of Japanese-Americans recently cited for bravery by General Clark? What are we to say to the countless others who are giving their lives not as Jews, Catholics, Poles, or Italians, but as fellow Americans? Are we to say: "You are good enough to fight and die for our cause, but your skin color, or nose angle, or foreign accent says you are not good enough for an equal chance at a job when that cause is won?" Are we to say: "You have secured economic freedom for the peoples of the world, but it is to be denied you here at home?" We cannot thus isolate ourselves from our own moral ideas. We cannot afford to tolerate in the workshops of America the selfsame practices which we denounce in our enemies. Discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin is either right or wrong. If it is right it should be justified. If it is wrong we should have the courage to say so and we should take immediate steps to eliminate it. The organization for which I speak stands firmly behind the proposition that employment discrimination is wrong, that it is unjust, inexpedient, and un-American. We believe that the elimination of such discrimination is a democratic imperative, and to that end we urge the speedy establishment of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission. Senator CHAVEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Aronson. STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. BEACH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS Senator CHAVEZ. Mr. Beach, will you give your name and address for the record? Mr. BEACH. Robert B. Beach. I am executive secretary of the National Association of Building Owners and Managers, the office of which is in Chicago. Senator AIKEN. What kind of an organization is this, Mr. Beach? Mr. BEACH. It is a trade organization representing the office buildings of the country and to a considerable extent the other commercial buildings of the country. Senator AIKEN. A national organization that has State organizations also? Mr. BEACH. No. It is a national organization. Within its membership are 50 member associations in the larger cities of the country, New York, Boston, San Francisco, and so on. Senator AIKEN. And it is a dues-paying organization? Mr. BEACH. It is a dues-paying organization. Senator AIKEN. Are the dues based upon the amount of business done like most trade organizations? Mr. BEACH. No; the dues are based upon the rentable area of the buildings represented. Senator AIKEN. Are you representing the organization or speaking for yourself? Mr. BEACH. The organization, and speaking for it. I appear on behalf of the National Association of Building Owners and Managers to suggest an amendment to the bill under consideration. This association represents, by a very high percentage of rentable area, the office buildings of the country in which governmental agencies are leasing in excess of 35,000,000 square feet of office space. It also represents, in a substantial way, loft buildings and other commercial properties which lease such space for Government use. Senator CHAVEZ. You refer to such as the Mart in Chicago, where the Government has taken over practically the entire building? Mr. BEACH. It has a pretty large part of the space in that building; yes. We have accordingly had a good deal of experience with the requirement in Executive Order 9346 as applied to Government leases. This has brought to our attention certain difficulties and much confusion which should be avoided in the legislation you are now considering. Our position is that a lease is not a contract in any proper sense, and certainly not the kind of contract contemplated in the Executive order. This point has been made with the Fair Employment Practice Committee, and, they have recognized our position to the extent of certain administrative interpretations that overcome some of the difficulties encountered. In the interest of clarification, and the avoidance of further confusion on this point, we propose and recommend that leases be excluded from the coverage of the contemplated act by adopting the following amendment: After section 13a insert: "Provided that leases of real or personal property shall not be considered as Government contracts.' Not being a lawyer myself, I will have to leave it to the legal profession to argue the point whether or not a lease is a contract in a strictly legal sense. Senator CHAVEZ. Will you try to justify your argument? Mr. BEACH. Yes. I am told that a lease is, in fact, a conveyance and that the contractual features are incidental. It is, therefore, not a contract in any proper sense, any more than a deed is a contract. Aside from this more technical point, it is perfectly obvious that in drafting the Executive order, those who may have prepared it were speaking of contracts in the accepted sense and were not considering leases. That observation applies to the similar language in section 13a before you. Take, for example, the reference to subcontracts. In the case of an ordinary office building lease, there is no subcontract in any comparable sense, and the requirement is accordingly irrelevant. This, I might add, has been recognized by the Fair Employment Practice Committee in its administrative rulings. There are other and even more significant distinctions. A contractor who is producing for the Government has one primary obligetion, to deliver the goods. Senator CHAVEZ. That being the case, why can't the Fair Employment Practice Commission regulate as to that without changing the basic law? Mr. BEACH. I think I will make that clear if I may proceed. A lessor, on the other hand, has this same primary obligation, which in his case is to maintain the services and operate the facilities of his property. But at the same time has another obligation, which is to satisfy his tenants. The tenant, like the proverbial customer, is always right; and that rule prevails whether you agree with him or not. Senator CHAVEZ. That is more so when Uncle Sam is the tenant. Mr. BEACH. Thus the landlord's employment problem goes beyond technical qualification for the work to be done and involves suitability. An elevator operator who might be highly efficient in the operation of his cab but who was discourteous, or inattentive, or merely lacked the art of meeting the public, would be unsuited to the job. Senator CHAVEZ. Where is there anything in the bill that provides that that type of person should be Mr. BEACH. There is not, but there is a problem. The manager of a building has to be much more "discriminating" than a contractor who considers only his product. So in addition to maintaining that a lease is not the kind of contract to which the present regulation was intended to apply, we submit that the so-called nondiscrimination clause is not the kind of provision which should go into a lease. It does not belong. The function of a lease is to avoid misunderstanding by covering all conditions in express and specific terms. Nondiscrimination is a matter of good faith, which cannot be reduced to express and specific terms. For this reason, in itself, the nondiscrimination clause is objectionable. The same objection would apply to writing in the Golden Rule. A more tangible objection is that one tenant in a building-even though that tenant be an agency of the Federal Government-has no right to impose conditions in its particular lease, which affect other tenants, entitled to equal consideration, whose wishes are not consulted. That you will appreciate is a very