required, it must recruit membership of that race to supply the contractor's needs. This is a specific instance of the Federal Government interfering in the contract rights of unions and employers.

By threat of contract cancellation and blacklisting, contractors could be forced to actively recruit employees of a specified race and upgrade them into skilled classifications, although this would displace union members in the skilled trades. Where skilled tradesmen of the specified race were not available from union sources, the agency could direct that they be recruited from nonunion sources, notwithstanding existing union shop or exclusive referral agreements.

INDIVIDUALS AT WORK

Union members are not the only working people affected by this bill. All em‣ ployees of private industry and apparently those under Federal civil service will be affected. Assume that a nonunion individual is employed by a corporation which has more than 25 people on its payroll (title VII), or is employed by a smaller corporation which has an SBA, FHA, or other federally supported loan or contract (title VI, sec. 711(b)). Assume that his firm, in his job classification, historically has employed people only of his particular race, whatever that race may be. Assume that a demand is made that his firm abide by a Federal regulation requiring racial balance in his department. To comply-unless unneeded employees are to be hired-somebody has to go. Who?

Assume two women of separate races apply to that firm for the position of stenographer'; further assume that the employer, for some indefinable reason, prefers one above the other, whether because of personality, superior alertness, intelligence, work history, or general neatness. Assume the employer has learned good things about the character of one and derogatory things about the character of the other which are not subject to proof. If his firm is not “racially balanced," under such regulation he has no choice, he must employ the person of that race which, by ratio, is next up, even though he is certain in his own mind that the woman he is not allowed to employ would be a superior employee. That such mandatory provisions of law approach the ludicrous should be apparent. That this is, in fact, a not too subtle system of racism in reverse cannot be successfully denied.

HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND THEATERS

Places of public accommodation do not cater by custom to one race in preference to another solely from proprietary preference. People are in business to make money and in certain areas they have learned, or have reason to believe, it is more profitable to serve only one race or another. In other areas, proprietors have learned it is more profitable to serve all races, indiscriminately. A host follows the customs of his community else he suffers economically.

To force him to abandon his practice, to run counter to prevailing opinion, is to injure his business and his property. He does not, and he cannot, set custom. He follows it or suffers.

Under the provisions of this bill, the proprietor's right to decide whom he will or will not serve, as that decision pertains to race, color, religion, or national origin, is stripped from him (title II). Moreover, if a customer proves objec tionable, the owner can have him removed from his premises only at peril of being in violation of the race laws. For, under this act, the proprietor, if challenged, must prove he did not remove the objectionable customer because of his race, but because of some other reason. This is a perversion of the basic principles of our law.

But a proprietor's trials as they pertain to customers are only the beginning of problems which will be engendered if this bill becomes effective. His problems with employment of personnel may well go far beyond anything heretofore confronting the businessman.

How can a restaurant operate successfully if its owner is not given freedom of choice in the selection of waiters, chefs, and cashiers? Although a restaurant serves, and advertises as its specialty, genuine southern dishes, under this bill the owner could not hire only Negro chefs if covered by sections 601, 602, or title VII. (See Labor Standard, p. 12.) He could not, even though the success of his business depended on such chefs; even though his patronage was built upon the belief the food was being prepared by Negro chefs whose culinary art with southern specialties is world renowned. He could be forced instead to hire in a "racially balanced" manner-so long as the potential employee had a

modicum of skill-else be in violation of law. And the modicum of skill, it need not be added, is insufficient to attract clientele to a restaurant whose reputation is built upon the culinary art of southern Negro chefs.

THE PRESS

Race, as the first criterion of employment for newspapers, periodicals, radio, and television, applies under this bill, as well as for other elements of our commerce. If a job applicant can write and there is an opening and if he is of the race called for to balance the makeup of the staff, that person must be employed in preference to someone of another race.

What such employment practices would do to the character of the newspaper or program is immediately apparent to those who earn their living in the world of mass media. Yet, that is the sense of this bill. The bill grants the power to make it mandatory that the staff of a newspaper be thoroughly integrated, racially and religiously, else the owners are in violation of Federal law.

