1950 as interest or other charges thereon shall be credited to the loan fund and shall be avail- able for the purpose for which the fund was established, Sec. 5. Any restricted Indian lands owned by the Navajo Tribe, members thereof, or associations of such members, or by the Hopi Tribe, members thereof, or associations of such members, may be leased by the Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, for public, religious, educa- tional, recreational, or business purposes, in- cluding the development or utilization of natural resources in connection with opera- tions under such leases. All leases so granted shall be for a term of not to exceed 25 years, but may include provisions authorizing their renewal for an additional term of not to exceed 25 years, and shall be made under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary. Restricted allotments of deceased Indians may be leased under this section, for the benefit of their heirs or devisees, in the circumstances and by the persons prescribed in the act of July 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 745; 25 U. S. C., 1946 ed., sec. 880). Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to repeal or affect any authority to lease restricted Indian lands conferred by or pursuant to any other pro- vision of law. Sec.6.In order to facilitate the fullest possible participation by the Navajo Tribe in the program authorized by this act, the members of the tribe shall have the right to adopt a tribal constitution in the manner herein prescribed. Such constitution may provide for the exercise by the Navajo Tribe of any powers vested in the tribe or any organ thereof by existing law, together with such additional powers as the members of the tribe may, with the approval of the Sec- retary of the Interior, deem proper to in- clude therein. Such constitution shall be formulated by the Navajo Tribal Council at any regular meeting, distributed in printed form to the Navajo people for consideration, and adopted by secret ballot of the adult members of the Navajo Tribe in an election held under such regulations as the Secre- tary may prescribe, at which a majority of the qualified votes cast favor such adoption. The constitution shall authorize the fullest possible participation of the Navajos in the administration of their affairs as epproved by the Secretary of the Interior and shall become effective when approved by the Sec- retary. The constitution may be amended from time to-time in the same manner as herein provided for its adoption, and the Secretary of the Interior shall approve any amendment which in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior advances the de- velopment of the Navajo people toward the fullest realization and exercise of the rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities of American citizenship. Bec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of existing law, the tribal funds now on deposit or hereafter placed to the credit of the Navajo Tribe of Indians in the United States Treasury shall be available for such purposes as may be designated by the Navajo Tribal Council and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Src. 8. The Tribal Councils of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes and the Indian communities affected shall be kept informed and afforded opportunity to consider from their incep- tion plans pertaining to the program au- thorized by this act. In the administration of the program, the Secretary of the Interior shall consider the recommendations of the tribal councils and shall follow such rec- ommendations whenever he deems them feasible and consistent with the objectives of this act. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Bro. 9. Beginning with the quarter com- mecing July 1, 1950, the Secretary of the asury shall pay quarterly to each State (from sums made available for making pay- mente to the States under sections 8 (a8), 403 (a), and 1008 (a) of the Social Security Act) an amount, in addition to the amounts prescribed to be paid to such State under such sections, equal to 80 percent of (1) the total amounts expended during the preceding quarter by the State, under the State plans approved under the Social Security Act for old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the needy blind, to Navajo and Hopi Indians residing within the boundaries of the State on reservations or on allotted or trust lands, with respect to whom payments are made to the State by the United States under sections 8 (a), 408 (a), and 1003 (a), respectively, of the Social Security Act, not counting so much of such expenditure to any individual for any month as exceeds the limitations prescribed in such sections, re- duced by (2) the total amounts paid to such State by the United States for such quarter under sections 8 (a), 403 (a), and 1003 (a) of the Social Security Act with respect to such Indians. Sec. 10. (a) There is hereby established a joint congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Navajo-Hopi In- dian Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “committee’”), to be composed of three members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate to be appointed by the chairman thereof, not more than two of whom shall be from the same political party, and three members of the Committee on Public Lands of the House of Representa- tives to be appointed by the chairman there- of, not more than two of whom shall be from the same political party. A vacancy in the membership of the committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection, The committee shall elect a chairman from among its members. (b) It shall be the function of the com- mittee to make @ continuous study of the programs for the administration and reha- bilitation of the Navajo and Hopi! Indians, and to review the progress achieved in the execution of such programs. Upon request, the committee shall aid the several standing committees of the Congress having legislative jurisdiction over any part of such programs, and shall make a report to the Senate and the House of Representatives, from time to time, concerning the results of its studies, together with such recommendations as it may deem desirable. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs at the request of the commit- tee, shall consult with the committee from time to time with respect to his activities under this act, (c) The committee, or any duly-authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such hearings, to sit and act at such times and places, to require by subpena or other- wise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to make such expenditures as it deems advisable. The cost of stenographio services to report such hearings shall not be in excess of 25 cents per hundred words. The provisions of sections 102 to 104, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes shall apply in case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena or to testify when summoned under authority of this subsection. (ad) The committee is authorized to ap- point and, without regard to the Classifica- tion Act of 1923, as amended, fix the com- pensation of such experts, consultants, tech- nicians, and organizations thereof, and cler- ical and stenographic assistants as it deems necessary and advisable. 2089 (e) There are hereby authorized to be ap- priated such sums a8 may be necessary © carry out the provisions of this section, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate on vouchers signed by the chairman. Mr. PETERSON (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be con- sidered as read and open to amendment at any point, and that it be printed in the Recorp at this point, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. D’Ewart: On page 11, following line 2, add a new section numbered 11 to read as follows: “Szc. 11. From and after the effective date of this act all Indians within the tribal or allotted lands of the Navajo and Hopi Reser- vations shall be subject to the laws of the States wherein such lands are located, with respect to (1) school attendance, (2) mal- feasance or misfeasance in public or tribal Office, (3) embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, (4) regulation of automotive traffic, (5) marriage and divorce, (6) elections, and shall have access to the courts of such States for the enforcement of these rights and the redress of these wrongs to the same extent and in the same manner as any citizen thereof.” Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an ad-« ditional 5 minutes and to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, when the President vetoed the original bil] he vetoed it because of section 9 that had provisions in it with regard to civil law. He vetoed it on two grounds. I will quote very briefly from his remarks: In the first place, the meaning of section 9 is obscure. “In the first place, the meaning of sec- tion 9 is obscure.” We have taken great pains in the drafting of this proposed amendment, consulting our legal staff and the drafting section so that I think there is no question about the meaning of this amendment. In other words, we have overcome the first objection of the President to the provision. The second major objection, and I quote again from the President’s veto of section 9: A second major objection to section 9 is that its avowed purpose of accomplishing a broad-scale extension of State laws to the Navajo and Hopi Reservations is in conflict with one of the fundamental principles of Indian law accepted by our Nation, namely, the principle of respect for tribal self-de- termination in matters of local government. Broad scale extension we have elimi- nated by definitely limiting this proposed amendment to certain provisions and no others; thereby, we hope, taking care of that objection of the President. We have the right to legislate in regard to law on the Indian reservation, I will quote very briefly on that point from
2090 the Handbook of Federal Law, chapter 6, page 117, section 14. I will include the whole quotation. This statement is: It is enough for the present to note that the domain of power of the Federal Govern- ment over Indian affairs marked out by the Federal decisions is s0 complete that, as & practical matter, the Federal courts and Federal administrative officials now generally proceed fiom the assumption that Indian affairs are matters of Federal, rather than State, concern, unless the contrary is shown by act of Congress or spectal circumstance. Thus, without questioning the constitu- tional doctrine that States possess original and complete sovereignty over their own ter- ritories save insofar as such sovereignty 1s limited by the Federal Constitution, a sense of realism must compel the conclusion that control of Indtan affairs has been delegated, under the Constitution, to the Federal Gov- ernment and that State jurisdiction in any matters affecting the Indians can be upheld only if one of two conditions is met; either that Congress has expressly delegated back to the State, or recognized in the State, some power of government respecting Indians; or that a question involving Indians involves non-Indians to a degree which calls into play the jurisdiction of a State government. Of these two situations, the former is un- doubtedly more definite and therefore sim- pler to analyze. Such an analysis requires a sting of the acts of Congress which confer upon the States, or recognize in the States, specific powers of government with respect to Indians. (Handbook of Federal Indian Law, ch. 6, p 117, sec. 1) That is what I propose to do in that amendment. There is a gap in the law on Indian reservations. The Federal law as it applies to the Navajo and Hopi Reservations applies only to 10 major crimes. They are found in United States Code, title 18, page 544, section 548: United States Code, title 18, page 544, sec- tion 648: Indians committing certain crime; acts on reservations; rape of Indian. All Indians committing against the person or property of another Indian or other per- son any of the following crimes, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, arson, burglary, robbery, und lar- ceny on and within any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, including rights-of-way run- ning through the reservation, shall be sub- ject to the same laws, tried in the same courts, and in the same manner, and be subject to the same penalties as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That any Indian who ccmmits the crime of rape upon any female Indian within the HNmits of any In- dian reservation shall be imprisoned at the discretion of the court: Provided further, That