accompany President Green when he appears before the committee and can elaborate on that statement.

Senator DONNELL. Very well, it will be received and entered into the record.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Randolph is as follows:)

The seriousness of existing discrimination in employment is indicated by the fact that the average weekly income of white veterans ranges from 30 to 78 percent above the average weekly income of Negro veterans in 26 American communities, 25 of them in the South.

This was pointed out today by Elmer W. Henderson, executive secretary of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC, in a letter to the President's Committee on Civil Rights. At the request of the committee he transmitted a comparison of incomes of white and Negro veterans by the American Federation of Labor's research and information department compiled from a veterans' housing survey made between July 1946 and January 1947 by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the National Housing Agency. "Washington, D. C., is sixth from the bottom of the list," Henderson stated. "In the Nation's Capital, white veterans' average weekly income was 66 percent above the average weekly income of Negro veterans. Eighty-four thousand white veterans surveyed in Washington, D. C., had an average income of $53 a week, while 36,000 Negro veterans covered by the survey had average incomes of only $32 a week.

"Twenty southern communities had smaller veterans' income differentials than Washington, D. C., the survey shows.

"In Birmingham, Ala., in the deep South, the survey showed 21,000 white veterans had an average income of $39 a week, while 9,000 Negroes had average incomes of $30 a week, a differential of 30 percent.

"In New Orleans, 36,000 white veterans had average incomes of $38 per week, while 14,000 Negro veterans had average incomes of $28, a differential of 36 percent.

"In Baltimore, 70,000 white veterans had average incomes of $43, while 20,000 Negro veterans had average incomes of $31 per week, a 39 percent differential.

"In Atlanta, 30,500 white veterans had weekly incomes of $36 and 9,500 Negro veterans had average incomes of $30 a week, a differential of 53 percent.

"In Memphis, 22,800 white veterans received an average of $46 a week, while Negro veterans received only $29, a differential of 59 percent.

"In Houston, 36,000 white veterans averaged $49 a week and 4,000 Negro veterans averaged $30, a differential of 63 percent.

"The five communities with the worst income differentials between white and Negro veterans were the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, Texas, the Jacksonville, Fla., area, Austin, Tex., Columbia, S. C., and, at the bottom of the list, with 78 percent, Jackson, Miss."

Henderson said that a considerable part of the disparity in income can fairly be assigned to outright discrimination in employment "because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry," which the Ives-Chavez bill, creating a National Commission Against Discrimination in Employment, would remedy.

"Were such a law now in effect," Henderson said, "the differentials revealed by this survey would be much slighter.

"These differentials should be shocking, not only to all wage earners but to businessmen seeking mass markets for the abundant production that is now in sight and, in some instances, already overhanging and depressing the market. Obviously, the Negro veteran in Jacksonville having an average income of $28 a week to spend cannot buy as much as the white veteran in the same town with an average income of $48."

"Nor is the Negro veteran in Washington, D. C., with an average income of $32, able to buy as much of American production as the white veteran in the same city who has an average weekly income of $53 per week.

"This compilation, prepared by the Research and Information Department of the American Federation of Labor from the Bureau of Census-BLS veterans' housing survey, furnishes additional proof, if proof were needed, that early enactment of the Ives-Chavez bill is needed, not only as an overdue act of social and economic justice but as an aid to postwar consumption, distribution, production, and employment."

Comparison of average weekly income of white and Negro veterans between July 1946 and January 1947 in cities reporting income by color

Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, veteran housing surveys made from July 1946 to January 1947 by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the National Housing Agency. Compiled by the research and information department, American Federation of Labor.

Mr. RANDOLPH. A considerable part of these income differentials, which may fairly be considered typical for all wage earners in the cities covered and indicative of the national pattern, is chargeable directly to discrimination in employment. Others factors are lack of educational opportunities, vocational training, and opportunities for employment experience, upgrading, and promotion. All these factors, however, largely stem from the basic evil of discrimination in employment which, back over the years, cut school attendance, Vocational training, and on-the-job work experience. In short, most of the income differential between whites and Negroes is due, directly and indirectly, to discrimination in employment.