If the owners of a television station prefer an announcer of a certain race to enunciate its commercials, it is denied that choice. Announcers, as well as commentators, actors, and supporting staff, must be racially balanced, despite the fact the use of members of a certain race may, demonstrably, cause diminished sales to both station and sponsor.

Even so, this destruction of the right of free choice, serious as it is, is not the most fearsome feature of this bill as it applies to the press.

Title II, section 203, says: "No person shall * * * incite or aid or abet any person to do any of the foregoing." i.e., deny or attempt to deny any person any right or privilege described in the title.

Read that language as you will, if this becomes the law it means that no editor could, with impunity, editorialize in opposition to its provisions.

If a citizen takes a position in direct opposition to some provision of this title and a newspaper writes an editorial in support of that position. indeed, urges others to take similar stands, is that newspaper inciting, or aiding, or abetting? It would seem so (sec. 203 (a) (e) ).

The fact of the matter is this: If a person stands in a public square or before a civic club and advocates that segregation is best for either race and urges that it be maintained-and his stand is editorially supported by a newspaper-both would be in violation of Federal law and both would be subject to fine and imprisonment (secs. 202, 203(a)(e)), if they continue to exercise freedom of speech and of the press. Under such a circumstance, what becomes of the right of free speech? Or freedom of the press? Of course, this violates all constitutional concepts.

TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS-PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

The proposed legislation ultimately would result in total Federal control of the education processes in the United States.

Under provisions of this bill, the President and his appointees in Federal agencies would have the right to dictate pupil assignments in local schools and to approve the faculties (secs. 601, 602, 711(b), title IV). The alternative would be the loss of all Federal aid (sec. 602). The child who is given lunch through Federal grant must also study under a federally approved faculty. This applies to every school, public or private, benefiting from programs involving Federal aid.

The power contained in this bill to cut off Federal funds is not merely a negative power. Those who have already accepted Federal funds can be compelled, in various instances, by foreclosure, injunction, and blacklisting, to meet the current Federal standards (secs. 601, 602, Executive Order 11063).

The bill gives the Attorney General the power to institute school integration suits, not only against individuals but against States and local governments as well (sec. 407). This action gives to one man a power which has never before existed; previously the Attorney General could only intervene in private suits. This new power, needless to add, can affect the rights of local school boards where no parents or pupils have filed any suits. Under this power the defendants could be deprived of the right of trial by jury. In any contempt actions arising out of U.S. suits, local school officials would be tried by the very judge whose order was allegedly disobeyed.

VETERANS' BENEFITS AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Title VI amends every act authorizing veterans' benefits, veterans and civil service pensions, health and welfare programs, unemployment compensation, and social security benefits so as to subject them to the controls and sanctions provided in the bill such as "the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program" (sec. 602).

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the Committee on Rules that there are many of us who strongly believe that some reported conditions in some of our States in the field of race relations are properly subject to correction. I certainly believe that in this land of ours that every citizen should have the basic constitutional rights, to which his American citizenship entitles him, protected and promoted. This feeling, I am sure, is shared by most of our citizens, regardless of their place of residence.

In my own case it has been a privilege for me to have participated in programs and efforts on the local level which contributed to better race relations and opportunities for our Negro friends. I would hope that in the future we will see a growing willingness on the part of people of all races to meet our problems in a spirit of cooperation and friendliness. In my judgment, however, the legislation before us would breed further discontent and friction, rather than to eliminate it.

Under our system of representative democracy it is inherent that the majority prevails. If we placed bad law upon the statute books of our Nation, it seems to necessarily follow that in the final analysis the victims will be the minority, and not the majority, because the majority will have the power to overcome in our representative democracy the adverse effects of such laws. It will not be to the best interest of any of us-particularly minority groups-to take new departures which have as their ultimate effect the destruction of civil rights of the people. Believing as I do, that considered contextually, the provisions of H.R. 7152 would destroy more rights than it protects, I appear here today to urge that this committee decline to grant a rule which would bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to have appeared before you.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point we will also make a part of the record the statements of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dawson, and of the gentleman from California, Mr. Roosevelt.

