Mr. CLARK. The Senator makes a powerful argument.

Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania told us that the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the gross national product of America would be increased by $13 billion if Negroes could utilize the skills they now have.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. ERVIN. Can the Senator tell us to what extent the Council estimated the gross national product would be increased if the 3,600,000 whites who are out of employment were permitted to use the skills they now possess?

Mr. CLARK. I do not know if the Council had that figure in its memorandum, but my general recollection is-and I believe I am correct-that if we were able to put all idle hands on all idle machines, the gross national product would be increased by about $30 billion. That would be under conditions of full employment.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator believe that the President's Council of Economic Advisers ought to have enough concern for the 3,600,000 whites who are out of employment, to ascertain by what figure the gross national product would be increased if they were able to use their skills?

Mr. CLARK. I can assure the Senator from my personal knowledge that the Council of Economic Advisers has a very deep and abiding concern in that connection. I can endeavor to persuade the Council to provide the figure the Senator wants. If he insists on it, I shall be very glad to get it for him. I did not know that this kind of inquiry would be pursued.

The basic fact is that there is absolutely untenable unemployment in this country, which affects whites as well as Negroes. It is a great shame that we have not been able to devise ways, in our free economy, with the aid of the Government, to eliminate unemployment. Unfortunately, we have not. The Council of Economic Advisers is made up of a group of brilliant men, who are doing a fine job under great difficulties. If the Senator would like the figure to which he referred, I shall be glad to get it.

Mr. ERVIN. It gives me some misgivings to see that those who assist the proponents of the bill by supplying them with information to justify the passage of the bill manifest no concern about getting figures which show that most unemployment is due to conditions other than the alleged discrimination. If they had done what they ought to have done, they would have advised the Congress how much the gross national product would be increased if those 3,600,000 white persons were employed.

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will permit an observation, while not admitting the validity of the Senator's charge, my experience has been that there has been a conspicuous lack of interest on the part of opponents of the bill in facts which would be favorable to the passage of the bill.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not agree. It is my conviction that the best way to increase employment is to allow the free enterprise system to work rather than to have the Government come in and take control of private employment. The employer should have the right without Government interference, to select the persons he thinks he should hire, the persons he thinks he should promote, and the persons he thinks he should lay off in times of economic adversity. I think this bill, instead of making more jobs, is going to result in decreasing jobs.

Mr. CLARK. The only things that stand in the way of the validity of the Senatory's conteniton are the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the conscience of the American people.

Mr. ERVIN. The 14th amendment does not stand in the way. The fifth amendment provides that the Federal Government shall not deprive any man of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet it is being proposed that the Government shall dictate how an employer shall use his own property whom he shall hire, and who shall be allowed to work for him to protect the investment which he made with his own money, and not with the money of the Government. Mr. CLARK. The Senator has long been an eloquent advocate of the days which have gone.

Mr. ERVIN. I admit to the Senator from Pennsylvania that this country is now in a better state than it will be if this bill is passed. That is true because the bill will rob all American citizens of some of their most basic, economic, legal, personal, and property rights.

I believe in liberty. Liberty is the greatest value of civilization.

The men who drafted the Constitution-which some now say is outwornagreed with me. When they inserted in the preamble to the Constitution the reason why they created the United States of America and wrote the Constitu

tion. They said it was to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

This bill, if enacted into law, would rob the people of the right to determine the use of their own property, the right to determine who shall be their customers, and the right to determine whom they wish to hire, whom they should discharge, whom they should promote, whom they can lay off in time of adversity, and what the just wages shall be as between one man and another. I will agree that if this bill were passed, that the America I have known and loved, the America that believes in liberty rather than Government by regimentation, would be supplanted by a police state.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina permit a question?

Mr. ERVIN. Certainly.

Mr. CLARK. I wonder whether the Senator's zeal in defense of liberty is not confined to liberty for the white man and no liberty for the Negro.

Mr. ERVIN. No. My zeal for liberty is for all men to enjoy. Every man should have liberty; but if this bill should pass we would not only rob whites of liberty, but we would rob nonwhites of liberty to an equal extent.

Mr. CLARK. Does the Senator not believe that a man should be entitled to a job on the basis of his own qualifications, and not because of race, color, sex or national origin?

Mr. ERVIN. I believe a man is entitled to a job if he satisfies an employer from whom he seeks employment that he is the one who can best perform the services which the employer wishes to have performed.

I believe that the man who has invested his money in a business, and who seeks to be successful in that business, is the best man to determine who possesses the skills which he needs for his business. This bill would take that power away from him and give it to some Government agent who could come in and tell him whom he must hire to operate some intricate piece of machinery, when the Government agent might not know the top from the bottom of the machinery.

Mr. CLARK. Does the Senator believe that in the modern world, in the light of the agitation which has gone on for some years for equal justice under the law for our Negro citizens, it is the right of an employer to deny a job to a man solely because of his race or color?

Mr. ERVIN. I say that a man should be permitted

Mr. CLARK. How about answering my question?