If discrimination in employment against Negroes could be replaced by fair employment practices tomorrow, it would appear that a direct increase in income to Negroes would amount to at least four to five billion dollars a year, using the differential percentages already cited.

If discrimination in employment against Negroes and all other minority groups were replaced by fair employment, the national income and market might be increased by 8 to 10 billion dollars. I recognize that this estimate is not susceptible of statistical proof, but I believe it to be a reasonable and conservative estimate. In making it, I have, of course, made the assumption of a full-production, high-employment economy which is our national policy as ex

pressed in the Employment Act of 1946 and in the platforms of both major political parties.

This addition to the national income and markets for goods and services would not be at the expense of other wage earners but would benefit them by freeing them from the sweatshop competition of discriminatory wage rates based on race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Industry, business, and the whole national economy would benefit. From the date this bill becomes effective and to the degree it is effective, the old vicious circle of discrimination in employment will be replaced by a new beneficent circle of fair employment.

Let us now consider S. 984 in relation to our country's foreign policy and its role and standing in international relations. Section 2-C reads:

This Act has also been enacted as a step toward fulfillment of the international treaty obligations imposed by the Charter of the United Nations upon the United States as a signatory thereof to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

Enlarging the focus of our attention to include the 2,000,000,000 people of the world, peoples of all races, religions, colors, national origins, and ancestry, it is, I think, accurate to state that the eyes of many hundreds of millions, particularly those of darker color, are fixed on this bill, along with other pending bills against discrimination, such as the anti-poll-tax and anti-lynching measures. Their eyes are on the hearing and its outcome, watching to see whether or not the fine words to which we put our hands and seal in the signing and ratification of the United Nations Charter are put to work here in the U. S. A. by enactment of this bill or are made an empty mockery by its defeat.

The State Department policy, as I understand it, is plain. Last year, in a letter to the expiring Fair Employment Practice Committee, the then Acting Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, wrote:

* the existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States is a handicap in our relations with other countries. The Department of State, therefore, has good reason to hope for the continued and increased effectiveness of public and private efforts to do away with these discriminations.

On March 14, this year, speaking to the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow, Secretary of State George C. Marshall redefined democracy. He said:

To the American Government and citizens, it, democracy, has a basic meaning. We believe that human beings have certain inalienable rights—that is, rights which may not be given or taken away.

To us, a society is not a democracy, is not free, if law-abiding citizens live in fear of being denied the right to work or deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is, I submit, plain, that enactment and effective administration of this bill is necessary not only for our domestic well-being and the practice of democracy here at home but also as proof that we practice in Washington and throughout the Nation the high principles to which we have subscribed at San Francisco, Moscow, and other international conferences.

Enactment is required to strengthen democracy within and without. We need to prove our faith by our daily works and thereby to make

it a shining example that will enlist the allegiance of other peoples confronted with the choice between democracy and totalitarianism in the great show-down that now seems to be rushing upon the world.

The grim anxiety with which peoples in other lands regard the fate of this bill is heightened, I hardly need state, by recent occurrences here at home, such as returning discrimination in employment, increasing tension, outbreaks of mob violence against minorities, and lynchings followed by failure or refusal to apprehend, bring to trial, and convict the persons and groups responsible.

Millions here in America will view the developments on this bill with the keenest interest. Some-I think the great majority—will watch with hope drawn taut to the breaking point by waiting and repeated disappointment. Others will watch with cynicism overlaying a hope that has been almost destroyed by frustration and disappointment. But, great as is the anxiety of minorities here in the U.S. A. and of all Americans of good will who understand the importance of this measure, the anxiety of other people may be greater because their danger and their need are greater. Imperfect though our practice of democracy it, it is a fact that, because of our material strength and our promises to defend freedom and democracy, our Nation is regarded, more generally than ever before, as man's last best hope on earth.

