ple against the statement? The third question was: Who are the people who would reserve the right to abstain?

There was only one organization that reserved the right to abstain. There were no persons who objected. All the others agreed. The abstaining organization, I want to make it clear, was not opposed to the statement, but it just thought it might want to present a separate view. Mr. HAWKINS. With that one exception, can we conclude that the rest of the names mentioned, the rest of the organizations, approved the statement in its entirety?

Mr. MITCHELL. There isn't any question about that because this statement incidentally, I did not write this statement-is the product of the drafters who were appointed by the committee, and it does represent the views of those who were present.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, may I merely make a brief statement?

I recall that in 1964, some of us did present a much stronger bill to this committee. As I recall, it was the Republicans who objected to the stronger bill. If I recall correctly, we modified the bill in order to get the bill out of the committee in that form.

I am very pleased to see that Mr. Reid has introduced a bill which I believe comes much closer to the type of a bill which I think most of us did agree upon in 1964.

I also agree with the statement and with Mr. Mitchell's presentation, yet this comes as no surprise, the very statesmanlike manner in which this statement has been presented. I personally believe a stronger bill should be considered and passed out by this committee.

I would certainly hope that we do not hasten to pass out another stopgap bill merely for the sake of strategy before we do the thorough job of presenting, at least, and recommending a bill that is the type of bill that most of us would have voted for in 1964.

Having said that, I guess I should also disassociate myself from any effort to use this subject as a refusal to pass another bill. I am equally strong for H.R. 77. I personally intend to address myself to these two subjects separately.

I think we can do a much better job of presenting a strong FEPC bill. To hasten to do so, however, would perhaps cause us to make the same mistake now as we did in 1964. Î think Mr. Bell will also approve of a strong FEPC bill, so I will yield to him.

Mr. BELL. I think you are not exactly accurate when you say that Republicans opposed the FEPC Act. As I recall, our bill was passed out with a majority of the Republicans voting for it, including myself.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think my statement was that it was necessary to weaken the bill in order to get that Republican support. I hope that this time it will not be necessary to do so, but that we will get a sufficient number of Republicans to take a stronger position so that we will not have to weaken the bill.

I think the fact that Mr. Reid, for example, has introduced a stronger bill than the Republicans were willing to support the last time is an indication that we may get that type of support this time. Mr. BELL. I am afraid you are using Republicans a little bit loosely.

Mr. HAWKINS. I generally accept you because you generally go along with us. But you voted against us a couple of times recently.

Mr. BELL. On FEPC?

Mr. HAWKINS. On H.R. 77, didn't you?

Mr. BELL. That is not the FEPC. We are talking about the FEPC.

Mr. HAWKINS. I will be very glad to apologize to you, for I know you will vote for a strong FEPC bill this time. I will exempt you. Unfortunately, there were not enough of you last time.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The Chair would like the record to show that the action taken on the enforcement provision did not take place in the committee but I think took place on the floor of the House.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, am I wrong in assuming that the original bill that we did introduce did contain a cease-and-desist order provision, and that gradually we did withdraw these provisions and did pass out a bill that some of us had not fought for originally but which was a modified version, a weaker version, of the bill that we originally introduced?

Mr. O'HARA. I think we ought to have at least three versions of this.

Mr. HAWKINS. I hope you agree with me.

Mr. O'HARA. As the gentleman correctly recalls, there was a fight in the committee in 1963 with respect to the enforcement provisions to be contained in H.R. 405. At that time, the gentleman from Michigan, my colleague, Mr. Griffin, who felt very strongly about having judicial enforcement rather than administrative enforcement, supported by some of the Republicans on the committee, offered an amendment to remove the administrative enforcement from H.R. 405 and substituted therefor judicial enforcement.

The committee defeated that effort and reported the bill with administrative enforcement, with the gentleman from California in support thereof, and the gentleman from New York, who was not at that time a member of the committee, nevertheless working behind the scenes with those who favored the administrative enforcement approach.