Mr. ERVIN. I do not believe the unemployment figures indicate that to be true. They indicate that 3,600,000 whites are out of employment, as contrasted with 865,000 nonwhites.

Mr. CLARK. I commend to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina a careful perusal of the equal employment opportunities hearings held before the subcommittee, of which I am chairman.

Mr. ERVIN. It was the kind of hearing an old justice of the peace down in North Carolina would have loved to preside over. He was presiding over a civil case. When the plaintiff had finished his evidence, the justice of the peace looked at defendant's counsel and said. "I hope you will not offer any evidence. When I hear the evidence on both sides of a case I become confused. When I hear only one side I have no trouble reaching a judgment.”

The Senator's subcommittee already had its mind made up; no witnesses appeared before it except those whose views harmonized with those of the subcommittee. A consequence, the committee could reach only one conclusion under those circumstances.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator will recall that long before the justice of the peace in North Carolina took that position, King James I of England did. I believe that as a magistrate in the days of the Stuarts he refused to hear defendants, for the same reason the magistrate down South did. I am sure the Senator would not accuse me, as chairman of the subcommittee, of refusing to hear anyone who wished to come before the subcommittee and make the eloquent but unsound argument which the Senator has just advanced on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. ERVIN. I was not accusing the Senator of anything.

Mr. CLARK. I am glad to hear it.

Mr. ERVIN. I was merely stating that the North Carolina justice of the peace wanted to hear only one side of the case. He would have been delighted by the proceedings before the subcommittee, which heard only one side of the case.

Mr. CLARK. If I had been content to hear only one side of the case, I would have yielded the floor about an hour ago.

Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator for listening to another side of the case. I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned the fact that Pennsylvania has had an FEPC law for some time. When was that law enacted?

Mr. CLARK. I am ashamed to say that I do not know--and I should. I will undertake to get that information for the Senator in the near future.

Mr. ERVIN. Has it been in existence for a considerable period of time? Mr. CLARK. The parent ordinance was the Philadelphia fair employment practices ordinance which was adopted during the time of my predecessor as mayor. That must have been shortly after World War II.

My staff assistants tell that the FEPC State act was enacted in 1955.

Mr. ERVIN. I take it that under that act, all the problems in this field have been resolved and settled in the State of Pennsylvania?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly not.

Mr. ERVIN. I was wondering, because

Mr. CLARK. I went into that question at some length with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Ellender] a few moments ago.

Mr. ERVIN. I am not attempting to cast any aspersions on the State of Pennsylvania, but I have a distinct recollection that during the past months I saw a great many events on television which allegedly came from the city of Philadelphia. They were concerned with employment in connection with the construction of public schools. They indicated there was great protest arising out of discrimination in Phialdelphia with respect to hiring Negroes to work on public buildings.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is quite correct. There are employment conditions in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania which I deeply deplore. There has been racial agitation within the past couple of years which, in my judgment, is most unfortunate, and has brought tension not only to Philadelphia, but also to surrounding territories such as the community of Folcroft, in Delaware County, where a disgraceful near-lynching took place. I would be the first to admit that Pennsylvania needs this law, too.

Mr. ERVIN. It seems to me that if Pennsylvania has an FEPC law, and the FEPC law has not worked, the Senator would be reluctant to impose one on a national basis.

Mr. CLARK. No. I say most candidly to the Senator from North Carolina that in my opinion-and I have tried to become informed on this subject-the condition would be far worse throughout Pennsylvania in general today, and in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in particular, if it were not for the fair employment practice ordinances and laws which have helped significantly. It is the unanimous opinion of those charged with enforcing such laws, that it would be helpful to them to be supported by a Federal Government provision.

Mr. ERVIN. I would be reluctant to take the doctor's medicine when the doctor's medicine had not cured other people suffering from the same ailment I had. I would have doubts about it efficacy.

Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I believe the Senator from Louisiana and I went into that question earlier. I shall adhere to the answers I gave to him in response to the almost identical question of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield? Mr. ERVIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. Since we are talking about the State of Pennsylvania, I have obtained from one of the assistants of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clark] some unemployment figures showing the percentage of civilian labor force by color in various States during April of 1960. In Pennsylvania the unemployment of nonwhites was 11.3 percent.

Mr. CLARK. It is worse today.

Mr. ELLENDER. It is worse today, and the FEPC law is in effect in Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ELLENDER. No State in the South has as high a percentage as 11.3 at the moment.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct. Of course, Pennsylvania is an industrial State, which has suffered very much from the departure of the textile industry, the drying up of the coal industry, and the conversion of the railroads from coal-fired engines to diesel engines. There are areas of chronic and persistent

unemployment which are in serious need. With the exception of West Virginia and Kentucky, Pennsylvania probably is the third State in the country suffering from massive unemployment, white as well as Negro-but Negro substantially more than white.

