posts and among civilian workers in military establishments, and in Federal employment. The judiciary has ruled against segregation, in public schools, in parks and recreation areas, in District of Columbia restaurants, among other cases. One of the most difficult barriers to the enactment of civil rights legislation to enable the Congress to do its part, has been the rule of the Senate allowing of filibusters against such legislation. This is now widely recognized throughout the country and the time is ripe for a change. I believe the fundamental basis for a change has been laid by the declaration of the Vice President that the provisions of rule 22 exempting a debate on an amendment to the rules, to the other rules, from cloture of any kind, is unconstitutional. It is my deep conviction that the change in our rules should be accomplished by amending rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to allow reasonable debate, and then permitting debate to be closed by a majority of the Senate. That is the substance of Senator Douglas' resolution, Senate Resolution 17, which 15 other Senators and I have joined as sponsors. It is also the spirit of Senate Resolution 30, the Knowland-Johnson resolution with 39 sponsors, which, though I disagree with its terms, evidences the idea that filibuster days should be over. Desirable as I believe an amendment of the rules to be-good morning, Mr. Chairman. (Senator Hennings entered the room and assumed the chair.) Senator HENNINGS. Good morning. Had you started? Senator JAVITS. I had, Senator. Senator HENNINGS. Don't let me interrupt you. I wanted to make the explanation, the chairman yesterday had to be at the White House. I was there until almost noon at that meeting, and then there was a meeting of all the committee chairmen. Senator ERVIN. I hope you gave the President good advice, and I hope he will take it. Being a Democrat, I don't think he has the opportunity to get advice ordinarily from people as sound as you are civil rights excepted. Senator HENNINGS. I wanted to account for my not having been here yet. There was not anything I could do about it. We were outlining our legislative program for the year, and all of the chairmen of the several committees were in meeting a good part of the afternoon. Will you please continue with your statement? Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, Desirable as I believe an amendment of the rules to be, I also believe that the necessary determination will be shown in the Senate to see through to passage the administration's civil rights program, once it has been reported out of this committee, despite a filibuster, or to get the necessary 64 votes to concur in cloture of debate. I might say that my own appraisal of the situation is that even those 64 votes are obtainable. Accordingly I believe the measure should be brought up now. It should be reported out promptly and ahead of other civil rights proposals. I might say that I believe thoroughly in the group of civil rights bills in which I have joined with Senator Humphrey and others Senator HENNINGS. May I ask you one question, please, Senator Javits? You would include the so-called Commission on Civil Rights in that group which you refer to as the President's program? Senator JAVITS. I would. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I say in all fairness to any connotation which there is in calling it the President's program Senator HENNINGS. We take no pride in authorship. Senator JAVITS. I would like to say that. Senator HENNINGS. This is identification of the legislation. Senator JAVITS. This is a program which the chairman of this subcommittee and others have had in mind for a long time, perhaps not in every detail but very much like it. This has always been a bipartisan effort. Senator HENNINGS. This committee reported out, as you know, some four bills preceding the introduction of the so-called President's program? Senator JAVITS. Exactly. Senator HENNINGS. However, that is not important. Senator JAVITS. I think it is, sir, to emphasize its support, and the only reason I call it the President's program is because Senator HENNINGS. It is perfectly proper that you do so. It emanated really from the Attorney General and I think largely was introduced under the sponsorship of Senator Dirksen and a number of other cosponsors in April. Senator JAVITS. It has the advantage in that way of having the maximum amount of prestige behind it. I think that it should be made clear constantly to the country that yourself, Mr. Chairman, and others of your own views have been in the forefront of this fight even before this administration took office. Senator HENNINGS. I thank the Senator for that statement. Senator JAVITS. Now, for myself, I believe thoroughly in the group of civil rights bills in which I have joined with Senator Humphrey and others, including a FEPC, an antilynching, antipoll tax bill, a bill against assaults on uniformed personnel and the anti-peonage bill. But I also believe that it is equally important to break the ice of congressional inaction with effective measures on which the major amount of agreement is possible, and that is what I believe the President's program to be. The administration has presented a civil-rights program that is moderate. Certainly it is the minimum which should be enacted at this time. At least it is a step forward by the branch of the Federal Government-the Congress-which has failed to move on this issue for so long as to seriously shake the confidence of millions of Americans. The President's program has the capability of real effectiveness in civil rights, too. Here I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to speak from personal experience and experience in the State of New York, whose Attorney General I was until I came down here. For the President's program relies heavily on conciliation, mediation, and technical assistance backed by law. Experience in my own State of New York shows this to be a most effective method for securing civil rights. Our history in New York is very briefly as follows: In 1945, the Ives-Quinn law was passed-that has the name of my senior colleague, Senator Ives, on it-establishing the State commission against discrimination. New York became the first State to declare legislatively that all people should have an equal opportunity for a job without discrimination because of race, creed, or color. This historic integration of peoples in their chance for employment was strengthened through the succeeding years by conciliation, mediation, and technical assistance with the legal compulsion provided by law used only as a last resort. Or perhaps more accurately, as a background. Now here is our experience. In the period 1945 through 1956, 3,600 cases were referred to SCAD-we have a huge State, 16 million people, and so 3,600 cases I think itself negates the idea that the courts or commissions will be just drowned in cases. Here in the biggest industrial State in the country, only 21 of the 3,600 went to the stage of formal proceedings and hearing. About 2,000 complaints were found after investigation to be unjustified, again a very significant matter because here is a State in which the political climate is very favorable to strong enforcement of civil-rights laws, and yet about two-thirds of these cases were thrown out by the commission itself on preliminary investigation. In over 1,000 cases, action was required, but 98 percent of them were settled by persuasion and mediation. Only 2 cases, according to my inquiries, 2 cases in 3,600, went to court for enforcement, and no case needed to be instituted under the misdemeanor sections