Mr. CASE. Would the Senator say it would require at least a half hour? Mr. ERVIN. Like the Senator from Pennsylvania, I have not had lunch, but I have some surplus calories stored up.

Mr. CLARK. I would like to help the Senator from New Jersey, but I am unable to help him.

Mr. CASE. The Senator from New Jersey is quite willing to leave this matter in the hands of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CLARK. I yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. I notice that figure 1 on the chart shows the median wage or salary income in 1939, 1947, and 1962 for people of a certain age, whites and uonwhites.

The second chart shows the estimated lifetime earnings of whites and nonwhites. The third chart shows unemployment rates for whites and for nonwhites. Can the Senator from Pennsylvania tell us what effect, if any, in his State or in any other State in which FEPC legislation has been enacted, such legislation has had on those figures?

Mr. CLARK. That would be a matter of empirical judgment; and I do not think one can answer the question categorically, other than to say that, in my opinion, as a former mayor of Philadelphia and as a chief executive charged with supervision of enforcement of our own ordinance on employment practices, beginning shortly after World War II, and continuing to the present time, the effectiveness of our Human Relations Commission, as it is called, which has employment practices as one of its objectives, has been significant, and that areas of employment have been opened to Negroes, whereas never before were they open to them. Department stores constitute a very good example. Our police force is another one. All of the municipal employees constitute a third. I have no hesitation in saying that if we had not had our fair employment ordinance under the direction of our Human Relations Commission. I am confident that in Philadelphia there would, today, be much more Negro unemployment than there is.

Furthermore, based on the visits I have made to Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh is where the other significant number of Negroes in our State live-my observations there would tend to lead to the same conclusion.

Although the Pennsylvania State law is good and is effective, generally it has not demonstrated as great an effect as that demonstrated by the ordinances of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because the overwhelming majority of the Negroes in Pennsylvania reside in those two cities.

Mr. ELLENDER. I was going to ask about the situation in Pittsburgh and the situation in Philadelphia. They are really the only two areas in Pennsylvania where FEPC ordinances or legislation are effective; and that is because the great majority of the Negroes in Pennsylvania live in those two cities. Is not that true?

Mr. CLARK. No, I would not say so. I would say the majority of the impact has been in those two cities; but the State law has been enforced throughout the State. For example, I refer to the city of Erie, which has a population of approximately 138,000, and has a total of approximately 8,000 Negroes; and, generally speaking, they are fairly well protected from job discrimination. However, it is to be noted that the school dropout rate for Negroes is much higher than that for whites.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is generally true throughout the country, is it not?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, and that has an effect on the figures.

Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania have information on the situation shown by chart 4, in contrast to the situation before the adoption of the FEPC ordinances?

Mr. CLARK. I must give an empirical answer, because the question cannot be answered on the basis of statistical proof; but I will say that as the legislation was enacted, it did take hold and did open job opportunities to Negroes in areas where they had not had them before; but that was occurring in a time of great change and flux, when enormous numbers of relatively uneducated Negroes were moving from the South to the North, so that employment discrimination -based, as I have said, in part on lack of education-was getting worse until action was taken by the city commission, under the city FEPC laws, and more recently under the State FEPC law.

Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania may yield to me, to permit me to ask some questions and make some observations, without losing his right to the floor, and also without having his

subsequent remarks counted as a second speech by him on the question before the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that from time to time, I may take my seat, without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, let me say that I shall not insist that the Senator from North Carolina comply with the rule which requires that a Senator who has the floor can yield only for questions. I am prepared to waive that require

ment.

Mr. ERVIN. I understand.

First, let me ask this question: Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania agree with me that in the great majority of States, there are child labor laws which prohibit children below 16 from working-and in some States, children below age 18 except in some isolated cases, such as carrying newspapers?

Mr. CLARK. I think I can smell somewhat of a rat in the Senator's question; but in my State, as well as in North Carolina, many young people, despite the child labor laws, do go to work-often on farms, and sometimes in businessesearlier than age 18. So the answer to the Senator's question is "Yes, surely." Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania agree with me that in many States it would be unlawful for young people 14 or 15 or 16 years of age to work, except in some isolated cases, such as carrying newspapers?