Then when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was before the Judiciary Committee, efforts were made by, I think, nearly everyone seated here, to have the Judiciary Committee include in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the provisions of H.R. 405 as reported.

In the bargaining that took place at that time with respect to getting a consensus in favor of an FEP title, an agreement was worked out, I know not with whom, that the FEP title would consist of the text of H.R. 405, but that in the process the Griffin amendment with respect to enforcement would be made part of title VII instead of the administrative enforcement that our committee had favored.

At any rate, Mr. Griffin and many others have now become a convert to what the gentleman, Mr. Hawkins, and I and others here have always favored, administrative enforcement.

I am certainly happy that we are taking up the subject because I am not one to say that the works of Congress are perfect. I think they are very imperfect.

I think that Mr. Mitchell, among others, was one who fought with us for administrative enforcement and chose judicial enforcement when that was the best he could get. I hope this time we have the support of some people who last time opposed this. But that does not include any of the present company, I might say.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman is a good historian. I think that will be the official record.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make this observation, because all of you gentlemen and Mrs. Green have been terrific fighters for civil rights. I wouldn't want this occasion to pass without having the record show how much we appreciate what you have done. I would just like to say to Mr. Bell for the record that many times when we met in our councils, I assured my colleagues again and again that you, Mr. Bell, were going to go down the line for a strong civil rights bill.

I think you know that some of your views on economic matters are different from others, but on civil rights I have found and I would like to say for the record, your views are 100 percent on the side of doing what is right. We need the Republican and the Democratic support. But I couldn't agree with Mr. O'Hara more when I think he has pointed out the pitfall that awaits us if we try to make the approval of 14(b) contingent upon the approval of FEPC, because with the exception of those of you here who are all for-Mr. Reid and others-FEPC, the same people who forced us to abandon the administrative procedure on the floor of the House and in the negotiations in 1964 are just waiting for the situation to develop where you can't get 14(b) unless you get FEPC, and they do not want an FEPC with enforcement powers. They would be delighted if we could just bury both of these things with an RIP on them.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I promised my colleagues that I would make it clear when I departed from the text I was just speaking for myself. So I am really not speaking for the leadership conference now. But I want to make it clear that I don't have any blindfold over my eyes on what is happening, and I think the colored people of this country are adults now. They are not interested in a lot of nice words, speeches, and pronouncements. What they are interested in is some delivery. The way to get delivery is to face realties and work together for constructive causes.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mrs. Green?

Mrs. GREEN. I think, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Mitchell has adequately answered any questions that I had when he responded to the questions directed to him by Congressman Daniels and Congressman Bell.

Mr. Reid?

Mr. REID. I just have a few very quick questions.

Mr. Mitchell, No. 1, I take it you are fully in support of broadly increasing the coverage, which is the thrust of the first part of this bill?

Mr. MITCHELL. I am, Mr. Reid.

Mr. REID. Second, with regard to the point you made at the top of page 2 in your testimony, if the bill was amended so that it would read in section 2, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended by deleting section 706 and inserting in lieu thereof and then put in the language of the bill of my distinguished colleagues, Mr. O'Hara and Mr. Thompson, would that then remove your concern over a third method of enforcement?

Mr. MITCHELL. I would not be prepared to answer that "yes" or "no." This is one of those questions that it seems to me you have to study. I would say this, that I do not think we should abandon lit

erally the requirement that the Justice Department shall act on its own initiative in pattern or practices.

I don't think we ought to do anything to let any executive agency of the Government divest itself of responsibilities that we gave it in 1964. Therefore, I would hope that we could get the administrative remedies with cease-and-desist orders, plus all of the compatible enforcement powers that are in the existing statute.

Mr. REID. If you would maintain the provisions of the right of the Attorney General to institute actions and add to it the right of the Commission to issue cease-and-desist orders, thereby establishing strong administrative enforcement, would that more nearly meet the problem as you see it?

Mr. MITCHELL. I would say that would meet the problem which was raised by our legal defense fund in a very carefully thought out statement presented by Mr. Jack Greenberg, our chief counsel in that organization. So I certainly think that would help.

