have been boycotted because some national firms have seen fit to support what they considered to be the democratic practices in some agencies serving the South. Equally disturbing to the tranquillity and peace of many communities have been the burning of crosses and other implements of intimidation which have terrorizing in nature, and emphasizes the lack of respect for law and order. The Congress of the United States has a responsibility for enacting legislation which will free the population to the extent that they can carry on their normal pursuits without fear of reprisals or intimidation. Such does not exist at present in many sections of the South and particularly in the massive resistance States. THE OBJECTIVE The National Association of Social Workers, in developing its goals of public social policy, stated: "The strength and character of the American Nation derive from its people who, coming from different parts of the world, bring with them varying religious beliefs, and endowed with varying physical characteristics, have been able to build a common democracy based on mutual respect and belief in equality of opportunity. Acceptance of differences among individuals—whether a religious belief, political opinion, appearance, or background-is basic to social progress and freedom." "The democratic ideal must be achieved in the minds of freedom, and, therefore, is dependent upon a wide range of measures to broaden the opportunities and advance the welfare of all people, Government at all levels has positive obligation to assure the right to safety and the security of his person, the right to citizenship and its privileges, the right to freedom of conscience and expression, and the right to equality of opportunity." CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSALS In preparing this testimony the Federal bills which have been presented were analyzed with regard to their conformity, or lack of it, with our goals of public social policy. These bills are the Douglas-Javits-Celler bill, S. 810, the administraition bills, S. 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, and 942, and the Johnson bill, S. 499. In reviewing this legislation it appears that the Douglas-Javits-Celler bill carries most of the provisions which are consistent with our aims and, therefore, it is a very important measure to come before the Congress. The first recommendation in the association's platform is on the matter of school integration. This statement strongly holds that the interpretation of the American Constitution should be translated into law and practiced throughout the country with all deliberate speed. This concern is noted in title I of the Douglas bill and we support this concept unreservedly. In like vein, we are supportive of titles II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII. The equal treatment and protection of the law is emphasized further in our document by the following provision: "All persons who are otherwise qualified should have the right to vote, hold office, to serve on juries, and to receive both the equal protection of the law and a fair trial according to the democratic practices of jurisprudence if accused of a crime. Where State and local machinery fail to protect the constitutional rights of any person, or State or local governments use their tax funds to contraverse constitutional rights, the Federal Government should take steps to correct these abuses." Our association believes that to provide a systematic and critical review of social needs and public policy, and the continuous appraisal of the status of civil rights, a permanent Federal Commission on Civil Rights with powers of subpena should be established. It is, therefore, our considered judgement that a permanent Civil Rights Commission should be strongly considered, rather than one which has a terminal date of January 1961, as recommended in the Johnson bill, or September 1961, as recommended in the administration bill. This is deemed necessary because the Civil Rights Commission has not had an opportunity to do the job needed since being authorized by Congress. As limited as its activities have been to date, it is capable of much greater service to the cause of human rights if it is made a permanent Commission. This logic seems sound because at the present time there is no crystal ball which suggests that there will be no further need of such an activity by either September or December of 1961. We strongly urge also that consideration be given to the enactment of a Federal Fair Employment Practices Act. It is recognized that Federal regulations cover defense and other Federal contracts, and that many States and cities have fair employment practices laws. The right to employment should not be denied to any citizen on account of race, sex, or religion. Further, an individual seeking employment should have the opportunity to a job based on training, competency, and skill. The basis for this suggestion rests upon the knowledge that there is a tremendous waste in the productive potential of a large segment of the population because of discrimination and bigotry. There is the need for strong civil rights legislation. It can be aided in its acceptance by the use of strong educational efforts promoted by the Federal Government. Education of itself, however, is not enough, although