and by the employers, that it does not require them to hire Negroes or Mexicans or Chinese or anything else just to have them represented among their employees, that it does not give the Negro or anybody else the right to be employed unless he actually has the qualifications for the job and is acceptable in every other way, but it just says that you cannot turn him down because he is a Negro, a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever the case might be-I think if that is gotten across to both the employer groups and potential employees, a lot of the misunderstanding about the law would be done away with and it would not be as hard to sell to the people in some of the Southern States.

That is the end of my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Howell.

I personally accept your opening remark, that we do not have in this bill the regional council proposal. I think it would be very wise if this committee, reading the bill over, would consider adding that to the bill.

I would just like to ask you one question, not to embarass you. There was a time not so long ago when, in the North, people of my minority group thought that New Jersey was a pretty tough State.

In the past 2 years, New Jersey has surpassed even New York State with civil-rights laws which are broader, much more stringent, and that go deeply to the heart of the problem, which have been passed by the people going to the polls and have been passed by both Houses of your legislative body. And the reaction of the people to this new civil-rights atmosphere in New Jersey is of what nature? Has there been a violent reaction any place, especially in south Jersey? What has happened?

Mr. HOWELL. I do not think there has. It was anticipated that there would be a much more violent reaction to it. Of course, I would admit that there are a number of people who have inborn prejudices, who like to talk about those things and rebel to a certain extent, but I think the general acceptance by the public has been very, very good, and the result has not been that the situation has caused any great difficulty to adjust to. We have a good, workable fair-employment law. We have provided an acceptable and workable way of enforcing our general civil-rights laws. We have done away with discrimination in our National Guard and militia. That is, at least we have decided to do away with it, and we are making a start to implementing that.

I was agreeably surprised to find as the result of a questionnaire that I sent out in my district, that people are very, very substantially behind most of the items in the President's entire civil-rights program. I was most agreeably surprised at the extent of their acceptance of it. It was rather overwhelming. I do not think it has created any great problem, and I think we have done a fair thing that is going to be of great help.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. No questions.
Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Howell, I appreciate your very fine statement, particularly as it applies to the experience that you have had in your own State. One of the things I think you have done for us is to point up that this bill, like the type of law that you have in your State, is not a law that says to the employer, "You shall not hire certain people." It merely says that race, color, creed, and national origin, or whatever it might be, shall not be either a qualification or a disqualification, or a bar to employment; is that not your point? It boils right down to that?

Mr. HOWELL. That is right. I think there is one point of misunderstanding among the public generally and even some people who might conceivably know better, that that is not involved. You do not have to hire a certain number of Negroes or a certain number of Jews. You do not have to hire any of them unless some who are eminently qualified apply and you have positions available to put them into, and then you only have to hire them if they are at least as qualified or better qualified than others that you might have under consideration. Mr. BURKE. The only thing is that you cannot set up divisions between the people on the basis of race, religion, and so on, as a bar to employment.

Mr. HOWELL. That is right.

Mr. BURKE. That is all.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. Mr. Howell, when you had this bill under consideration in the State legislature, did the unions support it?

Mr. HOWELL. The CIO, as I recall, supported it rather substantially. The AFL, in the beginning, had some misgivings on it, but after those things were ironed out, I think we got fairly good cooperation and support from them, too.

Mr. NIXON. How has it worked insofar as unions are concerned? I assume you have a similar provision as we have in the bill before us. Mr. HOWELL. Yes, sir. I, of course, have not had any great hand in the enforcement of it, but my understanding is that there have not been any serious instances crop up where it has caused any difficulty with the unions. There have been a few cases where complaints have been made against unions, and I think at this first conciliatory level they have been adjusted and ironed out, and it has not presented any great problem in that respect.

Mr. NIXON. Tell me, when you passed your law in New Jersey, was that the first time that the bill had come up for consideration in the State legislature, or had there been a period, shall we say, of education, in which the legislature and the public became ready for the passage of such a bill?

Mr. HOWELL. My impression and understanding is that the year prior to my first year in the legislature-I was elected in 1944 and went in in January of 1945-there had been introduced one or two minor bills along that line, not a complete fair employment practices act. But they had received no serious committee study or consideration by party caucus, or anything. I introduced the first bill that year, and a good bit of support was generated behind it by organizations and individuals to the point that it could not be brushed off lightly. And since I am a Democrat and in a small minority there, they do not let us pass any bills. But when the Republicans introduced it, I was glad to get behind it and support it, and I think it has really worked very well. So there was not any long period of study, but it was introduced early and passed toward the end of the session.

Mr. NIXON. There was, you would say, substantial support for the legislation in the press, and in the legislature, and by reason of those facts, with the public generally, you think, when the bill was passed?

Mr. HOWELL. Public hearings were held. And, of course, this is the type of bill that a great many people who might be against it sometimes hesitated to come out in public hearings and oppose. But there was virtually no opposition at that public hearing. Many organizations throughout the State-not only Negro organizations and so forth-did get behind it; organizations like the League of Women Voters and a number of social and welfare organizations, and citizens' organizations. It got wonderful support that way, to the point where it was difficult for the legislature not to do something about it. Mr. NIXON. That is all.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you.

Representative Burnside, of West Virginia.

TESTIMONY OF HON. M. G. BURNSIDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. BURNSIDE. I am Representative M. G. Burnside, from West Virginia.

The findings and declaration of policy here take me back to the classroom. I am a former professor of political science and constitutional law. So I am quite interested in the statement that you have here:

The Congress recognizes that it is essential to the general welfare that this gap between principle and practice be closed.

We have been teaching things like that for many years in political science over the country. I think that is a good statement.

I remember quite well over in the Far East that we beamed programs that would fit very well into this introductory statement to this bill with respect to our findings and declaration of policy. Then we got quite a severe shock from this type of thing. Our programs along the theoretical lines were so very, very successful. Then after the war, many of the people took us at our word. The result was that we had a terrific amount of unrest in the Far East. New governments sprang up that were interested in democratic principles.

I know that all of you gentlemen have examined closely the Constitution of the United States. If you will examine it, you will find the basis for these ideas that you have so well stated here in the introduction to this bill. I am afraid much of the unrest has been brought about the same way. We have been giving the theory to the world without living the practice, and I am afraid we have brought about much of the controversy that we have had in this country because we have continuously given out the theory and not living from the standpoint of practice.

That is one reason why I was interested in coming here to speak in behalf of this bill and in favor of the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act. I campaigned on that issue in West Virginia, and I am glad of the opportunity to speak favorably for the act.

I would be glad to answer any questions if any of you would like to ask me some.

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Representative Burnside. I think the statement you have made is very interesting with regard to the international implications of this, so much so that I would like to say that the Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, will testify before these hearings conclude on the value of this act as far as our Nation's relationship to peoples all over the world, and he has so indicated. Just yesterday I had a conference with the United Nations' delegates from various portions of the world, and all of them just could not understand how there is a difference between principle and practice.

I think this, as you pointed out, will go toward making that internationally better known and more understandable.

Mr. BURNSIDE. I think the same thing is also true in this country, the theory that we have been teaching and the practice that we have been following.

Mr. POWELL. Are there any questions? Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. No questions.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Burke?

Mr. BURKE. No questions.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Nixon?

Mr. NIXON. You have no doubt, then, as far as the acceptance of this law in your district in West Virginia is concerned?

Mr. BURNSIDE. Oh, yes; I would probably have some doubts.