as herein used the offense rape shall be defined in accordance with the laws of the State in which the offense was committed. The foregoing shall extend to prosecutions of Indians in South Dakota under section 549 of this title. In addition to that we recognize to a certain extent tribal custom and usage, but between tribal usage and custom there is a whole lot of civil law that is necessary if we are to have the orderly development of these Indians. In my amendment I mention those specific ones; for instance, there is no law what- soever governing school attendance. If a@ child does not want to go to school, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE there is no way of insisting that he go. Even here in the District of Columbia we can compel attendance of a child of school age at school, but there {is no way to compel attendance at school on the Navajo or Hopi Reservations. I there- fore include school attendance in my amendment. Malfeasance or misfeasance in public or tribal office: There is nothing in tri- bal law that governs those matters. Cer- tainly tribal custom does not concern it- self with malfeasance or misfeasance in public office and we are proposing to give these tribes some responsibility under this law. We propose to delegate certain powers to the council, but if they do not carry them out as they should be carried out, there is no course of action under State or Federal law. I therefore pro- pose that we apply State law in regard to those things. Embezzlement or misappropriation: We are turning over in one provision of this act the tribal funds to the tribal council or business council. We are not providing against the possibilities of em- bezzlement or misappropriation. If those funds are embezzled or misappro- priated, and that has happened on other reservations, and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs has protested to me be- cause he had no way to handle this kind of situation—I say we are going to turn over a large sum of money to this tribal council and there is no law, State or Federal, if those funds are dissipated or stolen, or mismanaged, to punish the guilty. Highways and automotive traffic: We are going to be spending very large sums on road construction in these reserva- tions. There is going to be heavy truck traffic within the reservation and heavy tourist traffic on the roads, but there are no traffic laws on either the Hopi or Navajo Reservations. Certainly there should be regulation of traffic on the res- ervations. If you should have an acci- dent inside the Navajo Reservation, there would be no law governing that accident. Marriage and divorce on those reser- vations: There are plural marriages. We find Indian fathers leaving their fam- ilies. One of the difficulties in the man- agement of this reservation is to deter- mine definitely and surely whose children are whose and as we apply the social- security laws that will be more difficult. Certainly, if we are going to go ahead with the rehabilitation of this tribe, if we are going to fit them into our civili- zation, we should have some kind of laws governing marriage and divorce. In 1948 the election laws appled on this reservation. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D’'EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from New Mexico. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Would the gentle- man’s amendment require that when In- dians are married under the tribal laws they have to have a divorce under a State law? Mr. D'EWART. I gather that would be a question of whether you have com- mon-law marriage in your State. FEBRUARY 21 Mr. FERNANDEZ. We have no com- mon-law marriage in our State. Mr. D'EWART. If you have common- law marriage and the Indian man and woman lived together, your State would doubtlessly recognize that. Mr. FERNANDEZ. We have no com- mon-law marriage in New Mexico. That is not recognized. Our supreme court has passed on that point. I was wonder- ing whether the gentleman's amendment would require all Indians who are living together now to go and get married un- der State laws. Mr. D'EWART. If there is no com- mon law and they wanted their marriage to be recognized, it would have to take place under the laws of the State, if my amendment is adopted. Mr. FERNANDEZ. If they do not get married under the State Jaw and are married under tribal law, they do not have to have a divorce if they separate, even with the gentleman’s amendment? Mr. D’'EWART. That is correct. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D'EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Virginia. Mr. HARDY. Did I understand the gentleman to say there will be no re- covery in the event of an automobile accident on a reservation? Mr. D'EWART. Yes. I have a cita- tion in regard to that. This does not apply to the particular reservation, but the situations are similar: Recently, as a result of the economy drive, the position of special officer was abolished and we are now back where we were before; petty offenses are committed on the reserva- vion and nothing much is being done about it. Recently police officers of the local com- munity attempted to arrest several Indians who were driving a car while intoxicated; the Indians got over the reservation line; one of them got out of the car and shot at the local officers; it was Just fate the officer was not killed. Indians get drunk and beat their women and get into fights. Recently a white man was severely beaten by drunken Indians. Theoretically, these petty offenses are within the jurisdiction of so-called Indian courts, but there 1s no provision made for thelr punishment even if such Indians are tried by said local Indian courts. It is @ Qeplorable situation. Something should be done to rectify this unbelievable situ- ation. That letter was signed by George L. Grobe, United States attorney. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D’EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Arizona. Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask the gen- tleman whether he has talked this over with anyone to see whether we might not be heading into another veto? True, his amendment is somewhat restricted as compared with the cause of that veto last session. I am for it in spirit and in principle, but I would hate to see this measure run into another veto. Mr. D'EWART. I would like to have the gentleman question the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Prrerson], in regard to that, who, I understand, took it up with the executive office. I did not per- sonally. I submitted this amendment
1950 to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Petrrson)], chairman of the committee, and it is my understanding he went further with it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana has expired. Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Montana? There was no objection. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentieman yield? Mr. D’EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Arizona. Mr. MURDOCK. What is the chair- man’s understanding, if any, in regard to this proposal? Is it not the same thing that led to the veto before, or is this a minor extension of State law which does not go as far as the earlier extension went causing the veto? Mr. PETERSON. It is an extension that does not go as far as that which caused the veto, but I have not been able te get any assurances it would be ap- proved. The situation is such we have been trying to get action. They only heard from the Department of the In- terlor this morning. But they are not in position to assure us it would be ap- proved. There are some objections still pending. Mr. D'EWART. I would like to say that we did submit this on February 3d, so it is not our fault that we have not had a complete answer. I would like to say further that I have tried, and the attorneys who helped me in the drafting of this, to obviate the two conditions the President expressed that I read earlier in my remarks concerning his veto. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Just about a month ago he sub- mitted it and we had been hoping to hear from him. He did submit it, and there is considerable merit in it, but we did not want to run into a veto again. Then I started calling, and this morning they said they had received a report from the Department of the Interior. While they did not go as far as the other, they felt they would have to still object to this amendment. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D’'EWART. I yield to the gen- tleman from New Mexico. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Certainly, the principle is the same, unless the Presi- dent has had a change of heart. I do not see how he could not veto it if this amendment goes in, because the very reason he vetoed it was that the Indians were not sufficiently advanced to be placed under State law, and this amend- ment certainly does place them under State law to a very large extent, includ- ing marriages, which is one of the things that was bothering the President, Iam sure. Mr. D’'EWART. To quote the Presi- dent’s exact words: The ultimate acceptance of State juris- diction is a logical consequence of our policy CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of assisting the Indians to develop their nat- ural talents and physical resources in ways that will enable them to participate fully in our free and vigorously competitive society. Those were the exact words of the President. I think, since I am offering this limited amendment, and since his two objections were, first, that the mean- ing of the amendment was obscure and, second, that it was a broad scale exten- sion, we have obviated those two ob- jections, and I believe that we have met his objections. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D'EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. What would be the objection to passing or accepting the gentleman’s amendment and having this bill go to conference? Mr. D’EWART. I can see none what- soever, and then we would have time to find out what the President's position was. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D’EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. McCARTHY. Is the gentleman’s amendment restricted to the Navajo and the Hopi Indians, or does it include all Indians? Mr. D’'EWART. No; this is Navajo and Hopi, and no others. I agree with the gentleman that it should apply to other reservations. We have the same situations in other reservations, and I could tell you circumstances that would surprise you showing the need of this kind of an amendment, but this only applies to these two reservations. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so that I may ask the chairman of the committee a ques- tion? Mr. D’EWART. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. Could the gentle- man state whether legislation of this kind is to be considered by his commit- tee, namely, to include these other matters? Mr. PETERSON. The D’Ewart amend- ment? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. PETERSON. If the D’Ewart amendment came to the committee as a separate bill, I would ask the committee immediately to consider it. There is lots of merit in the D’Ewart amendment, and, frankly, I favor a portion of it, but I do not want to run head-on into another veto or a long deadiock in conference while the Navajos are suffering. But there is a lot of merit in the amendment, there is no question about that, and if it were a separate bill I would try to get it out and get action by the House. I am not saying that to stall off his amend- ment, because there !s merit in it, but I am sure it would run into a veto. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. D’'EWART. