Whenever the Vice President of the United States and a majority of the Senators present on the first day of a new Senate are determined that we shall have a majority rule in this country, they can have it. There has been for a long time the acquiescence by the Senate in previous rules. In our judgment we have made a thorough legal study of this, and we are prepared to back it up on the law. In our judgment the rules of the present Senate do not bind the Senate that will take office on January 3, 1953. There is a myth around this Senate that it is a continuing body, but it is only a myth, because the Senate doesn't act on that basis. Everytime there is a new Senate, every bill is wiped off the calendar. Every time there is a new Senate, your executive part is completely new. Every treaty is wiped off the calendar. As a matter of fact, when you end this Senate, you know what you are going to do? You are going to adjourn sine die without any thought that this Senate will ever reconvene. So it is perfectly clear, Senator, that on January 3, 1953, a new body will take office.

Senator HUMPHREY. We also have to elect new officers of the Senate. Mr. RAUH. That is right. And if this will be recognized, there is a very simple way of ending the present undemocratic filibuster procedure. I would say that the day of the new Senate, a Senator-I think I have my own ideas as to who it ought to be-a Senator would arise and propose rules for the Senate of the Eighty-third Congress. Senator Russell, I take it, would rise and make a point of order, and his point of order would be that there are rules in effect, and the Senator who had previously proposed the rules would say, "There are no rules in effect. The fact of the matter is that each Senate under the Constitution has a right to write its own rules." It would then be a clear-cut matter for the Vice President to rule as to who was correct. In my judgment we have worked out a legal brief that would lead the Vice President to the view that he could rule only one way, namely, that this Senate has the right to adopt its own rules. Once that point is made, this Senate is the same as any other new body, any labor organization meeting, any organization to which you belong meeting. The first thing you do is to set your own rules, and that is determined, as it is in any other body, by majority vote. That is exactly what the House of Representatives does every 2 years, and there is in the history that we have found certain times when there have been efforts to filibuster the new rules of the House. That has been dealt with by the normal parliamentary procedures of not allowing dilatory tactics. We say to the Senate and we mean to go to the people with this, that there is a way out of rule 22, there is a way out January 3, 1953. What we are asking for is that this report contain this statement that there is a way out and a declaration that we are going to use that way out to get this legislation.

Senator HUMPHREY. Do you have a copy of your brief with you? Mr. RAUH. We have a lot of them, Senator.

Senator HUMPHREY. I was sure that you would have.

Mr. RAUH. Thank you very kindly.

Senator HUMPHREY. Is this the testimony before the Rules Committee?

Mr. SIFTON. That is a legal brief supporting our contention.
Mr. REUTHER. It is contained in the other document.

Mr. RAUH. If you incorporate that that will contain it all.

Senator HUMPHREY. We will incorporate into the files of this committee the document known as Rule 22, An Unconstitutional Roadblock to Democratic Legislation, prepared by the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Workers of America, CIO.

By the way, Mr. Rauh, that was one of the most convincing bits of evidence that was ever presented to a committee. I happen to have read the record of the Rules Committee because Senator Lehman, Senator Morse and I, as you know, were interested in two measures before that Rules Committee, and I thought it was the first new approach that we had, and a very convincing one. We will try to do something about it.

Is there anything else, Mr. Reuther?

Mr. REUTHER. I would just like to touch a little bit further on this whole question of the opposition to abolition of rule 22 and to get into the record just this: Except by possible agreements between southern Democrats and northern Republicans who share the fear of democracy expressed by Senators Jenner and Russell, the Wherry-Jenner-Dirksen change in rule 22 cannot get past a southern Democratic filibuster to come to a floor debate and vote assuming it is even called up before adjournment. The Jenner report, in our opinion, marks a new low in party irresponsibility and bipartisan willingness to gang up against democracy. I would like to quote from Senator Jenner's statement with respect to rule 22. I quote:

On issues that are vital to the liberties of the American people the Senate, functioning as a deliberate and unmolested body, will better serve the welfare of the people of the United States by shielding them from their own harmful intentions.

Shielding the people from their own harmful intentions. Is this democracy in action? It seems to me we have got to get this issue very clear before the American people. I do not believe the American people need to be shielded from their own harmful intentions. I think we have got to get this issue very clearly put before the American people and go back to some of the fundamental principles that are written into the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. In this world, with all its hysteria and issues that are beclouding the real fundamental questions that you talked about earlier when it comes down to these fundamentals then a smokescreen goes up. I say that the American people want democratic participation. They want majority rule. They don't want rule by minority here in the United States Congress.