it will help to reopen the channels of communication which are presently clogged with suspicion, mistrust, and hate. Finally, this country is at the crossroads where concern for freedom is being expressed all over the world. Alinements to our advantage with newly freed peoples who are Asiatic or African will depend upon the image of the United States which is noted in democratic practices to all its citizens. This can best be expressed in the passage of the most meaningful civil rights legislation. Mr. SLAYMAN. And a short letter and a statement from the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW. Senator ERVIN. That will be admitted in the record. (The letter from the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, with enclosed statement referred to, is as follows:) INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & Senator THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Chairman, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: We will appreciate it if you will receive and make part of the printed record the enclosed statement on the Douglas-Javits civil rights bill, a bill for an effective FEPC and certain administration civil rights bills with amendments. Sincerely yours, PAUL SIFTON, National Legislative Representative. STATEMENT ΤΟ THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DOUGLAS-JAVITS BILL, S. 810, PARTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S CIVIL RIGHTS BILL (INCLUDING S. 942, S. 960) WITH AMENDMENTS AND A BILL TO ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE FEPC (By Paul Sifton, National Legislative Representative, UAW) On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the UAW, in obedience to the letter and spirit of our union's constitution since its birth, pursuant to action by our last regular convention, and by direction of UAW President Walter P. Reuther, this statement is presented in support of the comprehensive, humane, realistic, and effective civil rights bill, S. 810, introduced by Senators Douglas, Javits, and other Senators, and by Representative Celler, and others in both parties in the House of Representatives. Without in any way lessening or qualifying our complete support of that bill, we also find value in certain provisions, such as authority to inspect voting records, of administration bills, including S. 942 and S. 960 in the fields set forth in the summary comparison of various civil rights bills published March 2, 1959, by the leadership conference on civil rights and, we assume, already a part of the record of this hearing. We subscribe to the conclusions reached in that comparison, its endorsement of the Douglas-Javits bill (S. 810), and its recommendations for amendments to administration bills, particularly to (1) give the proposed new statutory Commission on Contract Compliance power to hold hearings and issue subpena and, upon a finding that discrimination has continued, to direct any Government contracting agency to terminate a contract or to refrain from making a new contract with a violator, and (2) if the temporary Civil Rights Commission is to be continued, as proposed, to authorize the Commission to investigate all denials of civil rights because of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry. CHRONIC MASS UNEMPLOYMENT UNDERLINES NEED FOR FEDERAL FEPC Because chronic large-scale unemployment appears to be a continuing characteristic of our economy, tolerated by the Eisenhower administration as the assumed only alternative to assumed inflationary pressures of full employment, the need for early enactment of an effective Federal FEPC law to supplement successful State FEPC laws has been made more obvious, both in layoffs of minority group workers with low seniority and in rehirings and new hirings. Early enactment of an effective Federal FEPC law is an item in the recently adopted UAW program to put America back to work. We urge you to report out such a bill favorably at the same time you act upon S. 810. Any of the standard FEPC bills that have been introduced year after year, only to be killed by the threat of a Senate filibuster, have, of course, never been used, are as good as new and will do the job if made law and enforced in good faith. Any such FEPC bill should, of course, provide for Federal enforcement through the courts in those few instances in which information, education, mediation, and the issuance of findings and orders have proved ineffective. these steps may precede and reduce the need for court enforcement, but to substitute them for the ultimate power of court enforcement would be to make the law merely good advice, to be ignored or flouted at will. THE NEED DESCRIBED IN EARLIER HEARINGS EXISTS IN 1959 All We believe the statements we made in the hearings in earlier years regarding the need for civil rights legislation were valid then and are valid now. Your committee has already received, from other witnesses evidence that much progress has been made in all parts of the country, including some communities in the South, toward compliance with the Supreme Court's 1954 decisions that school segregation is unconstitutional and must be ended with all deliberate speed. Moreover, witnesses last year and this year have supplied proof that resistance to the Court's decisions has been encouraged by the failure of the