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. Would the gentleman Please again state to the House in as few words as he sees fit just what his amend- ment will do? 2091 Mr. D'EWART. This amendment ex- tends State laws with respect to school attendance, malfeasance or misfeasance in public or tribal office, embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, regulation of automotive traffic, marriage and divorce, and elections, and nothing more. Mr. JENSEN. Now, being a member of the Committee on Appropriations of the House which deals with Indian prob- lems, this very thing has come to the attention of that committee on a num- ber of occasions and the need for such &@ provision in our laws. Mr, Chairman, I sincerely hope that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will be adopted because of the great merit it has. If we adopt that amendment, the conferees can work this matter out to the satisfaction of the In- terior Department and the Indian Serv- {ce. Surely every member of the com- mittee dealing with these Indian prob- lems recognizes the merit in this amend- ment. There could be nothing wrong in adopting it and then calling on the Inte- rior Department to cooperate in working out language which would be beneficial to the Indians and the other people this amendment affects. Mr. D'EWART. I thank the gentle- man from Iowa. There is one more provision I have not discussed, which refers to elections. In 1948 these Indians voted for the first time. There are no election laws that govern on this reservation. They will vote for Senators, they will vote for Con- gressmen, they will vote for President, and they wili vote for the governors of their States, but there are no election laws to govern their voting. That is cer- tainly a strange situation. This amend- ment proposes that the State election laws be applicable on these reservations. It seems to me it is almost mandatory that be the case. I earnestly appeal for the adoption of this amendment. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, I agree with thisamendment. I agreed with the original provisions of section 9, which were broader than the proposed amend- ment. However, the very practical sit- uation is this: If we insist on putting this amendment in the bill, which it is not necessary to do because we can put it in general legislation if it is of great importance, or in subsequent special leg- islation, then we will jeopardize this bill. We had the experience last session of the bill being passed with this subject mat- ter in it, and the President vetoed it. I am afraid that if this provision is in the bill we will meet with another veto. If we do, I think we are doing a great injury to these Indians by following such a procedure. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, MORRIS. man from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. Will the gentleman not admit there is great need for and merit in the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Montana? I yield to the gentle-
2092 Mr. MORRIS. I think there is merit in it, yes; and I think there is need for it. Mr, JENSEN. Will not the gentleman also admit that a law passed and signed by the President without a part, at least, of the provisions of this amendment would be a law which would not be worthy of the name of a United States law? Mr. MORRIS. No; I cannot agree to that at all, because these people are not without law. Do not think they are a lawless people, or that they are a society without law. They have two sets of laws now, their tribal law and the Federal law. They are not without law. They are getting along reasonably well in this regard, I would say. So I cannot agree with that at all. Mr. JENSEN. I certainly would be the Jast person in the world to accuse the Indians of being lawbreakers to any greater degree than the rest of the Amer- ican people. Mr. MORRIS. I am sure the gentle- man would not so accuse them and I do not make any such inference. The gen- tleman knows the high respect I have for him. Mr. JENSEN. And the gentleman knows the high respect I have for him also—if we must pass a few compliments. The tact is our Indians themselves are very much in favor, generally speaking, of the very provisions of the D’Ewart amendment, Mr. MORRIS. The fact is that the Indian Tribal Council voted down the amendment last time which pertained to this very subject matter. The Presi- dent in his veto message gave that as one of the salient reasons why he vetoed it—because the Indians did not want it. We have no assurance at all that the Indians will want even this limited provision in the bill. I think we would be very unwise to put it in because we can cut it in later, may I say to the gentleman, if after mature reflection and consideration we fcel that such a pro- vision should be inthelaw. Wecan then put it in without much trouble, I believe. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORR'TS I yield. Mr. FERNANDEZ. As a matter of fact, as I view the situation this amend- ment leaves out that portion of section 9 that the Indians wanted; that is that portion of the amendment which would give them the opportunity to go to the State courts for the settlement of their own problems among themselves. The amendment includes the things that the Indians do not want, and that is the Jaws with respect to marriage, divorce, and criminal laws. They do not want that. But they are willing to take that if they were given the other parts, such as having some law among themselves, and the opportunity of going to the courts in settlement of their own problems among themselves. That is being left out. So this amend- ment, or the part that the Indians want is left out, and what the Indians do not want is put on. I agree that something is goinz to have to be done about these laws. I think we should have a general CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE bill applying to all reservations. I think it is needed in all reservations. Mr. MORRIS. May I point out to the membership, Mr. Chairman, that the dis- tinguished gentleman from New Mexico, who has addressed us, of course, knows more about these matters than we can possibly know who do not live there. He has expressed an important fact. I think we are treading on dangerous ground when we are seeking to put some- thing in the bill which the Indians them- slves do not want, and which the Presi- dent may feel is so important that he may veto it again. Let us move on with this legislation. Let us not take a chance of doing injury to these Indians just because we want this, that, or the other thing in. We should not do that unless it is imperative and it is not im- perative because it can be taken care of in subsequent legislation. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield. Mr. MURDOCK. I agree thoroughly with the last statement that the gentle- man made, and I am afraid that this will lead to a veto of this necessary legisla- tion, and that the legislation will be handicapped or stymied. We do, how- ever, need an extension of State law over Indian reservations. I would like to see general legislation to that effect. Mr. MORRIS. I thank the gentle- man from Ar.zona. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished ma- joriiy leader, the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. McCormack! received this letter from Charles S. Murphy, admin- istrative assistant to the President—— The CIIAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cklahoma? There was no objection. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chaiiman, the let- ter is as follows: JaNuarRY 10, 1950. Dear JOHN: This is in response to your request that we ascertain whether the pres- ent version of the Navajo-Hopi bill (S. 2734. 8lst Cong) mects the objections raised in the President's veto of a predecessor bill (S 1407). ‘We have made a check of this matter and find that S 2734 does meet the objections raised by the President in his veto of the previous bill, and that the bill in its pres- ent form is approved by the administration. With best regards, Sincerely yours, CHARLIE (Charles S. Murphy), Administrative Assistant to the President. Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that the provisions of the present bill was passed by both Houses before and will meet with the approval of the President. If, as the saying goes, we should start monkeying around with it and change it here and there in important features, we may en- danger the entire bill for this session. Let us not do that. These people need this legislation, Let us not delay it longer. FEBRUARY 21 I would like to make this further sug- gestion in regard to this important mat- ter: When the time comes I will join with the distinguished gentleman from Mon- tana (Mr. D’Ewart!] or any other Mem- ber in efforts along this line. I hope we may work out the problem where our Indian friends will eventually be com- pletely assimilated into our society. But, after all, we must consider them as we go along. We must do that in fairness and in justice. In this particular bill they voted against this subject matter. Let us observe and respect their wishes in this particular bill. I will say to the distinguished gentleman from Montana (Mr. D’Ewart! I dislike to oppose any amendment that he might offer because I recognize the sincerity of his position always. He is not only a distinguished Member of this Congress but, as former chairman of this subcommittee of which I have the honor to be chairman now, he has always been deeply interested in justice and fair play for the Indians, and I respect him. However, I cannot agree with him on this occasion. I wish also to pay my respects to the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on Public Lands (Mr. Peterson). In all my experience I have never worked with a man who, to my knowledge, had a higher and nobler purpose in mind, who was more industrious and worked harder to bring about good generally for society. He has been responsible for much good legislation. I have never seen a man in all my life who was quite such a human dynamo and steam engine in really getting legislative things done in a fine and expcditious way. He is a Rock of Gibraltar when it comes to a matter like this. I realize the burden that falls upon me, a comparatively new Member of the House as chairman of this subcommittee. I have been here 3 years, and that is not a very long time as a legislator. I feel his great strength of character, ability and experience and I want to publicly express my appreciation of it on this occasion. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield. Mr. PETERSON. I thank my distin- guished friend. It is a fine committce of which I have the honor to be chairman, and it has been an inspiration to make possible the work that I have done. Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield. Mr. WIER. Would you feel that it was wise, as long as you are subjecting the Indians in these two particular States to the civil laws of those States, that in return they ought to be respected by those laws in their right to buy a drink? Mr. MORRIS. I believe that issue has been presented once to the House, and it may be presented again, but I do not think it should come into the discussion of this bill at this time. I am sorry I cannot answer the gentleman directly, because I do not think we ought to get off onto a lot of ancillary matters in con- nection with this important measure. Mr. WIER. You are off on a lot of them now.
1950 Mr. MORRIS. I am sorry, I cannot yield further. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has again expired. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it neces- sary for me to speak at length, but I do want briefly to make my position clear on this matter. I absolutely agree with the gentleman from Montana |Mr. D’Ewartl. He has worked hard and sincerely to figure out what can be done concerning this con- flicting jurisdiction with respect to In- dians. Iam in agreement with him that this sort of legislation is necessary. I have worked with him and he has worked with me in putting in the amendment the last time, which was vetoed. That amendment was approved by the Indian council, because the Indian council and the Indians themselves—as a matter of fact, the Indians more than the Indian council—have been demanding the right to go to the State courts in conflicts be- tween themselves and between individ- ual Indians and the tribe or tribal coun- cil. That is what they wanted. So, be- cause they wanted that they were will- ing to take this other also. They also want that part of the previous amend- ment which required that the State cur- riculum be applied to the Indian schools. That is left out of this amendment; in fact, this amendment leaves out the very things that the Indians wanted and puts in the things that we wanted but that they did not and do not want. Under these circumstances, I am very fearful that the President will veto it. I know positively that Collier will again set his people in motion to put the pressure on the President to veto it, because he does not believe in Indians coming under State law with respect to marriages. Former Secretary Ickes agrees with Col- ler, and, as you will recall, the press re- ported shortly after this bill was vetoed that there was a conference between for- mer Secreary Ickes and the President in which, the press reported, this very point was stressed. Referring to this conference, the Washington Post on No- vember 9, 1949, said in Drew Pearson’s column: One of the things Ickes talked to Truman about was the plight of the Navajos and the veto of a bill