In the enactment of this bill and such companion measures as the anti-lynching and anti-poll-tax bills, the Congress has the opportunity and, if we may say so, the responsibility for strengthening that hope. Thereby freedom and democracy will be made stronger here and throughout the world.

The bill before you is necessary, is fair, is workable.

It is not an attempt to legislate against prejudice in the mind of man; it is a method for eliminating the act of discrimination in employment.

It is, in our judgment, carefully drafted to take advantage of experience gained in the operation of the wartime FEPC, or the críticism made of earlier fair-employment-practice bills, and of the high degree of success in the administration of State antidiscrimination laws in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, where a year's experience is now available.

In our view, S. 984 is a fresh approach to the problem of insuring fair employment; a difference in degree and the introduction of new methods amount to a difference in kind.

Of course, provisions for enforcement have been kept in the new bill.

The procedures have been changed in conformity with the Administrative Procedures Act; unlike those proposed in earlier bills, they do not correspond to procedures under the National Labor Relations Art

More important, as a matter of practical administration, emphasis has been put upon obtaining compliance by information, education, conciliation, and the assembly of local community good will in advisory councils.

I think that feature of the bill is extremely important by way of making communities of a state of mind where the acceptability of this bill will be a normal and a natural thing.

You have made quite a number of comments this morning on the question of enforcement. Well, now, this bill contains both the enforcement and the educational features; and consequently, in that respect, it is superior to the Chavez bill.

Perhaps the most important single new provision calls for the posting in work places of facts about the law and the rights and duties of employers and labor organizations thereunder. Experience in the administration of other laws such as workmen's compensation, unemployment compensation, and the Fair Labor Standards Act shows that common knowledge of the law is the first step in obtaining general compliance.

While endorsing these new features, we hold that, if they are to have meaning and effectiveness, they must be backed up by provisions for enforcement in extreme and stubborn instances of violation.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I observe that you have here spoken about the resistance of communities to legislation of this nature and that by imposing such legislation upon various communities you endanger the public peace, and so forth, and increase tensions. I think, on the contrary, that this sort of legislation will reduce the tension. Take, for instance, Harlan, Ky. When the Wagner Labor Disputes Act was enacted, it was resisted by the industrial forces in Harlan, Ky., and northwest Virginia with violence. Nevertheless, the Wagner Labor Disputes Act was finally accepted, and the Wagner Labor Disputes Act did not have the educational approach that this legislation has. In other words, it had a judicial review feature which was far more stringent and exacting than the judicial review feature of this bill.

S. 984 is not concerned with race or religious or nationality prejudice. It deals with only one thing, and that is the practice of discrimination on the grounds of color, religion, national origin, or ancestry, which deprives a worker of a job, or rather, his right to live, because on the job the worker receives wages, and with wages he buys food, clothing, and shelter, the basis of his life. Therefore, whoever seeks. to prevent a worker from securing a job is seeking to deny him the right to live, which is a very definite nullification of the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution.

It is a fallacy to construe race prejudice as synonymous with racial discrimination. They are two different things. Race prejudice is an emotion or feeling. Racial discrimination is an act, a practice. While we cannot by law make a white employer or worker love a Negro worker, or a Protestant worker love a Jewish worker, or a worker in Boston love an employer or worker in Atlanta, Ga., we can stop employers and workers from closing the shops and the unions at the same time. Laws can stop hoodlums from smearing synagogues and cathedrals with swastikas. Laws can stop mobs from lynching people for any reason.

It may be of interest to you to know that in the South we have what is known as a Jim Crow car. It is an institution maintained by the law. Just as the law maintains the Jim Crow institution, the law may abolish the Jim Crow institution, and when you follow the history of the Labor Relations Act, you will be impressed with the fact that there was a time in this country when the company did to the worker who was affiliated with a union the very same thing that is