President consistently to support and the Congress to implement those decisions on segregation in schools and other public facilities, including transportation. While we do not propose to duplicate such testimony, we must in good conscience put before you a summary of the civil rights situation as we see it in order to demonstrate the pressing need for action by your committee, by the whole Senate, and by the whole House so that meaningful civil rights legislation will be enacted before adjournment. THE PRESENT SITUATION-THE TRAGIC COST OF INACTION The outstanding feature of the civil rights picture is the effect of the Supreme Court's 1954 school integration decisions. These decisions are being complied with or defied in varying degrees in different parts of the country: Outside the South-compliance is general. In the upper South-slow, but enough to keep a glimmer of hope alive. In the Deep South-virtually not at all. Three factors have reinforced segregationist sentiment in the past 5 years: (1) President Eisenhower's refusal to go beyond the simple assertion that the law of the land must be enforced. He has never supported the Court decisions by saying that he, himself, agrees with those decisions; 1 (2) Neither President Eisenhower, except for the use of troops instead of U.S. marshals at Little Rock, nor the Congress has acted to answer the southern 1 "From May 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the old Plessy doctrine, until September 1957, when the chickens finally fluttered in to roost in Little Rock, the Eisenhower administration took no affirmative action to pave the way for the sweeping legal change the Court required or to temper the inevitable dislocations it would occasion. Indeed, the incredible fact is that the administration without preliminary, moved directly to the ultimate resort of armed force, and then was confounded by its own belated audacity * * *" (Harper's, June 1958, p. 14, Ashmore, Harry S.). manifesto of defiance issued by nearly all southern Senators and Representatives in both parties; (3) The action of the Senate in August 1957, striking from the civil rights bill authority for the Attorney General to obtain injunctions against violations of civil rights other than the right to vote, which now has this protection, at least in some degree. When in the summer of 1957 with the eager assistance of President Eisenhower, the Senate struck part 3 from the civil rights bill, Governor Faubus, of Arkansas, and others willing to use the segregation issue for political advancement were listening. The shame of Little Rock is not only Faubus' and the South's, it is also the shame of the President, of the 84th and 85th Congresses, and the American people who accepted frustration of majority will by the veto of the filibuster. We have in a very small and insufficient measure atoned for that shame, which, it is likely, has damaged our standing in the free world more than the Soviet success in launching the first sputnik. Ernest Green, the Negro boy who graduated from Little Rock High School last year, was able to receive his diploma and return to his seat without booing, or more violent incident. Of equal or greater significance, 14 classmates were proud to write in his class yearbook their respect and admiration for his courage during the school year that began so badly and ended so well. It may be that these 14 boys and girls are not only the hope of Little Rock and Arkansas and the South and the United States, but support man's hope that decency and civil rights and civilization may be saved. "If there be one just man in Nineveh, the city shall be saved." This battle for the minds and hearts of men goes on daily with gains and losses, set forward by court decisions here, set back by court decisions and other incidents there. We, who believe in the democratic process and stake our lives upon its superiority over other forms of government, believe that the fight must be advanced by sober, responsible words and actions to support the courts. Likewise, we believe that silence, double talk or delay give aid, comfort and encouragement to segregationists and their allies along the whole antidemocratic front. It is nearly always true that those who are anti-Negro are also antiSemitic, frequently anti-Catholic and mostly antilabor. Damaging as our civil rights shortcomings are to us at home, they are perhaps more damaging to America abroad, particularly among the two-thirds of the world's people who, being colored, listen to and watch our words and our deeds, and lack of deeds, in civil rights. 