just passed by Congress, putting the Navajo under State laws of Arizona and New Mexico. The Catholic Church has been worried over the divorce and remarriage systems of the Navajos by which they merely appear before their own tribal authorities if they wish to divorce. However, both Ickes and Truman felt that the Indians were entitled to their ancient tribal customs. Clearly, this amendment does violence to what it is reported the President be- Jieves in, and it certainly flies in the face of the well-known views of former Com- missioner Collier and former Secretary Ickes with respect to Indian marriages and divorces. These men and their in- fluence over Nation-wide organizations of Indian friends would put the pressure again on the President to veto this bill, xXCVI——132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and I fear that if the amendment is adopted it may bring about another veto. I repeat that if we adopt this amend- ment we are putting in that which the Indians do not want and taking out that which the Indians do want. I think this matter ought to be brought up in a general bill before the committee and that we should have additional hearings on it, particularly if it is to be a general bill applying to all the reservations. For example, up in Taos right now a suit has just been tried in the Federal court in which the tribe ejected the husband of an Indian from her property because he came from an- other Indian reservation. This pair had lived together in the Taos pueblo for years, they have three children, but now the tribe has decided that they do not like this Indian who married the girl in Taos and have ordered them to move out. The Federal court has held that the tribal council is supreme and that the Federal Government cannot interfere. Under State law the rights of this couple and their three children could be pro- tected. There are so many fundamental prob- lems involved that the changes should be considered in a general bill during which all these various angles can be considered, what the Indians want, what the State wants in order to protect its socicty as well as the Indians, and what the Indian Office wants to assist them in the ultimate objcctive of integrating the Indian into the citizenship of the State. I sincerely hope that the Mem- bers of the House, although some of us fought hard for this amendment before, will not vote for it now. The adoption of a similar provision before gives notice of the policy the Congress desires to have pursued. With the veto of the President the question has received national at- tention, and both Indians and non-In- dians are and should be studying the problem. Since the chairman has stated that a separate bill will be con- sidered, it would be wiser not to en- danger this important bill by another attempt here to solve this problem of law and order, and of the Indians’ civil rights as citizens of the State to have access to its courts for the enforcement of rights and the redress of wrongs. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D’Ewarrt]. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. D’Ewart) there were—ayes 27, noes 23. Mr. PETERSON. Mr, Chairman, I ask for tellers. Tellers were ordered and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. D’Ewart and Mr. PETERSON. The Committce again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 35, noes 28. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Saytor: On page 8, line 12, after the word “amounts”, strike out “expended” and insert “of con- tributions by the State toward expenditures.” 2093 Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I sin- cerely hope this amendment will not be as controversial as the one the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D’Ewart] just of- fered. Mr, PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentle- man from Florida. Mr. PETERSON. As I understand it, that is the wording the gentleman from New York | Mr. Taser], discussed a few minutes ago? Mr. SAYLOR. It is. Mr. PETERSON. The_ gentleman from Pennsylvania has put into form an amendment suggested by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taser]. We have no objection to it and will consent to the amendment on this side. Mr.SAYLOR I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Saytor]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments to offer and I ask unanimous consent that they be read and considered together. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. PETERSON: On page 9, Ine 6, strike out “chair- man thereof” and insert “President of the Senate” and page 9, lines 9 and 10, strike out “chairman thereof” and insert “Speaker of the House of Representatives " The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentle- man from Florida [Mr. Peterson}. The amendments were agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Price, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (S. 2734) to promote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of Indians and a better utilization of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reserva- tions, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 480, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand a separate vote on the D’Ewart amendment. The SPEAKER. The Chair will put the other amendments en gros. The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. D'Ewart: On page 11, following line 2, add a new section numbered 11, to read as follows:
2094 “Src. 11. From and after the effective date of this act all Indians within the tribal or allotted lands of the Navajo and Hopi Reser- vations shall be subject to the laws of the States wherein such lands are located, with respect to (1) school attendance, (2) mal- feasance or misfeasance in public or tribal office, (3) embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, (4) regulation of automotive traffic, (5) marriage and divorce, (6) elections, and shall have access to the courts of such States for the enforcement of these rights and the redress of these wrongs to the same extent and in the same manner as any citizen thereof.” The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment on which a separate vote was demanded. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. D’Ewart) there were—ayes 37, noes 31. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and I make the point of order that a quorum is not pres- ent. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 143, nays 196, not voting 92, as follows: [Roll No 52] YEAS—143 Allen, Calif. Gwinn Murray, Wis. Andersen, Hagen Nelson H. Carl Hale Nixon Anderson, Calif Hall, Norblad Andresen, Leonard W O'Hara, Minn. August H. Halleck O’Konski Angell Hand Pfeiffer, Auchincloss Harvey William L. Barrett, Wyo. Heselton Phillips, Calif. Beall Hill Phillips, Tenn, Bennett, Mich. Hinshaw Plumley Bishop Hoeven Potter Blackney Hoffman, Il. Poulson Boggs, Del. Hoffman, Mich Reed, Ill Bolton, Ohio Holmes Reed, N Y. Bramblett Hope Rees Brehm Horan Rich Brown, Ohio Hull Rogers, Mass, Burdick Jackson, Calif. 8t. George Byrnes, Wis. James Sanborn Canfie!d Jenison Saylor Case,N J. Jenkins Scott, Hardie Church Jennings Bcott, Clevenger Jensen Hugh D., Jr. Cole, Kans. Johnson Scudder Cole, N. ¥. Jonas Shafer Corbett Judd Short Cotton Kean Simpson, Ill. Crawford Kearney Simpson, Pa. Cunningham Kearns Smith, Kans. Curtis Keating Smith, Wis. Dague Kecfe Stefan Davis, Wis. Kilburn Stockman D'Ewart Latham Taber Dolliver LeCompte Talle Dondero LeFevre Tollefson Ellsworth Lemke Towe Elston Lovre Van Zandt Engel. Mich. McConnell Vorys Fellows McCulloch Vursell Fenton McDonough Weichel Ford Mack, Wash. Werdel Fulton Macy Widnall Gamble Martin, Mass. Wigglesworth Gavin Mason Williams Gillette Merrow Wilson, Ind, Golden Meyer Withrow Goodwin Michener Wolcott Graham Miller, Md. Gross Morton NAYS—196 Abbitt Andrews Bates Abernethy Aspinall Battle Addonizio Barden Beckworth Albert Barrett, Pa. Bennett, Fla. Bentsen Biemiller Blatnik Boggs, La. Bolling Bolton, Md. Bonner Bosone Boykin Breen Brooks Bryson Buchanan Buckley, Ill. Burke Burleson Burnside Burton Byrne, N. Y. Camp Cannon Carlyle Carnahan Carroll Cavalcante Celler Chesney Christopher Chudoff Clemente Combs Cooley Cooper Crook Crosser Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Deane DeGraffenried Delaney Denton Dollinger Doughton Doyle Durham Eaton Elliott Engle, Calif. Evins Feighan Fernandez Fisher Flood Fogarty Forand Prazier Fugate Furcolo Gordon Gorski Granger Grant Allen, Tl. Allen, La, Arends Balley Baring Brown, Ga. Buckley, N. Y. Bulwinkle Case, 8. Dak. Chatham Chelf Chiperfleld Colmer Coudert Cox Davenport Davies, N. Y. Dawson Dingell Donohue Douglas Eberharter Fallon Garmatz Gary Gathings Gilmer Gore Gossett Granahan Green Gregory CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Hardy O'Sullivan Hare Pace Harrison Pagaman Hart Patman Havenner Patten Hays, Ark. Perkins Heller Peterson Herlong Philbin Hobbs Pickett Holifield Poage Huber Polk Jackson, Wash. Preston Javits ce Jones, Ala, Priest Jones, N.C. Quinn Karst Rains Karsten Rankin Kee Redden Kelly, N Y¥. Regan Kennedy Rhodes Kerr Ribicoff King Richards Kirwan Rivers Klein Rodino Kruse Rooney Lane Roosevelt Lanham Sabath Larcade Sasscer Lesinski Secrest Lind Shelley Linehan Sheppard Lyle Sikes Lynch Sims McCarthy Smith, Va. McCormack Spence McGutre Steed McKinnon Sullivan McMillan, 8.C Sutton McSweeney Tackett Mack, 1. Tauriello Madden Thompson Magee Trimble Mahon Underwood Mansfield Wagner Marcantonio Walsh Marsalis Welch Marshall Wheeler Mules White, Calif. Miller, Calif. White, Idaho Mills Whitten Mitchell Whittington Morgan Wier Morris Wilson, Okla, Morrison Wilson, Tex. Moulder Winstead Multer ‘Wood Murdock Woodhouse Noland Worley Norrell Yates O'Brien, Tl. Young O'Hara, 1, O'Neill NOT VOTING—092 Hall, Patterson Edwin Arthur Pfeifer, Harden Joseph L, Harris Powell Hays, Ohio Rabaut Hébert Ramsay Hedrick Riehlman Heffernan Rogers, Fla. Herter Sadlak Howell Sadowski Irving Scrivner Jacobs Smathers Jones, Mo. Smith, Obio Kelley, Pa. Btaggers Keogh Stanley Kilday Stigler Kunkel Taylor Lichtenwalter Teague Lodge Thomas Lucas Thornberry McGrath Velde McGregor Vinson McMillen, 11. Wadsworth Martin, Iowa Walter Miller, Nebr. Whitaker Monroney Wickersham Murphy Willis Murray, Tenn. Wolverton Nicholson Woodruff Norton Zablocki O’Brien, Mich. O'Toole So the amendment was rejected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Herter for, with Mr. Baring against. FEBRUARY 21 Mr. Lichtenwalter for, with Mr. Gilmer against. Mr. Wolverton for, with Mr. Gary against. Mr. Woodruff for, with Mr. Garmats against. Mr. Coudert for, with Mr. Murphy against. Mr, Arends for, with Mr. Green against. Mr. Case of South Dakota for, with Mr. Jones of Missouri against. Mr. Allen of Lltnois for, with Mr. Stigler against. Mr. McGregor for, with Mr. Stanley against. Mr. Nicholson for, with Mr. Brown of Geor- gia against. Mr. Taylor for, with Mr. Chatham against. Mr. Kunkel) for, with Mr. Donohue against. Mr. McMillen of IMnois for, with Mrs. Douglas against. Mr. Miller of Nebraska for, with Mr. Fallon against. Mr. Riehlman for, with Mr. Eberharter against. Mrs. Harden for, with Mr. Hébert against. Mr. Velde for, with Mr. Irving against. Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall for, with Mr. Wickersham against, Mr. Sadlak for, with Mr. Smathers against. Mr. Patterson for, with Mr. Rogers of Flore ida against. Until further notice: Mr. Gregory with Mr. Chiperfield. Mr. Harris with Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Whitaker with Mr. Bmith of Ohio. Mr. Willis with Mr. Scrivner. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. The SPEAKER. The question {fs on the third reading of the Senate bill. The bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. The bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand that the yea and nay votes be in- cluded as part of today’s Journal. The SPEAKER. The Chair does not understand the gentleman. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I make the request that the yea and nay votes just recorded be made a part of today’s Journal, The SPEAKER. The Chair under- stands that it always is made a part of the Journal. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to extend their remarks in the Recorp on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. FEIGHAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mrs. WOODHOUSE asked and was given permission to extend her remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial from the Boston Herald. Mr. BOLLING asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter. Mr. MITCHELL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous material.