real consideration, involving conditions the building manager must live with every day. It should be borne in mind that insisting upon the nondiscrimination clause does not mean that the lessor has to accept it. Yet his refusal to accept-in which he is entirely within his rights-may seriously inconvenience the agency which desires accommodations. It is true that under war powers the space can be condemened, but condemnation would not accomplish the purpose that is sought. It should be made quite clear that the reasons advanced for eliminating leases from the coverage of the proposed act are entirely removed from any criticism or disapproval of the principle which underlies this measure and is inspired by no desire to impair or lessen its usefulness. The fact is that commercial buildings, depending on their availability, come very close to employing workers of every race, color, creed, and national origin. I cannot think of any field of employment where qualification for the job rates higher, and racial prejudice is less pronounced. The names on the average building pay roll are as unpronounceable as some of those in our fighting forces overseas and as diversified as to ancestry. As I have said, the lessor must consider the suitability of each employee for each particular job. If colored girls are employed to run elevators, the building would probably employ only colored girls. Technically that would be discrimination against the white race. Actually there would be no discrimination because of race, but only discrimination on grounds of suitability in the interest of accomplishing the best results. The practical objection to the requirement of a nondiscrimination clause in Government leases is that it presents difficulties that are disproportionate to the benefits sought. The experience of Government leasing agencies is that it has been a source of constant embarrassment and trouble. For entirely valid which I have tried to make clear, insistence on this provision is regarded with disfavor and sometimes with resentment. Time is wasted and inconvenience suffered; and this is not an occasional discomfiture but a situation that comes up again and again. These difficulties have been recognized by the Fair Employment Practice Committee with whose executives we have conferred on various occasions in a mutual and fairly successful effort to work out some of these complications. I believe I can say that the committee appreciates the reasonableness of our position. We in turn appreciate the fair attitude of the committee. From their approach the lease problem is distinctly a side issue. Comparatively few employees are involved and in a field where, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no complaint of discrimination whatsoever. It is our opinion that adopting the proposed amendment would not impair the effectiveness of the work in which the committee is engaged, but would, on the contrary, relieve it of a source of annoyance and embarrassment. This opinion, if supported by the committee, would be equally relevant to the operations of the contemplated commission. Of course I have no right to say-since the committee is in a position to speak for itself that Mr. Ross and his associates would concur in our recommendation, but I am inclined to think they will find no reason to oppose. I am quite certain the amendment would be welcomed by the leasing agencies, every one of which, if they were to speak their minds frankly, would support the amendment. Summarizing, we submit 1. That the nondiscrimination clause is not an appropriate lease provision. 2. Insisting on its inclusion results in more harm than good. 3. Its elimination will not lessen the effectiveness of the proposed legislation but will, on the contrary, avoid misunderstandings and confusion. 4. The purpose to be accomplished has already been recognized by the Fair Employment Practice Committee and in part furthered by the modification of administrative rulings. 5. We believe our proposal would be favored by Government leasing agencies and doubt that it would be opposed by the Fair Employment Practice Committee, which is fully conversant with the difficulties we have pointed out. On all counts we submit that such an amendment as we offer should be incorporated in the proposed legislation, if enacted. We accordingly invite your favorable consideration. Senator CHAVEZ. We want to thank you, Mr. Beach. Mr. BEACH. Thank you for your attention. Senator AIKEN. Mr. Beach, the amendment that you offer to this bill, of course, only applies to the building owners with whom the Government has contracts? Mr. BEACH. Just that one section 13 (a) which says that Government contracts and obligations shall be included. Senator AIKEN. Will you read that amendment again? Mr. BEACH. It reads: Provided, That leases of real or personal property shall not be considered as Government contracts. Of course, you could say: Provided, For the purpose of this Act. Senator AIKEN. You said "leases of personal property"? Mr. BEACH. Real or personal property. Senator CHAVEZ. Where would the personal property be involved? Quote us an instance, please. Do you mean the furniture in the building? Mr. BEACH. Yes. Some leases include both real and personal property. Of course, there are leases of personal property. They are only incidental, however. Senator AIKEN. Personal property could include machines? STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. P. WEAVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH RACIAL DISCRIMINATION Senator CHAVEZ. Mr. Weaver, will you identify yourself, please? Mr. WEAVER. My name is George L. P. Weaver. I am director of the National C. I. Ö. Committee to Abolish Racial Discrimination. Senator CHAVEZ. Do you have a statement you desire to make? Mr. WEAVER. Yes, I do. Senator CHAVEZ. You may proceed, Mr. Weaver. Mr. WEAVER. We appear here today in support of S. 2048, a bill designed to promote fair employment practices, by eliminating discrimination in employment because of race, creed, or color. This bill declares it to be the policy of the United States Government that the right to work and seek work shall be guaranteed without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, and that this principle should be embodied in the body of the United States statutes, with enforcement machinery to insure that it will become. more than a pious platitude. We have won the battle of production without a compulsory draft of labor at home. One of the basic reasons we have achieved this victory of production is because we adopted a national policy of full utilization of all available manpower in the United States without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The successful results achieved during the last 4 years must be carried over into our peacetime lives. This can be more easily accomplished with the type of legislation under consideration. The essential weakness of the present Fair Employment Practice Committee is its lack of enforcement powers. Having no power to enforce its orders, it can operate effectively only where the main social forces of the community favor a fair treatment of minorities. It can point up weak spots in our industrial life but cannot change the industrial pattern of the community, State, or section, unless it has the overwhelming support of the important community forces. The Congress of Industrial Organizations met this problem fourquare in the early days of its organization. We realized then that |