(The statements follow:)

REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM L. DAWSON, OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee, I appear before you today to urge that a rule be granted on the civil rights bill (H.R. 7152) so that the House can consider and vote on it as soon as possible. It is my deep conviction that the prompt enactment of this bill will be a milestone in guaranteeing to all citizens of this great Nation the rights to which they are entitled under our Constitution.

I do not intend, in my statement today, to concentrate on the legal and technical aspects of the various sections of the civil rights bill. Their legal foundations have been well documented by the Attorney General, and by other eminently qualified legal authorities, in the lengthy hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

in

Mr. Chairman, many years ago George Bernard Shaw, the English writer, said that America "makes the Negro clean its boots and then proves the feriority of the Negro by the fact that he is a bootblack."

In the past few years, our country has made considerable progress toward fulfilling its constitutional promises to the Negro American. But 101 years have passed since the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and we have not come far enough. The treatment of the Negro is still America's greatest and most conspicuous scandal. It negates the basic principles of equality and liberty which form the moral fiber of our country's existence.

This Nation cannot afford to remain on the sidelines while the legal rights of any of its citizens are being violated, frustrated, and deferred. The Federal Government must provide the machinery-and it must do it now-for making equal protection a reality for all.

Some steps toward fulfillment of this obligation were taken when Congress enacted the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960. But these laws, primarily aimed at guaranteeing and enforcing voting rights, have not been enough:

At this very time, Negroes are either totally or almost totally denied the right to register and vote in hundreds of counties, towns, and communities.

Every day thousands upon thousands of well behaved and respectable citizens are denied access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and other places of public accommodation, solely because of their race.

Hundreds of thousands of Negro children and other students are still unable to enjoy their constitutional right to be free from discrimination in obtaining public education.

Negroes and other minorities are still discriminated against in many programs and activities which are supported by Federal money.

In every part of our country, countless numbers of Negro, Oriental, Mexican, and other workers, both skilled and unskilled, are still subjected to grievous discrimination in obtaining adequate jobs and earning the income they both need and deserve.

Law-abiding colored citizens are being subjected to violence and indignities simply because they ask for the elemental decencies and accommodations generally available to all other people in this country.

Although they are denied the privileges of citizenship, they are called on to pay taxes, serve on hazardous military duty, and perform all the other obligations of citizenship. It is time for more equality in the sharing of the burdens and benefits of citizenship.

These problems are not sectional-they are national. Their imapet on the Nation is heavy and severe. They cannot be solved solely by voluntary groups and individuals, nor can they be left to the cumbersome and divisive procedures of lawsuits.

It is the duty of Government to deal with these problems, and to do so now. It is the duty of Congress to provide the leadership and to set the moral tone and national policy.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an American; I am proud to be a Negro; and I am proud to be a Member of the Congress of the United States. I submit to you that, in addition to providing the constitutional guarantees and protections of equality and justice for all citizens, this legislation will immeasurably heighten America's image in the eyes of the free and uncommitted nations of the world. It will also strike a severe blow at the propaganda machines of the totalitarian countries, which are eager to distort to their advantage all reports of deprivations and violations of individual rights that occur in these United States.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, now our President, bespoke my thoughts and devout beliefs when he said in Gettysburg last Memorial Day:

"Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with the color of men's skins, emancipation will be a procla mation but not a fact."

Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the Nation's treatment of its Negro people is not only America's greatest failure but its great opportunity for the future. Enactment of this bill can demonstrate, to ourselves and to the world, that justice and equality under law is possible for all citizens, whether they be white, black, or brown. I therefore urge that your committee send it promptly to the floor of the House so that it can be voted upon by all of the Representatives of the American people.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JAMES ROOSEVELT

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as a cosponsor of the civil rights bill now before you, I am grateful to the committee for this opportunity to add a few words of support for this most urgent and important legislation.