Mr. CLARK. Largely in hazardous occupations, the employment of such young people would be prohibited. Of course, generally speaking, I do not agree with the Senator from North Carolina, although I think there is some truth in what he says.

Mr. ERVIN. North Carolina has a law which prohibits child labor below age 16, as I recall. So does not the Senator from Pennsylvania think that unemployment figures are unreliable if they begin with age 14, for States in which young people of that age are forbidden to work?

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator form North Carolina is attempting to throw some doubt on the validity of the charts perpared by the Census Bureau, I must say that I cannot agree, by any Socratic method, that there is any substantial justice in his point of view.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania think that even when some persons of the ages of 14, 15, or 16 are employed, even though they are forbidden by State law to work, calculations based on their employment are unreliable?

Mr. CLARK. The answer to the Senator's question is that the chart does not deal at all with unemployment; it deals only with wage income.

Mr. ERVIN. But the third chart deals with unemployment.

Mr. CLARK. Yes; but the first two do not. Therefore, I think the Senator from North Carolina is not being logical or sound when he attempts to take a position based on proceeding from the unemployment aspects of chart No. 3 to the income aspects of chart 1 and chart 2.

Mr. ERVIN. Frankly, I think I am being more sound than the Department of Labor has been in making calculations on the basis of statistics for young people 14 years of age and upward, whereas the laws of many of the States prevent young people of ages 14, 15, and 16 from working.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is quite entitled to his opinion. I shall not argue with him.

Mr. ERVIN. Will the Senator agree that, as a matter of mathematics, if we should add the income earned by people starting at the age of 14 and those not working and divide by the total number, we would arrive at a figure having about as much reliability as we would if we should take my poverty, and add that to the wealth of Nelson Rockefeller, then divide the sum total by 2, and say that each one of us had an average worth of a couple of hundred million dollars?

Mr. CLARK. Nothing that the Senator has said, and I do not believe anything which the Senator could say-although I would be happy to listen to him patiently-would raise in my mind any doubt as to the validity of the statistical information set forth in the charts prepared by the Department of Labor and the Bureau of the Census. I have complete confidence in the objectivity of their statistics.

Mr. ERVIN. At one time I tried to obtain from the Bureau of the Census the figure for the population of my State. I found that their figure was 24,000 people short. So I do not accept all of their figures as reliable.

53-267-65--18

Mr. CLARK. How did the Senator know that the figure was 24,000 short? Mr. ERVIN. I knew the overall figures. When I examined the figures according to the races of people, as they were classfied, I discovered that they had forgotten 24,000 Indians residing in Robeson County, N.C.

Mr. CLARK. I am not here to defend the statistical methods of the Bureau of the Census. I am here to defend title VII of the bill, and I would be happy if we could move to that subject.

Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator the following question: In the ultimate analysis, is it not the theory of the proponents of the bill that there are not enough jobs in the United States to go around among the people; therefore it is proposed to set up a Commission which would see to it that such jobs as are available are given to nonwhites rather than whites?

Mr. CLARK. No, of course not. That is an entirely fallacious statement of everything we have said. There are not enough jobs to go around. I deplore it and I believe the Senator from North Carolina does, too. I say that when available jobs are filled, they ought to be filled without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin of any American citizen who applies for an available job. I believe that is simple justice under the law.

Perhaps my friend from North Carolina agrees with me.

Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania claim that whites are discriminated against in employment on account of their race?

Mr. CLARK. That is a pretty loaded question. I must think that over. I believe I can safely say "no."

Mr. ERVIN. Very well, then. I shall cite some figures I have received from the Department of Labor. According to the figures the Department gave me a few days ago, in the month of February 1964, there were 3,629,000 whites in the United States without jobs.

Mr. CLARK. I believe that figure is about right. It sounds about right.

Mr. ERVIN. In the light of the answer of the Senator from Pennsylvania to my previous question, would he agree that those 3,629,000 whites are not out of jobs on account of discrimination exerted toward them in relation to job opportunities?