1950 Mr. TACKETT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in four instances and include certain editorials. Mr. JENSEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include a statement released by him today. Mr. JENISON asked and was given Permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorD and include a lettcr from a con- stituent. Mr. JENKINS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article by Mrs, Botton of Ohio. Mr. CANFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp. Mr. RICH asked and was given permis- sion to extend his remarks in the Rec- orD and include questions and answers by Paul O. Peters. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mich- igan? There was no objection. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, February 15, in an extension of remarks, I included a newspaper state- ment pointing out the great dangers in- herent in the packing of the Federal Reserve Board with pliant mcn who may fail to carry out the intent of the law which created that Board. Today I have a few remarks of my own to make which, I believe, will show how a bourd such as this can be packed. I draw my material from the Board’s own records. The spirit of the Banking Act of 1935 was clearly violated in the past by the appointments of Rudolph M. Evans; the late Lawrence Clayton; M. S. Szymczak, and to a certain extent, Marriner S. Eccles. I shall take these cases on In their order. First of all, let me point out that the law provides that no more than one Governor shall be appointed from the same Federal reserve district at the same time, and it also provides that no mem- ber of the Board who has served a con- secutive 14-year term shall be eligible for reappointment. In the case of Governor Evans, he was appointed from Virginia presumably a resident of that State, whereas as a mat- ter of fact he was a permanent resident of the State of Iowa until the time he was appointed to the Corn-Hog Section of the Agricultural Adjustment Admin- istration, Department of Agriculture, in 1933 by Henry A. Wallace, a long-time personal friend, In fact, he is regarded as a protégé of Mr. Wallace. While serv- ing in the Agriculture Department he was a landowner in the State of Iowa and maintained continuously large hold- ings and business interests and every year made several extended visits to his residence for the purpose of looking after his interests, He had a Washing- ton address, of course, in Alexandria, like thousands of other Federal workers, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE but I am certain that he, like thousands of others, regarded it as a temporary address until the question of his legal residence came up in March of 1942 when he was being considered for ap- pointment as a member of the Federal Reserve Board. President Roosevelt was apparently advised that he was a bona fide resident of Virginia and apparently the Senate was likewise advised because the appointment was confirmed as a bona fide resident of Virgima. Since his appointment I understand that he has maintained his activities in Iowa, has absolutely no interest, commercial, political, or otherwise, in Virginia, ex- cept that of his living quarters. I am sure he still regards himself as an Iowan and spends much time each year in Iowa. The only reason for the deliber- ate evasion of the spirit of the law in connection with this lush appointment, 14 years at $15,000 a year, was that Evans was a very close friend of Henry Wallace, and was a close friend of Mar- riner Eccles, who wanted him on the Board of the Federal Reserve System and found that it was impossible to have him appointed from Iowa because that State 1s located in the Seventh Federal Reserve District, Chicago, and the dis- trict already had a member on the board, Mr. M. S. Szymczak. Another obvious violation of the spirit of the Federal Reserve Act, if not the letter, is apparent in the reappointment of M.S. Szymczak. The Federal Reserve Act provides that no member of the Board of Governors, having served a con- secutive 14-year term, shall be eligible for reappointment as a member of the Board. M. S. Szymezak, of Chicago, was first appointed to the Federal Reserve Board in June 1933 and served continuously until February 1, 1936, when the tech- nical status of the whole Board was changed to that of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Without a break in service he was designated by the President to continue on with the changed organization and received a 12- year appointment dated February 1, 1926, and expiring February 1, 1948. It will be noted that at the expiration of the term in February 1948, he had served approximately 15 years as a member of the Federal Reserve Board. In the face of this continuous service in excess of 14 years, Szymczak’s appoint- ment was urged by Chairman Eccles and was finally agreed to by the President and he was reappointed in February 1948 for a full term of 14 years. At the con- clusion of this present term in 1962, he will have served continuously as a mem- ber of the Federal Reserve Board for approximately 29 years and will have reached the age of 68 before his term expires. It is admitted that the Congress never intended that one man should serve so long on the Federal Reserve Board, or else the Congress would not have placed in the Jaw the positive prohibition against the reappointment of any man who had served a 14-year term. The trick here was the placing in the act by the man 2095 who wrote the bill of the word “con- tinuous.” Lawrence Clayton, recently deceased, was appointed as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on February 14, 1947, to fill a vacancy which had been left unfilled 8 or 10 years previously. In this ap- pointment the spirit of the law was violated in the same manner as it was in the appointment of Evans, because al- though Clayton was appointed as a resi- dent of Boston, he had been, in fact, a resident of the State of Utah since child- hood. Clayton was born in Salt Lake City in 1891. In 1924 he became associated with Marriner S. Eccles in the First National Bank of Ogden and continued in that capacity as one of Eccles’ right-hand men until 1934, when Eccles brought him to Washington as Special Assistant to the Chairman—Eccles—in December 1934, In January 1945, Eccles had Clayton moved to Boston, Mass., where he assumed the nominal position as presi- dent of Clayton Securities Corp., of Bos- ton, a company owned and operated by Clayton’s brother. It was said at the time that the purpose of this move was to make Clayton eligible, either for a position as president of the Federal Re- serve Bank of Boston, or for appoint- ment to the Federal Reserve Board from the Boston District to succeed John K. McKee, whose term was to expire in February 1946. It is understood that President Roosevelt had agreed to this appointment. Unfortunately for Clay- ton, Roosevelt died, Truman became President, and Governor Vardaman was designated for the appointancnt to suc- ceed McKee. The Board of Directors of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank did not look with favor upon making Clayton president of that institution, and instead of him, they selected Laurence Whittemore. Eccles then went to President Truman and demanded that Clayton be appointed to fill the long standing vacancy on the board and Clayton was, therefore, ap- pointed, presumably, as a resident of Boston, Mass., in the First Federal Re- serve District. In fairness to President Trumar, it should be said that he was told that Clayton was a bona fide resi- dent of Boston and had been there for many years; and this same misinforma- tion was passed on to the United States Senate, and Clayton’s appointment was confirmed in February 1947. The necessity for evading the law in this case is obvious. Clayton was and had been widely known as Eccles’ “Man Friday” for more than 20 years, and was known to do Eccles’ bidding without ques- tion in all matters official and most mat- ters personal. Since Eccles himself was appointed from the Twelfth Federal Re- serve District, San Francisco, in which Utah—Clayton’s real home—was located, it was necessary to move Clayton to a district from which no Governor was then serving, and because of the loca- tion of Clayton's brother in Boston, that locale naturally suggested itself. The Boston district embraces the States cf
2096 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mas- sachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and yet in all of that area—one of the most important and intelligent and wealthiest districts in all America— not one bona fide resident was offered the appointment, but this temporary resident, hand-picked and moved into the district for the purpose, was selected to represent the great area embracing the New England States, on the Fed- eral Reserve Board, when he had been a temporary resident of that area less than 2 years. Clayton died in December 1949. I made a study of these interesting developments in the Federal Reserve Board after I read a statement which I inserted in the Recorp last Wednesday, and I want to assure the public that packing the Federal Reserve Board is entirely possible, as the record reveals. Of course, we are unable to deduce that there was not a very good reason for this packing, and many of us feel that we know what the reason is. There is one thing that will lead us away from democracy toward fascism more quickly than anything else and that is the at- tempt to seize power in this country through the banks. If the banks can control it by one man or a little clique, industry will be the next to fall in line, We have a lot of worries in this coun- try, many of them from abroad, but I think it is time for us to do some worry- ing here at home. I am interested, for the sake of the future of our Republic, to determine what effect this deliberate packing of the Federal Reserve Board has had upon the actions of the Board in the past few years. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michi- gan [Mr. Horrman] is recognized for 20 minutes. COMMUNISTS IN PUBLIC OFFICE Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr, Speaker, last night I was over in the other body until 11:30. Part of what took place, I suppose all of it, is in the REcorp. I think it would be most interesting and certainly disturbing if every Member of the House would know what happened over there. I do not know whether or not it ts within the rules of the House to refer to what was said, 80 I will say only this, that a Member of the other body from documents before him which he said came from the investigators of the State Department or the FBI, cited case after case where statements of fact concluded with the statement that the individual to whom reference was made was a Com- munist or associated with Communists. The individuals to whom reference was made, except three or four, are in the State Department. Then, as appears in the morning papers, when the Member of the other body was asked to put the names on record, he declined to do so. There was much criticism because he would not name the individuals. There would have been more had he done so. My thought is this: If the public wants to know the names of the indi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE viduals to whom the gentleman is re- ferring, if the public wants the record, the facts, all of the facts, as disclosed by the files, all that needs to be done is for the President of the United States to issue an order releasing those files to the public. Overlong the Congress has been denied information to enable it to legis- late wisely and well. The very first words of the Constitution are these, “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The Supreme Court has held time and again, notably in McGrain against Daugherty, that the House and the other body have the right to infor- mation which is in the files of the execu- tive department in order to enable them to carry out their legislative duties. Most assuredly when it is charged as it has been charged that there are Com- munists not only in the State Depart- ment, but in other departments of the Government, the executive branch of the Government, it would seem, before the Congress appropriates money to en- able those departments to carry on their functions, with those individuals as em- ployees, that we should be entitled to have the record, force the President to make public the record, of any commu- nistic activities, especially when that rec- ord 1s compiled by the department’s own agents. Certainly this is true when the record discloses, as the CONGRESSIONAL RecorpD this morning shows, and as the Newspapers indicate that a number of those employees—more than 50 of them—are Communists or associated with Communists and follow Communist practice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Davis] is recognized for 40 minutes. FEPC LEGISLATION Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. For too long the average person has been complacent and undisturbed while the Communists, Socialists, and radicals have been work- ing to remake our free Government into one patterned after European dictator- ships. Too many have said, “It can’t happen here,” while actually it was happening here day by day. Too many have refused to believe we face any real danger