Mr. ELLENDER. Take the case of Michigan. The total for that State, for unemployment is 6.9: White, 6 percent; nonwhite 16.3 percent. There is an FEPC law in that State. If the Senator will permit me to do so, I should like to place this table in the Record at this point.

Mr. CLARK. I am happy to have the Senator do so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Unemployment as percent of civilian labor force, by color, by States, 1960—April

2 States with effective fair employment practice commission laws in 1960, as classified by the U.S. Department of Labor.

3 States with fair employment practice commission laws.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960 Census of Population, PC(1)(C) series, table 53, 83.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, does the Senator from Pennsylvania know when New York adopted its so-called FEPC law?

Mr. CLARK. In 1940.

Mr. ERVIN. So it has had an experience of about 23 years with it.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. ERVIN, Does not the Senator recall seeing on TV, within the past 10 or 11 months, some demonstrations in New York, in which Negroes chained themselves together and lay down in the streets in protest against their unemployment in New York?

Mr. CLARK. I did not see it on television, but I saw pictures of it in the newspaper.

Mr. ERVIN. Therefore, the FEPC law, although it has been in effect in New York State for almost a quarter of a century, has not cured the situation there in respect to these matters, has it?

Mr. CLARK. All I can say is that I know where the Senator is going. Without any intention to be rude—and I wish to be as patient as I can-I believe that the basis of the Senator's argument is entirely unsound. Having disagreed with his premise, I could not possibly agree with his conclusion.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not understand why the Senator says that my position is unsound. The law advocated to cure these ills has been in effect for approximately a quarter of a century in New York. Demonstrations are still being held

there because of unemployment of Negroes. The demonstrations almost reach the point of riots. I believe there is soundness in my position.

Mr. CLARK. The fallacy of the Senator's argument in reference to New York and Pennsylvania is not that the FEPC law is a cure-all. Far from it. I have no doubt that discrimination will continue throughout the remainder of this century. Without regard to whether a law is enacted or not. We say that such a law helps. It helped in New York. It has helped in Pennsylvania. It is helping now. If the State of North Carolina had such a law, the State would be a great deal better off.

Mr. ERVIN. No; it would not. I say that because we have much better conditions so far as employment is concerned. I have seen no demonstrations of this character in North Carolina. I have read of none. I have not heard of any demonstration of the kind that Philadelphia and New York have had.

I was struck by the Senator's reference of the States of the old Confederacy. I believe the Senator said, in effect, that the bill was being passed largely in order to have it applied to the Southern States, the States of the old Confederacy. Mr. CLARK. I am sorry, but I did not hear the Senator's question.

Mr. ERVIN. I understood the Senator to say, or at least to intimate, that one of the major purposes behind the demand for the passage of the bill is to make it apply to the South rather than to other areas of the country. Mr. CLARK. No; I do not agree to that statement.

Mr. ERVIN. I am glad to hear the Senator say that. I had quit a colloquy with the Senators from New York, who, it developed. did not agree with the racial imbalance school theory. They wanted to abolish segregation in the South, but wished to have de facto segregation in New York. I am glad the Senator does not take that position.

Mr. CLARK. We need the law to help in Pennsylvania.

Mr. ERVIN. What does the Senator think of the action of the House in striking out the racial imbalance school theory?

Mr. CLARK. I am not familiar with what the Senator is speaking about.

Mr. ERVIN. Has Pennsylvania had any experience with the transportation of children from neighborhood schools across town to other areas for the purpose of obtaining what is called a racial balance?

Mr. CLARK. Does thhe Senator refer to the transportation by bus of children? Mr. ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. I do not know. That is a highly controversial subject in my State. Personally I believe the part of wisdom is not to do it. I believe it would be wiser to attempt judiciously to redraw school district boundaries, without gerrymandering, so that there would be a number of Negroes as well as whites within each district. In Philadelphia the boundaries are being redrawn in 38 school districts.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the majority leader would like to have us suspend for a quorum call in connection with the MacArthur ceremonies. I hope the Senator will be rested and refreshed when we return.

Mr. CLARK. I will yield the floor so that the Senator from New Jersey may, in due course, obtain the floor to make his speech. I shall be happy to be present when he makes that speech. If the Senator from North Carolina then wishes to engage in any more marathon debate, I shall be available.

Mr. ERVIN. I have one more thought on this point. The Senator from Pennsylvania gave an estimate of what the Department of Justice expects with reference to how many additional employees would be required to enforce title VII. I do not recall what figure the Senator gave. Was it 130?

Mr. CLARK. It is 190, if sex is included; 150 without sex.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator not fear that that prophecy will be like the prophecy about the National Labor Relations Board? When it started it was expected that it would need 189 employees and an appropriation of only $659,000. Last year they had 2,056 employees and an appropriation of $21 million.

Mr. CLARK. I have no such fear. I have confidence in the estimates of the Department of Justice.

Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CLARK. I yield the floor.

Mr. Case obtained the floor.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] without losing my right to the floor, and without having it counted as a second speech when I resume, waiving the rule of germaneness, and anything else that is reqiured.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.