We intend to go to both conventions in Chicago with delegations to ask specifically where the parties are going to stand, not just on fair-employment practice legislation, not just on antilynch, anti-polltax, but we are going to say, "All right, now, every one is for motherhood and justice, everyone is for fair play." You know these nice, broad fair terms. We are going to say, "Look, we are 21. We have seen this fight in the Senate. Don't give us anything saying that you are for fair play. What specifically are you going to do as delegates to the convention on rule 22? Are you going to write into that platform that we the Republicans and we the Democrats are pledged before the American people to establish"-yes, establish; we don't have it now-"establish majority rule in Congress?"

I say the American people will go for that, and we intend to stump this country to talk about some of the fundamental things that Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson and others talked about back in the days when we were establishing and laying the foundation of this country. We want also to ask, "What is the position of the presidential candidates, and what about this Vice President?" You know if some people wish to retire, if they don't want to go some place, they will be Vice President. This time it is going to be very important, especially with respect to this very fundamental road block in the way of democratic processes. We want to know what is going to be the stand of these parties. What is the stand of the Vice President? We say we are going to take this thing out of the Senate hearing rooms. We are going to take it out of the Senate, if you please, and take it to the people. We have confidence in the majority of the people, and we believe they are as solid behind majority rule today as they were when they founded our Constitution.

I would like to make this reference. The people would cry and cry that our proposal is unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically states the five exceptions where it takes two-thirds rule. I won't repeat them. You are familiar with them. If they intend to have cloture you would have to have two-thirds, they would have written that into the Constitution as they did with respect to impeachment and treaties, et cetera.

So I would like to close with this: We are appearing here and we are urging you, yes, by all means, get out a bill, recommend it favorably, but while you are making your report please emphasize and point out that if we are not to go through these exercises every year or 2 years and make them meaningless, then we have got to focus the spotlight on the real road block so the peopel understand it. This is vital. This is especially vital at this critical period in the fight for freedom and democracy because if people in this country and other places get leary, get disappointed about the democratic process, then they are the easy touch for the Fascist, the Communist, the totalitarians, and we will undermine the very democratic process that we cherish. I say to you, gentlemen, we will give support to any real effective FEPC bill you give, but you will be doing a real service to democracy, to majority rule and to the millions of people who are yearning for hope and help in this field if you will throw up these signals and say, don't just run up smoke screens and banners that give them hope and then have them dashed. We say this is another case where the great majority of the people have understood the meaning of the phrase, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Emphasize the real road block while you are pushing for this specific piece of legislation, and we will rally more people to the banner of justice and freedom and strengthen our battalions in the great fight for democracy.

I thank you.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Reuther, I think we can compare this filibuster technique and rule 22 of the Rules of the Senate to the poll tax on a national basis. What it does as far as I am concerned, elected from the State of Minnesota, is to deny me the right to vote on legislation. The mandate of the Constitution is to legislate. That is its whole mandate in the congressional article, article I of the Constitution. So what the filibuster amounts to, by rule 22, is a type of

iniquitous national poll tax on the Senate, simply saying, "You can't vote on the bills before this body."

I can tell you as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention that we will be at work on rule 22. You can put that down in your notebook right now.

Mr. REUTHER. Thank you very kindly.

Senator HUMPHREY. So anybody who thinks there is going to be any retreat, anybody who thinks that we are going to turn tail and start running, has read the wrong news stories and the wrong articles, because you are absolutely right and I am of the opinion no political party is going to win next November unless they are right. They may be cute, but that won't get them in. They are going to have to be right.

Mr. REUTHER. I think they won't win, either, unless they are firm on this very fundamental basic principle.

Senator HUMPHREY. Frankly, if they are not right they ought not to win, particularly in this period of human history. Thank you, Mr. Reuther and Mr. Oliver, Mr. Sifton, and Mr. Rauh.

Mr. Shishkin?

STATEMENT OF BORIS SHISHKIN, ECONOMIST, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. SHISHKIN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Boris Shishkin, and I appear here on behalf of the American Federation of Labor. I have a statement which I have handed to you and to the reporter and I would like to have that statement incorporated in the record at the beginning of my testimony if that is agreeable.

Senator HUMPHREY. It is so ordered. We will have the full statement printed in the record.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Thank you.

(The statement of Mr. Shishkin follows:)

STATEMENT ON FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE BILLS (S. 1732 AND S. 551), PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR BY BORIS SHISHKIN, ECONOMIST, A. F. OF L.

I appear before your committe today on behalf of the American Federation of Labor to state the complete support of our organization for prompt enactment of a Fair Employment Practice Act.