To me the primary motivation for the bill and the supporting basic reasons why I deeply believe it should be speedily passed, are contained in the opening sentence of the act, which reads: "Discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin is incompatible with the concepts of liberty and equality to which the Government of the United States is dedicated."

This, I submit, is the heart of the matter: complete, concise, and irrefutable. That we are a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" is historically factual. That such dedication

has been perpetuated by the teachings in our homes, schools, and churches, is also true. It cannot be logically argued that arbitrary discrimination by reason of race or religion does not constitute the complete negation—the subversion, if you will of that high purpose; for he who is disfranchised is not free, he who is not fairly employed, or who may not eat in a public restaurant is not equal, and he who is denied identical educational opportunity can never attain full equality.

Full U.S. citizenship is a two-way street: it confers privileges and it entails obligations. He who accepts the one and rejects the other, is an irresponsible cheat. He who is denied the one and deliberately burdened with the other is the victim of a brigand and a cheat. Neither is a full citizen.

In the first case, the individual is remiss; in the second case, the Government is remiss--and most greviously so. For how can we possibly justify the ordering into military service of a citizen who is not allowed to vote, or the collection of his full share of taxes from a citizen whose children are not allowed to go to a public school or swim in a public pool? The existence of such conditions truly puts all Americans to shame. Such conditions must be eradicated immediately. We cannot equivocate, we cannot procrastinate, we must meet and eliminate the problem directly. We cannot be deficient.

We must restore meaning to our words and phrases. A "public facility" must be open to the public, not just to white Protestants, preferably of Anglo-Saxon stock. "Equality of opportunity" must mean that each man is judged upon his merits and not upon irrelevant factors of skin color, country of birth, or religion. Each individual must be judged upon his distinct and unique qualifications and granted the opportunities he personally, or as a citizen, merits.

Much has been made of the right of the individual to run a public place on his or her own terms. This ignores the fact that when you choose-for you are never forced-to run a public place, you assume certain obligations to the public. This has long been recognized for all kinds of businesses in many and varying areas of public responsibility. There is no novelty to such proposals. This is an area where that public responsibility must be fully recognized and enforced, even at this late date.

Only in this way, in this free confession of and atonement for previous error, can we make some amends for the great wrongs which we have all countenanced. Only in this way can we stand with clean hands before the world, before our fellow citizens, and-perhaps, most importantly-before ourselves.

I urge, without reservation, the speedy passage of the civil rights proposals which President Kennedy proposed and President Johnson requests.

Mr. Chairman, my remarks thus far have been confined to demonstrating my firm belief in the necessity for immediate enactment of effective civil rights legislation in general. May I now direct your attention to a more specific provision in this area which is of particular concern to me.

On June 19, President Kennedy delivered an address to the Congress encompassing the administration's civil rights proposals for 1963. In part III of that message the President turned to the problem of "fair and full employment." The President described how unemployment falls with special cruelty on minority groups and how it tends to create an atmosphere of frustration, resentment, and unrest which does not bode well for the future. He further related the direct relationship of this problem to delinquency, vandalism, gang warfare, disease, slums, and the high cost of public welfare and crime. One most persuasive point which President Kennedy made with respect to the importance of fair employment was its major role in determining whether the other civil rights measures which he was recommending would be meaningful, There is little practical value in securing the right to frequent public accommodations for the individual who has no cash in his pocket and no job.

Having described the problem of unemployment and its impact upon minority groups, the President stated emphatically; "Finally, racial discrimination in employment must be eliminated."

This problem was covered by the bill I introduced, H.R. 405, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. This bill has been reported from the Committee on Education and Labor with substantial bipartisan support. Five of the twelve Republican members of the committee urge passage of H.R. 405 without delay, describing it as a fair and effective bill. Two additional Republican members support this legislation in principle, but advocated a modified enforcement procedure which is now incorporated in the bill before you.