of the law, which incidentally are administered by the attorney general. Senator HENNINGS. What was the general nature of those cases, the two that went to court? Senator JAVITS. The two which went to court according to my best recollection involved interpretations of the law as to whether they were applicable to particular cases, a question of the nuance of their particular applicability to a given state of facts. Now in 1948, based upon our 1945 experience, we passed a Fair Educational Practices Act to prevent racial discrimination in nonsectarian colleges of the State. In 1950 we passed a measure to prevent discrimination in publicly assisted housing. In 1952 we gave the same State commission authority to bar discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. In 1955, we passed another law prohibiting discrimination in private housing developments financed with Government mortgage guaranties, and I might say we have two other statutes along the same lines, one dealing with National Guard, and the other dealing with some miscellaneous aspects of enforcement in the fundamental law. It is my firm belief, Mr. Chairman, that the same technique, proven successful by experience, can be applied to other States and at the Federal level. But we need action by the Congress to serve as the catalyst for starting civil-rights progress. As a result of New York's 10-year experience with this whole program, there is general public acceptance now of the principle of job equality throughout the State. We still have some civil-rights problems in New York, principally in integrating some of the schools in New York City and raising the quality of educational facilities in schools attended predominately by Negroes and Puerto Ricans. But overall, New York has developed an outlook on civil rights by which we accept the constitutional guaranties of equal opportunity for all people as basic components in our social structure. Mr. Chairman, I submit that that is probably the leading and most intensive experience in the United States. One further point, Mr. Chairman, and then I shall conclude. As the Chair knows, I served for a long time in the House of Representatives on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and so I have had personal contact with our foreign affairs problems. Also I have traveled very extensively throughout the world many times on missions for the Foreign Affairs Committee otherwise. Qualifying myself, Mr. Chairman, by that experience, in which I heard all of that secret testimony since 1947 when I was in the House of Representatives on every phase of the foreign policy of the United States, I make the following statement: Our international stake in civil rights is perhaps the most important consideration of all-considering our struggle today to maintain international peace-certainly a vital consideration to the veterans of our country who have fought for peace and free institutions at such tremendous cost. I saw this very clearly in November and December last year in Pakistan, India, south and southeast Asia where I traveled with my wife. The great contest between freedom and communism is over the approximately 1.2 billion largely Negro and Oriental population who occupy the underdeveloped areas of the Far East, the Middle East, and Africa. One of the greatest arguments used by the Communist conspirators against our leadership of the free world with these peoples has been that if they follow the cause of freedom, they too will be subjected to segregaion which it is charged that we tolerate within certain areas of the United States; Federal civil-rights legislation is the best answer. These people are, therefore, watching with the most pronounced concern our present internal struggle on civil rights. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to interject there parenthetically that it is true that there are examples of discrimination in these countries; for example, you have the caste system in India. But we are talking now again not about the causes but about the results of a line of attack on us in these key undecided areas. There is no question in my mind but that in countries like India and Pakistan, Thailand, and other similar countries, a sharp spotlight is fixed upon the civil-rights progress in the United States, and people feel themselves identified with that whole struggle here in terms of themselves in their countries. We know, and I believe that they know, that they have everything to gain, the people in these countries, from our leadership, both material and moral. We need now, by the wisdom and effectiveness of our actions in the civil-rights field, to convince them of the meaning of freedom. Success on civil rights at home can turn out to be one of the most decisive influences for the victory of freedom in the world which we have it in our power to achieve. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would say that my own belief and the experience in the State of New York backs up the view that law is an essential backdrop for effective civil-rights guaranties, that they can be achieved very largely without force, provided that the backing of the sanction of the law is there, and finally, Mr. Chairman, I deeply believe that the President's program, the program called the President's program, can be passed in this session and such opposition as develops in the Senate can be met fairly and honestly, after very full debate. I am sure there will be full debate. It does not take a filibuster to get full debate, but I really feel that the public feeling now is such, that so many Senators' own constituents feel pretty decidedly upon this issue in such a way that it can now be brought to pass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HENNINGS. Thank you very much, Senator Javits. Senator ERVIN. I thought you had a State FEPC law in New York for a number of years before 1945? Senator JAVITS. No, we got it in 1945. Senator ERVIN. Was that the origin of it? Senator JAVITS. That is the beginning of it. Senator ERVIN. I have a recollection of reading the regulations that were promulgated under it. As I recall, one of the regulations was to the effect that the representative of an employer could not ask a prospective employee where he was during the First World War. Is that recollection correct? Senator JAVITS. I will check it. You ask about a detail. Senator ERVIN. It may be that if the employer asked that question, it might reveal that the applicant for employment was in the German or Austrian Army during the First World War and the employer might discriminate against him by giving the job to somebody who served in the American Army. Senator JAVITS. I can hardly conceive of that because the FEPC deals solely with race, creed, color, or national origin. Senator ERVIN. This was about race or national origin. Senator ERVIN. I believe if you go back to the original regulations you will find that provision. Senator JAVITS. Senator, I will do that. Senator HENNINGS. The Senator will supply that. (Subsequently, the following material was received from Senator Javits, for inclusion in the record:) SUMMARY REPORT ON RULINGS OF NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRIES BASIC AUTHORITY FOR RULINGS ON PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRIES The basic source and authority for the rulings on preemployment inquiries is set forth in section 296.1 (c) of the law against discrimination, (executive law, article 15) which provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer or employment agency "to use any form of application for employment or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, |