1958 CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVITY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS SLIGHT In the first year of life under the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice gave little evidence of aggressive investigation and enforcement of even the civil right to vote. As primaries were held in one Southern State after another where primaries are tantamount to election, various subterfuges and devices were again used to assist those who have organized to resist civil rights all along the line, including school integration, the right to vote, the right to unsegregated transportation and other public facilities. COMMITTEE ON CONTRACT COMPLIANCE NEEDS POWER TO ENFORCE In the employment field, efforts continue to wipe out discrimination in plants having Government contracts. This work is under the direction of the Committee on Contract Compliance set up by President Truman and continued by President Eisenhower. Although every Government contract carries a provision prohibiting discrimination in employment, the Committee has yet to obtain the first cancellation of a contract for violation of this provision. The preliminary steps of complaints, investigations, reports, findings, recommendations, and pleading by the Committee and by officials in the Federal Government's procurement agencies and the Department of Labor need at least some examples of enforcement up to and including cancellation of contracts. A few such cancellations would have wholesome educational and deterrent effects. The labor members of the Committee and their alternates have become more and more impatient. They are becoming more and more insistent upon some effective action that will give backbone, force and effect to the antidiscrimina tion clause in Government contracts and thereby justify the existence of the Committee. The strengthening amendment we have already proposed will meet this need, if enacted and applied in good faith. THE NEED FOR FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION CONTINUES The work of implementing civil rights in employment and other phases of community life is making substantial progress in many States and local communities. But progress continues to be greatest where injustice is least acute and is least where injustice is greatest. The need for additional civil rights legislation, including a permanent FEPC, continues. It is a bitter fact that, if the Congress had enacted an effective FEPC law immediately after President Franklin D. Roosevelt's wartime FEPC was killed by the Russell rider attached to an appropriation bill under threat of filibuster, adult workers could have pioneered in working out the adjustments of integration, doing so on the job, instead of leaving it to children, their parents, and the courts alone. It is a tragic fact that, with the single exception of the bobtailed Civil Rights Act of 1957, cut down under threat of filibuster, in the past 6 years neither the Congress nor the executive branch has taken the lead or even acted to implement the pioneering work of the courts, usually looked upon as the keel, rudder, and sea anchor of our system of government. Lacking sail or propeller, the courts, though unaided by the other two branches of Government, have managed to hold a steady forward course in the great currents of change that sweep the world. As has already been shown in earlier statements presented by others, attempts to obtain compliance with the Supreme Court's decisions on school integration urgently need the support that can best be given by the Congress, doing in 1959 what the House proposed to do in 1957 in part III, stricken in the Senate. HOW S. 810 WILL HELP TITLE BY TITLE SUMMARY S. 810 is a great improvement over part III of the 1957 bill in that it provides a step-by-step approach, offering Federal assistance in the necessary makeready stages. As others have set forth in detail in these hearings, this bill does three things: (1) It declares and accepts Federal legal and moral responsibility for implementing the constitutional requirements of desegregation; (2) It provides vitally needed technical and financial assistance and Federal leadership to States and local communities whose schools are still segregated; (3) It provides Federal legal assistance where private parties are unable to defend the constitutional rights of our schoolchildren and others to équal protection of the laws. Title I is a proclamation of Federal legal and moral responsibility for desegregation. Titles II, III, and IV set up machinery for Federal cooperation by Federal assistance and Federal planning to promote orderly compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate. Under title II, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to promote desegregation by the compilation and distribution of helpful information, including successful case histories of desegregation, by the arrangements of conferences to discuss ways and means of eliminating segregation, through the appointment of advisory councils, through the provision of specialists' services in local communities and generally by rendering technical assistance not easily available in a particular community. For these purposes, appropriations up to $2.5 million a year for 5 years are authorized. Title III would authorize the Secretary to make grants for school facilities in areas where the chief block preventing or hindering effective compliance is lack of adequate buildings or other physical equipment. It would also provide grants for employing additional teachers, inservice teacher training, employment of specialists in desegregation programs, short-term training courses and other educational measures needed to eliminate segregation without lowering existing educational standards. As other witnesses have emphasized, title III's most important immediate function may be to provide funds to local communities seeking to comply with the desegregation mandate but threatened with discontinuance of State funds. Section 301(b)(4) provides funds for “replacement of State payments to a school |