of losing freedom, while actually it was being nibbled away bit by bit. Now we have come to the point where those who, in the past, laughed at warn- ings of Communist activities, realize that Russia and the Communists have for years stolen from us secrets of the most vital nature, and used for the purpose not only their own foreign agents but native-born Americans serving as public officials and Government employees, who betrayed the country as foully and shamelessly as ever Benedict Arnold did. We have seen Russian communism take over governments and countries one by one, until now 14 countries are in the cruel grip of communism; and commu- FEBRUARY 21 nism {fs still going full speed on {ts con- quering march. We see our national debt, already two hundred fifty-six and two-thirds billion dollars, increasing day by day for long periods of time at the rate of approxi- mately a million dollars an hour. We see the Nation’s coal pile dwindle to a week's supply in the dead of winter, bringing suffering to those without fuel, and unemployment to tens of thousands engaged in railroading and other indus- tries dependent upon coal to operate. While these things exist and grow worse day by day, we see the administra- tion and the Congress, who ought to be concerning themselves with the impor- tant task of correcting these conditions, ignore them. Instead we see the administration, heedless of the people’s needs, heedless of the country’s welfare, itself bidding for the support of politically active minority groups, demand of a subservient Congress that it enact into Jaw one of the most viclous and bureaucratic measures which ever became a part of the Commu- nist Party line—namely, the so-called and misnamed Fair Employment Prac- tices Commission Act, usually referred to by the initials FEPC. So, on the two hundred and eight- eenth anniversary of the Father of our Country, we have the sorry spectacle of those who are willing to cater to minority groups combining their forces to bring out this vicious, bureaucratic, commu- nistic, un-American bill on the day which heretofore has been set aside exclusively to respect and revere the memory of that great man who led the patriots of this country into the formation of our free Government in 1776. For a time it seemed that the advo- cates of this vicious measure intended to ignore Washington's Birthday, even to the extent of breaking the long-estab- lished custom, followed for many years, of reading Washington’s Farewell Ad- dress on his birthday anniversary. See- ing that a storm of indignation and re- sentment was about to descend upon their heads, the FEPC group now plans to share Washington's Birthday with Washington. They plan to proceed to press for the FEPC bill after the reading of Washington’s Farewell Address. What is the FEPC bill, and who are those who are loudest in their insistence upon its enactment? Mr. McCORMACK. the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. Would the gentle- man assure the majority leader that if unanimous consent were asked that Calendar Wednesday be put over until the next day, Thursday, and that day would be used as Calendar Wednesday, that the consent would be granted? Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Certainly the gentleman knows I could not assure him that, before he asked the question. Mr. McCORMACK. I can assure the gentleman that a survey has been made and the gentleman has received informa- tion that if such request were made there would be objection, but not from those in favor of the FEPC, I simply say that Mr. Speaker, will
1950 so that the Recorp may be clear, but not in any way to inject myself into my friend’s speech. Just so that the Recorp may be clear. As far as I am concerned, I would be glad to have the next day utilized the same as Calendar Wednes- day, but it can only be done by unani- mous consent; and as far as I am con- cerned, I have made a survey and I have reached the conclusion that it cannot be done. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Well, I have yielded to the gentleman for the purpose of making a statement. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. You might in turn ask the distinguished majority leader if it would be agreeable to him to ask that we dispense with Calendar Wednesday on tomorrow by unanimous consent, in order that this bill may go over and come up a week later, out of deference to George Washington. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Well, I would say that it is a matter of a great deal of surprise to me that after these months and years of dispensing with Calendar Wednesday, whatever may have been the reason for it, that on this particular day which has always been set aside to honor the memory of George Washington by reading his Farewell Address and then adjourning, it suddenly becomes impera- tive to call up this iniquitous FEPC bill. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield. Mr. SUTTON. If time is so pressing that we have to bring up the FEPC to- morrow, perhaps it would be in order that we should object every Thursday to adjourning over until Monday. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. It is a peculiar thing that at this particular time it be- came necessary to call up the FEPC bill on this anniversary of Washington’s Birthday. While the subject is up, I would like to offer this remark also, that while the various advocates of the FEPC bill apparently are vying with each other to claim credit for its introduction and to claim credit for the machinery for get- ting it up, some of these days the people of the United States are going to wake up to the fact of what is being perpetrated upon them if this iniquitous bill is passed, and some of those who are so anxious to be known as its authors and fathers and sponsors are going to want to be on the other side of the fence when an outraged people finally find out what has been going on here and what it means to the country. On last Wednesday, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Comer] pointed out on this floor that it was the gentle- man from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] who in 1942 introduced the first FEPC bill in this Congress. The gentleman from New York | Mr. Marcantonio], as everyone knows, has probably been more active than any Member of this House in opposing the House Committee on Un-American Ac- tivities, and in seeking to destroy it. The House Committee on Un-American CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Activities is the group which, next to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has done more than any other group or body to expose Communist activities in this country, and to bring to justice those traitors who have betrayed America to the Communists. It 1s a peculiar thing that, throughout the years, those who have been most vocal and most active in fighting the Committee on Un-American Activities have likewise been the most vocal and most active in pressing for the enact- ment of this Communist-supported FEPC legislation. As is the case with so many Communist-supported _ policies, this iniquitous act is dressed up with a liberal and appealing label. It bears the title, ‘Federal Fair Employment Prac- tice Act.” If the bill adhered to the pur- pose sect forth in its title, it would be sup- ported by many who now oppose it. It is not a Fair Employment Practice Act. On the contrary, it is unfair. It is dic- tatorial. It is destructive of freedom. It is coercive in its provisions, We had a so-called Fair Employment Practice Bureau set up during the war by Executive order. The people of Amer- ica have not forgotten by any means the coercion, the unfairness, and the dicta- torial practices indulged in by those who operated the wartime FEPC. When the wartime FEPC was in opcra- tion we had a good example of what may be expected if another FEPC is created. To begin with, the majority of the wartime FEPC staff were Negroes. There were a few renegade whites who were willing to become a part of such an or- ganization, and they were given posi- tions in some of the offices. The personnel of the regional FEPC office in Atlanta consisted of one Negro man, one Negro woman, two white men, and one white woman. This personnel, with their positions and salaries, con- sisted of the following: Regional office, Atlanta Incumbent Tite Race {Salary Dodge, Wither: | Reglonal diree- | White... |$4, 600 spoon tor Tope, John... Fair-practice ox. | Colored. | 3, 800 uminer Mehay, George D.|-.---do__...------ White_..| 3, 200 Chubb, Sally. ....| Clerk-stenog- [|--.do_-.. 2, O00 tapher, Ingram, Thelma... |---- do.....--...- Colored. | 1, 800 From the best information I have been able to get, in January 1946 this motley bureau employed a total of 114 persons in its 14 regional offices and 7 admin- istrative offices. Of the 114 persons, 61 were Negroes. This was more than half the total number, while the Negro pop- ulation in the United States, roughly, is only 10 percent of the total. Thus the example set by the Commis- sion itself was one of rank discrimina- tion. This indicates that ending dis- crimination is the last thing in the minds of those who sponsor this FEPC Com- mission. Do you remember some of the dicta- torial, asinine, silly activities of this black and tan group while it was having a field day during the war years? 2097 It was brourht to my attention at the time that one of its black and tan would-be Mussolinis issued an order in the State of Texas that a person who wanted to hire a colored employee in Texas could not insert an ad in the want ad section of the newspaper, which read: “Wanted, colored porter.” The prospective employer was ordered to insert his ad in this fashion: “Wanted, porter.” Of course, an order of that kind would not be obeyed in the State of Texas. It was not obeyed, and while it is very likely that if this legislation ever is enacted, similar orders will be issued, I believe it is ‘a safe prediction that they would not be obeyed now. There is no limit to the unreasonable, foolish, impossible requirements of the impractical, short-sighted advocates of this communistic theory. For instance, here are some of the regulations and rulings issued by the FEPC Commission in New York State, as outlined in a speech by the gentleman from Missis- sippi (Mr. Rankin] on the floor of the House February 13, 1947. Unlawful practices: Inquiry into the original name of the ap- plicant for employment whose name has been changed by court proceedings or other- wise. Inquiry into the birthplace of the appli- cant for employment, the birthplace of his parents, spouse, or other close relatives. Unlawful to require that the applicant for employment produce a birth certificate or baptismal certificate Unlawful to inquire into the religious de- nomination of an applicant for employment, his religious affiliations, his church, parish pastor, or religious holidays observed. Un- lawful to inquire whether an applicant for employment is an atheist. An applicant for employment may not be told that this is a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish organization. Unlawful to inquire into the complexion of an applicant for employment. Unlawful to inquire whether an appli- cant for employment is a naturalized or na- tive-born citizen; the date when the appli- cant acquired citizenship; whether the ap- plicant’s parents or spouse are naturalized or native-born citizens of the United States; the date when such parents or spouse acquired citizenship. Unlawful to require that an applicant for employment produce his naturalization papers or first papers. Unlawful to inquire into the lMneage of an applicant for employment, his ancestry, or national origin. Unlawful to inquire into the location of places of business of relatives of an appli- cant for employment. Unlawful to inquire into the place of res- idence of the parents, spouse, or other close relatives of an applicant for employment. Unlawful to inquire into the maiden name of the wife of a male applicant for employ- ment and/or inquire into the maiden name of the mother of a male or female applicant for employment. Unlawful to inquire into the general mill- tary experience of an applicant for employ- ment. Unlawful to inquire into the whereabouts of an applicant for employment during the First World War, |. e., during the period from 1914 to 1919. Thus under these New York FEPC rul- ings and regulations it would be unlawful