Mr. REID. Just one final query, and again my warmest thanks for your appearance here today, which I think is extremely helpful. I do not think that this committee, or any that testify before it, should in any sense gloss over what I think are fairly serious facts and to which you, yourself, have testified previously. That is that while we have passed an extremely important Civil Rights Act of 1964, one would have to say that the FEPC section is not the strongest one, and, indeed, the need for administrative enforcement is clearly indicated.

We have had experience in some 30 States with administrative enforcement which has shown the efficacy of it and the need for it. I think whenever we have a situation as we do in the United States, when there still is serious discrimination in employment on the part of both management and labor, where in apprenticeship programs only 2 percent of those undergoing the programs are Negroes, this is still a critical and serious situation.

I think the thrust of what is said here perhaps should certainly underscore the need for taking the strongest possible action that we can responsibly and thoughtfully take. The country, I think, is under the illusion that perhaps the FEPC section is stronger than it is. I would hope the thrust of this would be that it needs to be strengthened. Mr. MITCHELL. That certainly was the sense of the testimony that I attempted to present.

Mr. REID. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. O'Hara ?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I have interrupted the committee's time here already. I do, however, want to indicate on the record that the bill I introduced, while I make no pretense of its perfection, it did retain all of the improving features that were added: namely, the pattern and practice feature as it stands in title VII. But I don't think I have necessarily any pride of authorship. We just, for all practical purposes, lifted the title from H.R. 405, and put it in in place of the enforcement provisions now contained in title VII.

I will not go further. I think Mr. Mitchell's statement, which I have had the opportunity to read, and his responses to questions, state the case much better than I could. I wish to thank him for his very lucid and helpful presentation.

Mr. MITCHELL. I certainly want to thank you, too, Mr. O'Hara, not only for what you have done and said today, but for the hours and days and nights that you spent in 1964 in making it possible for us to have any kind of a FEPC at all.

If we had had the kind of FEPC that you and other members of this committee intended to give, I don't think it would have been subject to any criticism so far as enforcement is concerned.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The Chair will recognize Mr. Pucinski for 30 sec onds to ask a question.

Mr. PUCINSKI. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. We certainly appreciate your appearance before the committee.

Mr. Biemiller, we are glad to have you for the second time before the committee. And we are glad to welcome Mr. Harris, also.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY TOM HARRIS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, AFL-CIO

Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I regret that due to the shortness of time in calling this hearing that we do not have a prepared statement. However, I do want to make certain brief observations on behalf of the AFL-CIO.

First, I want to associate the AFL-CIO completely with both the formal statement and the further remarks made by Clarence Mitchell. We agree with everything he has said, and we are delighted to find ourselves in this absolute agreement.

Secondly, I want to point out that the AFL-CIO has repeatedly called for the strongest possible enforcement in an FEPC law. I went through our files today and just pulled out a few very recent statements-one by President Meany before a special committee on labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, on August 21, 1961, on one of the early bills, Mr. Chairman, that I believe bore your authorship, in which he urged the strongest possible enforcement procedure on an administrative basis.

Secondly, I want to call your attention to a similar statement made in 1962 by President Meany, asking for the strongest possible kind of an enforcement procedure. I think, Mr. Chairman, you may recall that at that time there were many elements on the committee who were trying to put in a weakened enforcement provision and it was the AFL-CIO that I think at that time raised the loudest noise and helped you to retain a strong enforcement provision in that bill.

Ón May 3, 1963, before your committee, Mr. Thomas Harris, our associate general counsel, appeared urging the strongest possible kind of an enforcement bill.

Then we had an appearance by President Meany in July of 1963, urging very strongly-before the House Committee on the Judiciarythat they include a bill comparable to the bill that was reported by this committee at that time.

I also want to call your attention to a very interesting statement by President Meany, again going back to 1961. At that time, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Powell, had in a bill to attack discrimination in apprenticeship programs. President Meany made an appear