Mr. CLARK. I believe that is correct. I am surprised that the figure is not higher, because the Negro population is only 10 percent of the total. There are approximately 4,500,000 individuals looking for work that they cannot now find, and, according to the best figures that I can obtain, 900,000 of them are Negroes. So percentagewise in the country the rate of employment among Negroes is about twice that among whites. Considering that the Negroes constitute 10 percent of the population of the country and that the overall unemployment is 4.500,000, we would expect that unemployed Negroes would number about 450.000. But the number is twice that, which I think is pretty good evidence of job discrimination as well as inadequate education and experience. Mr. ERVIN. Is it not true that today there are four unemployed white persons for every nonwhite unemployed person?

Mr. CLARK. A little more than that.

Mr. ERVIN. Not according to the figures given me for February 1964 by the Department of Labor. According to the Department of Labor, in February 1964 the number of unemployed white people totaled 3,629,000, in round numbers. Mr. CLARK. I believe that is correct. Twenty percent. I stand corrected. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ERVIN. The nonwhites totaled 895,000.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ERVIN. So there were four white people out of employment for every nonwhite person out of employment.

Mr. CLARK. Where do we go from there?

Mr. ERVIN. I am trying to show where we go. The Senator might draw the inference that the 895,000 Negroes, or a substantial part of that number, are out of work because of discrimination against them on account of their race, but the 3,629,000 white persons are out of employment on account of economic conditions.

Mr. CLARK. I shall tell the Senator why. The uncontroverted testimony before the subcommittee, of which I am chairman, established that without sensible dispute. In my speech I tried briefly to make the point. I am sorry that I have not convinced the Senator.

Mr. ERVIN. I cannot understand why the Senator draws the inference that the lack of jobs for nonwhite is due to discrimination against them on account of

race, but the lack of jobs for white people, which is four times as great, is due to economic conditions.

Mr. CLARK. I should think that point would be self-evident to a normal high school graduate. To be sure, the 900,000 Negroes who are out of work could not all get jobs. In my opinion, the majority of them could not get jobs if we had a fair employment practices title at the Federal level. But it would help a great deal.

Mr. ERVIN. The fact remains that today in the United States there are four white persons out of employment for every nonwhite out of employment.

Mr. CLARK. Yes; but the fact remains that the unemployment rate in the country today is 5.1 percent for white people and 10.9 percent for Negroes.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania agree with the Senator from North Carolina that, as a general rule, high skills are more often possessed by white pople than by Negroes?

Mr. CLARK. I do.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania agree with the Senator from North Carolina that higher educational attainments are possessed by white people than nonwhites, taking them on the average?

Mr. CLARK. For the time being; yes.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania believe that perhaps the discrepancy in employment of whites and nonwhites is due in part to the lack of skill among nonwhites and the lack of educational attainments among nonwhites?

Mr. CLARK. The Senator may have some logic on his side.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania know that during recent years there has been a great development of automation in America, which has resulted in the unemployment of many people of all races?

Mr. CLARK. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Unemployment and Manpower it has been my task, since May of last year, to investigate extensively the causes and possible cures of unemployment. The comprehensive report of the subcommittee is now in galley proof. I shall be glad to see that the Senator gets a copy when it comes out next week. The answer to his question is "Yes." Mr. ERVIN. That is particularly true with reference to those who work upon farms, is it not? Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania know that in recent years there has been great development of automation on farms, in that there has been a substitution of tractors for mulepower?

Mr. CLARK. That is true on farms; it is also true in banks and automobile assembly lines. This is a national phenomenon affecting practically every employable skill.

Mr. ERVIN. Is it not true that more people, who might be numbered among those who have the least skills and the least education are deprived of jobs by automation?

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ERVIN. So many factors enter into the problem other than discrimination; is that not true?

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. However, discrimination is a major factor, as the testimony before the subcommittee, of which I am chairman, amply demontrate in my remarks this morning.

Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania if any member of his subcommittee was opposed to the FEPC bill which the subcommittee had under consideration?

Mr. CLARK. Not of the subcommittee. Three members of the full committee were opposed.

Mr. ERVIN. Which committee conducted the hearings?