At its convention last September the American Federation of Labor unanimously reaffirmed its support of fair employment practice legislation. I should like to read that resolution at this time because it so amply demonstrates that the A. F. of L. is in this fight against discrimination in employment to the finish. The resolution reads:

"Whereas the principle of fair employment practice is sound and should be adhered to, and also is in harmony with the philosophy and program of the American Federation of Labor: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That the seventieth convention of the American Federation of Labor, assembled in San Francisco, Calif., September 1951, go on record as reaffirming its position taken on fair employment practice legislation in previous conventions, and herewith pledge to continue to support the fight for this legislation." In past years we have urged enactment of fair employment practice legislation on the fundamental grounds that discrimination in employment is contrary to all principles of fairness and equity. These considerations of basic justice are more important today than they have ever been before because our Nation must stand as the bulwark of freedom and democracy in the free world. Denial of equal justice to any group in our population directly weakens the fight against totalitarianism.

If adherence to democratic principles were not enough reason to require immediate enactment of fair employment practice legislation, the cold facts of the manpower situation that we face would dictate the need for such action. The fact is that our expanding mobilization program-and despite some newspaper reports it is expanding and will continue to expand for some time-will make it necessary for us to utilize the services of every available worker at the highest skill that he can achieve. It would be the height of folly for us to prevent any group from contributing its maximum service at this time.

I have been privileged to serve on a number of committees which have given me direct insight into the problems created by discrimination in employment. I was a member of the Fair Employment Practice Committee established by the President during World War II. As a member of that Committee, I know from first-hand experience the tremendous service which Negroes and members of other minority groups contributed to the Nation's effort in occupations and industries from which they had previously been barred. For the most part, even when these workers were hired most reluctantly by their employers, they were able to work throughout the war-often side by side with members of other racial groups-with a minimum of friction. Indeed, our experience during the war showed conclusively that policies of nondiscrimination in employment are not only necessary to achieve real justice in our society, but are entirely practicable. I also served as a member of the President's Committee on Civil Rights, which investigated the entire field of discrimination against minority groups including discrimination in employment. This committee unanimously recommended enactment of a Federal employment practice act prohibiting all forms of discrimination in private employment based on race, color, creed, or national origin. This recommendation was based on extensive studies and investigations which indicated the danger that, in the words of the Committee, "our wartime gains in the elimination of unfair employment practices will be lost unless prompt action is taken to preserve them."

At the present time, I am serving as an alternate member to President Green on the National Labor-Management Manpower Policy Committee. That committee is charged with the responsibility of developing policies to assure that a sufficient number of workers with the necessary skills are available to carry out the defense production program. The facts which have been presented to this Committe by the Director of Defense Mobilization and other top mobilization officials forecast the manpower shortages which will exist in many fields in the near future. In order to prevent such shortages which would seriously threaten the entire defense effort, we must take steps immediately to train and employ Negroes and members of other minority groups who are now being discriminated against in many areas and industries.

The fact is that because we have no Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment, we are seriously underutilizing a large available supply of workers. According to the latest report on unemployment of the Bureau of the Census, in March there was more than twice as much unemplyoment among nonwhite persons as among whites. In that month unemployment among whites was 2.6 percent, and among nonwhites 5.7 percent. Moreover, unemployment was particularly severe among nonwhite women. Their unemployment was 6.5 percent as compared with only 2.7 percent among white women. This is particularly important because the needs of the defense program will require special efforts to recruit women workers. The importance of drawing women into the labor force was demonstrated conclusively during World War II.

A recent survey of the National Urban League indicates the degree to which Negroes are discriminated against in defense employment. The Urban League's study shows that discriminatory practices are widespread in the North as well as in the South. New aircraft plants which have been opened up in the South almost completely exclude Negroe workers despite the fact that the percentage of Negroes in the labor force in these areas is very large. For example, the report indicated that in two plants in a Texas city only one Negro was employed out of 5,000 workers. In a large aircraft plant in Marietta, Ga., there were only 500 Negroes out of 10,000 workers, and all but one of the Negro employees were working as common laborers or material handlers. Discriminatory practices are also reported to have been widespread in the new atomic energy plants in Paducah, Ky., and the Savannah River area in South Carolina.

Discriminatory practices also exist in northern defense plants. In Columbus, Ohio, for example, none of the 40 plants with defense contracts employed Negroes in clerical or technical jobs. In fact, the survey found that firms with 6,000 employees in Columbus employed a total of 9 Negroes. Another example is Baltimore, where a similar situation exists.