Mr. CLARK. The subcommittee.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Pennsylvania acknowledge the fact that when all the members of a subcommittee agree on a question, the evidence which tends to disprove their position is not likely to be produced?

Mr. CLARK. On the basis of the history of the Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator serves, he is eminently correct.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the some situation apply with reference to the subcommittee of which the Senator from Pennsylvania is chairman?

Mr. CLARK. I do not believe so. I invited all members of the full committee to join in the hearings and asked the opponents to come forward. None came forward. I am sure we would have treated them as courteously as the Senator from North Carolina treated the Attorney General when the latter appeared before the Judiciary Committee. I do not believe the bill received any differ

ent treatment in the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on the positive side, from the treatment the bill received in the Judiciary Committee on the negative side. I trust I am not violating rule XIX, section 2, by saying that I believe we searched for the truth, but the Judiciary Committee did not.

Mr. ERVIN. I am not casting aspersions on any member of the subcommittee. Mr. CLARK. Nor am I casting reflections on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. ERVIN. But I have noticed, from long experience in the courthouse, that when evidence is taken on only one side of a case, the only evidence before the court will be the evidence to sustain that side of the case.

Mr. CLARK. It makes me wonder a little why the Senator from North Carolina did not appear before the subcommittee and make the eloquent argument he is now making, and why he did not bring up the hosts of witnesses from North Carolina to show us that we are engaging in dangerous radicalism, and why he did not make a record thereon. I am sure he would agree that he would have been received courteously, and perhaps with an open mind.

Mr. ERVIN. I know I would have been received with the utmost courtesy and consideration; but, to be perfectly frank, I do not have any lively hope that I can convert the Senator from Pennsylvania to a sound position in dealing with this matter.

Mr. CLARK. And, I suspect, vice versa.

Mr. ERVIN. Let me explain that one reason why I did not appear was that, somehow or other, I overlooked the facts that the subcommittee was considering the matter.

The statement was made by the Senator that religious organizations came before the committee and endorsed the bill. Does not the bill exempt religious organizations from certain sections of the bill?

Mr. CLARK. There is a section which deals with it. What page does the Senator refer to?

Mr. ERVIN. The language appears on page 34, beginning at line 14, and running through line 6 on page 35. Is that language not virtually an exemption of religious organizations from the coverage of the bill?

Mr. CLARK. And some educational institutions, also.

Mr. ERVIN. It seems to me that, if they think the bill is so good, religious organizations would want to be included under its coverage.

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will excuse me for saying so, I think that argument is a tenuous one.

Mr. ERVIN. If it is good enough for Paul and Silas, and if it is good enough for everyone else, it ought to be good enough for them.

Mr. CLARK. I repectfully disagree with the Senator.

Mr. ERVIN. I invite your attention to page 35 of the bill, starting on line 7, and going to line 10:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire and employ any person because of said person's atheistic practices and beliefs."

Does the Senator believe that is a good provision?

Mr. CLARK. My answer to that question is, categorically, "No." It is, in my judgment, an unconstitutional provision, which was written on the floor of the House. I deplore it. I would like to see it stricken out. But since it is clearly and patently unconstitutional, it does not make any difference.

Mr. ERVIN. It seems to me the Senator ought to allow one amendment to strike out the provision which he says is unconstitutional. I think we would be in agreement on that.

Mr. CLARK. It is pleasant to be together on this point.

Mr. ERVIN. Under the first amendment to the Constitution, a man has a right to accept any religious belief, or to reject some or all religious beliefs. It seems to me that some of the religious organizations ought to be opposed to this section of the bill, which is calculated to starve a poor atheist to death before his soul can be saved.

Mr. CLARK. I trust the Senator will excuse a little Latin when I say that the provision is so obviously constitutional that the principle of “de minimis non curat lex" would apply.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not favor any part of a bill that is unconstitutional.

Mr. CLARK. Neither do I. I shall be glad to support an amendment, if the Senator wishes to offer one to strike it out.

Mr. ERVIN. I am glad to hear that. I think everybody is entitled to have a job in order to sustain his body long enough to enable him to see the light and save his soul.