2098 to find out whether an applicant for em- ployment is a Baptist, Methodist, Cath- olic, or other denomination. It would be unlawful to find out whether the applicant is a veteran of World War I or not. It would be unlawful to inquire whether the applicant is an atheist or not. You could not find out whether an ap- plicant for employment is a Communist or not. You could not inquire whether the ap- plicant is white or colored. You could not find out anything about the applicant's parents, wife, husband, or other close relatives, You could not find out where a person was born. You could not even find out whether he was a native of the United States or of a foreign country, amd if you acciden- tally found out he was a native of a for- eign country, you could not find out whether he had become a naturalized citizen of the United States or not. The whole thing is so silly and simple, it condemns itself. The real purpose of this legislation is not to end discrimination in employment, or give equality of opportunity in em- ployment. It is one phase of the efforts of mis- guided persons with warped and twisted minds who seek to tear down all barriers between the races, and force social inter- mingling, and intermarriage between whites and blacks. This is something which cannot be forced upon the people in my section. I give you fair warning that such efforts cannot be successful. They will only bring bloodshed, and will bring about more antagonism and friction between the races than has existed at any time since reconstruction days when the last attempt to accomplish this purpose mis- erably and utterly failed. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. KEEFE asked and was given per- mission to address the House on Mon- day, February 27, for 1 hour following disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered. The SPEAKER. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Brooxs] is recognized for 20 minutes. FLOODS IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, every newspaper and report reaching me from Louisiana is filled with stories of swollen rivers and flooded lands. We are in the midst of a period of floods on the lower Mississippi and huge amounts of water have been moving down the streams from the upper reaches of the Mississippi Val- ley and into the lower Mississippi Basin. It is predicted that the lower Mississippi and tributaries will reach a still higher level than it has reached at the present time and thus the flood stage in the next few weeks will approach a crisis. Thus far the work of the Army engineers has stood up well against the pressure of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE water moving toward the Gulf of Mexico. No levee has broken and no crevasse has thus far occurred but as weeks go by the levees will become waterlogged and they then will meet their severest test. The improved channel permits an orderly movement of water down stream and the use of reservoirs which have been com- pleted holds up thousands of acres of water to be released when it can be safely channeled down stream to the Gulf of Mexico. Thus we have a more orderly handling of the floodwaters that come from the 32 States of the Union consti- tuting the land between the eastern divide in the Allegheny mountains and the western divide in the Rocky moun- tains. Mr. Speaker, the water that is pres- ently being channeled through Louisi- ana is not Louisiana water. It comes from many States, north, east, and west of the State of Louisiana. It is the floodwaters coming from areas along such streams as the Ohio, Cumberland, Tenn., upper Mississippi, Missouri, Ar- kansas, White, and upper Red Rivers in- to Louisiana on its way to the Gulf. Thus our problem in the lower part of the Mississippi Basin is not a Louisiana problem but a national problem made thus by the laws of nature improved by the methods of men to drain the greatest valley in the world of excess water. While these floodwaters pouring down on us today come from other States and other sections of the country, they are nonetheless most destructive and dan- gerous. A year or two ago we had a crevasse at Baton Rouge, La., which was due to the sloughing off of the levee on the west bank of the Mississippi above Baton Rouge. The destructiveness of this crevasse was reduced by the brilliant werk of the Army engineers in immediately curbing and preventing the break-through of the levees at this point from spreading. As I said before, thus far no such levee break has occurred but in certain areas in Louisiana the backwater has filtered in, covering many thousands of acres of fertile land in our State. That water is water which because of the height of the main channel backs up into the tribu- taries and finds its way out of the stream channels at points not fully protected. In this way much damage is done. Reports reaching me indicate in Lou- isiana at the present time that over 2,000,000 acres are now under water. I am informed over 9,000 people have been removed to higher ground where they will be safe until the floodwater recedes. This backwater area should be the sub- ject of attention by Congress and an ap- propriation of funds by us at an early date. This situation is progressively get- ting worse. Mr. Speaker, at many points along Red River, we find flooded areas at the pres- ent time. Red River is a stream which rises in far west Texas, flows some 1,300 miles east and southeast until it empties into the Atchafalaya near its confluence with the Mississippi River. At points around Cypress, for instance, the Red River backwater areas have become dis- FEBRUARY 21 tressingly acute and this floodwater is causing a great deal of destruction and damage to property. I have in my hands photographs taken in the last few days and flown here to Washington showing the extent to which this floodwater is covering the land along the Red River, especially on the west bank of the river in the vicinity of Cypress and Zimmerman, La. Some of these pictures are especially interesting as they show the efforts of cattle to pro- tect themselves from drowning by seek- ing higher ground. I mention these pictures especially be- cause there is presently before the Ap- propriations Committee a proposal for a cloture and floodgate at Colfax, La., on the right descending bank together with a diversion channel. It is extremely important that this diversion channel be built. This project would provide for locks and for an “unlevee'd” canal per- mitting drainage of backwaters down Cane River. As these papers indicate, at the pres- ent time seventy to eighty thousand acres of very fertile land in the Red River Basin are under water near Colfax because of the need of this flood control diversion channel. If the locks and the channel are built separately, it will cost $1,350,000. If these are both built at the same time they will ultimately be- come a part of the Overton Red River Lateral Canal which has been author- ized by this Congress. Thus these two items may be built jointly at the pres- ent time at a saving of from $600,000 less than the $1,350,000 which this proj- ect might otherwise cost. In other words, by combining the projects a sav- ing of $350,000 might be effected. In addition to this, the State of Louisiana has agreed to contribute $250,000 as an incentive toward getting this project started. Thus by starting the project at the present time the United States Gov- ernment will save $600,000 in the over- all picture of the development of this area, Nor is this all. Up and down the Red River at many points backwater has inundated fertile land, rendering it im- possible for cultivation, killing livestock and poultry and causing great damage to property in the areas covered. The Mississippi has fanned out over many parts of the district represented by my colleague, the honorable Otro PASSMAN, threatening whole towns and cities and causing millions of dollars of damage. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. Ihave just looked at the pictures which the gentleman has passed around here, and certeinly I can under- stand why the gentleman is so greatly concerned about this matter. There is some relief in sight, at least to a degree, and it is coming pretty fast, because we in the Missouri Valley, which covers one-sixth of the United States, and which waters ordinarily drain right down through the gentleman's district and his State, are beginning, at least,
(1950 to build enough dams up there to hold a lot of that water in that great area on the tributaries and the main streams, and that is going to give you folks some relief. Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank the genticman for that contribution. We are deeply interested in the reservoir problem in the United States which will hold the floodwaters up in your section long enough for the other floodwaters to go through the lower Mississippi and permit them to pass safely through the State of Louisiana. Mr, JENSEN. My district is bordcred by the Missouri River for some 120 miles, from the State line of Missouri up to within about 20 miles of Sioux City. Of course, my problem is flood also. We have floods no end, but we are gradually whipping them. The farmers of the up- per reaches of the Mississipri and the Missouri and the Ohio are doing the best job in holding this rain water where it falls by contouring and terracing the land, holding the water where it falls, and keeping the silt out of the streams, and by that soil-conservation program and the program we now have of build- ing these dams on the upper reaches it wlll be, 1n a few years, a great help to you folks down there. Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentle- man very kindly. I know that the farm- ers are always doing a good job in their terracing, and that will help us a great deal. The story of the flood of 1950 is now being written, but many weeks will pass before we can finally tabulate the tre- mendous losses resulting from the mad- storm waters of the central United States as they rushed toward the sea. So high has the Mississippi River be- come that the Bonnet Carre spillway, above New Orleans, has been opened, and I am informed that 250,000 per second cubic feet of water is being channeled through the floodway from the Missis- sippi to Lake Pontchartrain at the pres- ent time. This has taken the pressure off the New Orleans levees to some ex- tent, but the situation on the Atchafalaya River is still in great difficulty. My able collesgue from this part of Louisiana, Henry Larcade, who lives in the Atcha- falaya Basin, yesterday gave the Senate Committee on Appropriations figures showing the volume of water which the Atchafalaya River is compelled to handle at this time, and he stressed the fact that tremendous pressure was being placed upon Atchafalaya levees. There is pres- ently the threat of opening up the Atcha- falaya floodway; and if this is done, tens of thousands of acres of fertile land within the Atchafalaya Basin will be flooded. Although the Atchafalaya fioodway was authorized by law many years ago, the levees in this area have not been completed because of lack of money, and the use of this floodway in its present uncompleted condition will cause tre- mendous flood damage to south Loui- siana. This session of Congress should certainly give this project enough money to completely bwld the Atchafalaya floodway. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I have in my hands newspapers and newspaper clippings giving the flood news in Louisiana. One Associated Press dis- patch before me gives the flood gage reading at the present time and the pre- dicted river crest on the Mississippi, Red, Atchafalaya, and other tributaries of the Mississippi. Al] of these figures indicate that a further rise and consequential flood damage is to be expected. The Na- tional Guard has been called out in cer- tain areas, and tented cities have been laid out to take care of flood refugecs. Last year I read of the criticisms of some, who referred to flood control and navigation projects as ‘pork-barrel’ legislation. I have no patience for these criticisms. Those who would level such criticisms should now take time out to go down to the great State of Louisiana and try to traverse the major highways there which are under water; look out over the land, covered with the swollen, muddy, ugly waters; visit the tented cities of flood refugees; and note the frantic efforts of cattle as they look for high ground to save their lives. These people, who have in the past been critical, should visit this area and note the dis- tress and the hardship and the privation visited upon these people in my State, who have been thus penalized through no fault of their own, but merely because through our rivers we are seeking to drain the floodwaters of 32 States of the United States. They will go away as strong advocates of the Federal Govern- ment meeting this situation by full ap- propriations in the working out of the major flood-control and navigation plans, which will make our rivers ser- vants of mankind rather than the de- stroyers of our people and our property. They will help us with the great problems of the lower Mississippi Basin, and especially of Louisiana, by providing us with the money which we need to build these critically needed flood-control projects. Surely this Congress can do no less. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arkan- sas [Mr. Hays] is recognized for 60 minutes. THE FEPC ISSUES Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday I asked for 1 hour’s time to discuss certain aspects of the so-called clvil-rights program b?cause it seemed to me with the very limited time that would be allowed under the rules of the House in the event that the FEPC bill is called up for consideration tomorrow with only 2 hours provided for debate, there would not be an opportunity for many Members of the House to discuss some of the fundamental issues involved in so substantial a change in our na- tional policy. Therefore, today I expect to yield freely of my time as soon as I have completed a preliminary statement regarding this issue. I think perhaps that some of the Mem- bers who have been interested in my point of view since a year ago when I described what has sometimes been called the Aikansas plan will want to share the time with me. 2099 There never has been a time in recent years when the need for national unity was so great. While I differ profoundly with my friends, who have urged this legislation upon th2 House, I recognize that there are some conditions through- out the country which explain the fer- ment of opinion which has brought this issue before us. It behooves us all to think in terms of the national community. I have been on the west coast in recent months. I have seen many members of the Negro race who were formerly residents of our region finding better opportunities on the west coast. It is in the interest of Arkansas and all the States which have built their economy on an agricultural foundation to have a thriving industrial life in other parts of the country for the good of our people who are squeezed out of agriculture and who are seeking to improve their economic situation. I know, too, that we of the South who complain that this legislation is opposed to our region have indicated our interest in the problems of other regions, some- times in a way that might have offended residents of those communities. I refer, for example, to the labor bills which have been before the House. I know when most of us from rural districts supported the Taft-Hartley measure some of our friends representing the labor point of view from industrial centers which con- fiicted with ours said, ‘Why should you take it upon yourselves to make this grave decision which affects our commu- nities so vitally?” Our answer is again that ours is a national community and it is very much in our interest to avoid industrial conflict and thus to provide that the automobiles which roll off the assembly lines in Detroit shall come in full volume so that the farmers of our section shall have automobiles and trac~ tors and the other products of our Amer- ican industry. So I think any recriminations along that line should be avoided and we should undertake to think in terms of our com- mon interests and the relationship of in- dustry and agriculture. It is very difficult too, sometimes, to understand whr some residents of other paris of the country would be so con- cerned about court procedures in the South. Yet I want to be consistent. Just as I have insisted that we in rural areas must be concerned about industrial prodvction, so I freely grant that the holder of negotiable paper for the pur- chase of an automobile by a southern resident is and must be just a; much concerned about the enforcement of his rights in our courts as we are in his in- dustry and that he has a right to ex- amine the judicial system if a break- down is threatened at any point. So, with personal rights, the character of our courts is a defense against injustice that belongs to everyone, regardless of residence. Mr. Speaker, I have said these things in order to spe:.k with a background of agreement on that point—that our in- terests are so interlocked that rcsidents of cther scctions have every right to
2100 inquire about the progress being made in the South in providing for oppor- tunities for the minority group—and I refer, of course, to our most important racial minority, the Negro race. It is a delicate issue, and I think it is always difficult for a member of the majority group, a white man, to speak with com- plete understanding of the point of view of the minority. I have done the best I could to put myself in the position of a member of the minority group. Ali of my adult life I have been interested in the problems and the welfare of the Negro people of my State. I am sure no one challenges that. It is not necessary to say it, but I crave your indulgence as I say it, because I would like to fortify it. I have done everything I could, as one citizen, for the improvement of the con- ditions of our minority people. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas, I yield. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The gentleman uses the word “minority.” Can the gen- tleman tell us in how many counties in the South the Negro people stand in the majority? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. The Negro people in the South stand in the ma- jority in a number of counties. I do not have the exact number. They are na- tionally a minority group. They are re- gionally a minority group. I see no point in arguing whether or not they are in certain localities a majority group, be- cause, of course, the policies we discuss here are related to the Nation and not to the locality. I am not sure that I understand the implications of the gentleman's question. If he intends only to point out that they are in the majority in certain communi- ties, of course, that is true. But since they are not, in any State, the majority group, what I have said about the group as a minority will stand. Booker T. Washington, a revered Ne- fro leadcr, as early as 1884, in a meet- ing of the National Education Associa- tion, raised the question of the civil- rights bills—interesting enough, it was the same language in 1884 that we use today, for there were bills pending that were referred to as civil-rights bills— Booker T. Washington answered the question himself. He said: The best thing to do 1s to leave it alone and it will solve itself. If Booker T. Washington were alive I believe he would stand by his statement, looking at the present situation and con- sidering the great progress that the Ne- gro race has made in cooperation with the white people where they live—in other words, the progress that has been made by both groups working together. He would probably say, as a philosopher and teacher—and he was a great teach- er—that human problems are never finally solved. Even if my friends who so vigorously urge the FEPC bill have their way, and if the President should accept their recommendations as to the personnel of the FEPC, a year from now, no matter how vigorously enforced, they would not be satisfied with the rccults. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The problem would still exist. Problems of this kind are never finally solved. That may be a fine commentary on hu- man nature. It may be something that the Creator planted within us, a restless- ness that drives us forward. The fact that some insist that the problems are not solved does not mean that Booker T. Washington was wrong in what he said about the civil rights bills in 1884, “Leave them alone.” Booker T. Washington was right in placing reliance upon a common attack upon poverty, poor health, and limited educational opportunities rather than force legislation in Washington. I shall not burden the House with a recital of the great progress that has been made in the States within the last 12 months in equalizing educational and other opportunities. There are those who offer the FEPC as a solution of one problem, who would agree that un- derlying that is a graver problem, a more fundamental problem, which is the edu- cation of our people. That does not have racial implications, except that of course for a long time, following their emergence from slavery, opportunities for the race were not abundant. Neither was the Negro always prepared to take advantage of such limited opportunities as were offered. It is no evidence at all of a lack of benevolence or humanitarian interest in the Negro on the part of the white majority that those opportunities were somewhat limited. I think it is a wholesome thing that the Negro has been insisting that opportunitics be made more equal. Many measures for equali- zation awaited merely the insistence that they be granted. The interesting thing is that as the Negro asks for better op- portunities in every fleld of endeavor he receives them. My city, the city of Little Rock, has just voted to put itself in debt to the extent of $359,000 to equalize the recreational activities for white and col- ored. That is related to this problem becausc you see there is resistance in the South to the extreme kind of legislation that FEPC supporters offer. The resist- ance to it is explained partly by reason of certain social relationships; and on that point, in all frankness, there will be no change. I would like to say that without offense. Iam dealing with what I think is a reality. Our people believe that there should be no social intermin- gling, and I am not talking now in terms of social equality; it is not a question of one race being superior and another race inferior. A lot of talk on that line is wholly irrelevant. What I am saying is that the South has decided that under present conditions, some decisions and some activities based upon them must be governed by each group living its sep- arate life in separate communities. Now, I am anxious not to misrepre- sent our Negro leaders; I am sure that the Negro leadership of the South the- oretically stands opposed unanimously to compulsory segregation; they have said so. No one in the South on the majority side questions their right to say so. We recognize the implications of it, but the best proof in the world of their sound thinking is in the statement that a group FEBRUARY 21 of Negro leaders made in 1942, in the famous Durham Conference that they recognized that the real progress to be made for their people must be within the framework of our own democracy in the Southern States; and I should add that no one should ask them to desist in their efforts to secure changes. But when It comes to a question of Federal policy, surely, as practical men, we should rec- ognize that the decisions must be left to the States and to the localities. When I discussed the President’s mes- sage a year ago, 1 year after he had of- fered his civil-rights proposals, I pointed out that not a single one of his recom- mendations had met with congressional approval. I point out now that another year has gone by that this is still true and I do it primarily for the purpose of suggesting that if the program cannot receive congressional approval after this lapse of time surely there must be some valid objections to it. On the other hand, since agitation for it continues we who have objected to it must agree that since the agitation for it persists there must be some merit in it. That is the reason I have gone to the very bottom of it, into every phase of the program with such facilities as I have at my disposal to find the good that is in it. Having found some good in it, for the life of me, I do not understand why the administra- tion turns down every effort to find the answer as reasonable men to a difficult question, a question that has divided our country, divided us in an hour when we ought to be united. I do not know whether it is true or not, as many say, that this 1s a crucial hour in the life of humanity: I do not know whether it is true that decisions must shortly be made by millions of the world’s people as to which road they will travel, our free way, or the totalitarian way. I do not know whether the men who speak in such grave terms as to eminent crises are right or not; if they are, we must have greater unity, and in any event, I am convinced that as far as our domestic happiness and peace is concerned, there is every reason for us as legislators to be calm, and to be fair, and to be reasonable as we approach this potentially explosive issue. I have said that I could see in the FEPC issue only an indirect phase of the segregation problem. I suggested that I could understand the objections that are made by some to present practices, that there are indeed some harsh and even cruel aspects of segregation. What I have insisted upon as governmental policy is that those grievances must be addressed not to the National Congress, but to the municipalities and to the State legislatures. It is not our task. If we undertake to legislate in that field we will bungle the situation. We will find new divisions to plague us, and new and more severe problems will arise. What does that have to do with FEPC? Oh, they say, it is an economic question, it has nothing to do with social relations, it has nothing to do with race relations. Well, now, the wartime FEPC was given po <r of a very limited character to deal
1950 with these delicate human situations armed by an Executive order to do just one thing and that was to see that fair employment policies were adopted in war plants and in Federal agencies. Mind you, the wartime FEPC had nothing like the swecping powers that Mr. PowE..’s bill proposes to give, nothing like them. It was empowered only to deal with war- time activities and with Federal employ- ment, that is all, and had authority only to prescribe fair employment practices. But if a war agency equipped by Execu- tive order to deal with problems in a limited area should so disregard its au- thority as to issue orders breaking down patterns of life in the city of Baltimore and dealing with delicate social questions which have no relation to employment, if @ wartime agency of that kind could as- sert such extensive powers, what would happen if we should adopt the committee FEPC bill and give an agency authority over practically every industry in this country? The Baltimore incident crea- ated tensions and accounts for some of the fears regarding sweeping legislation of this type. It obscured some worth- while things the agency accomplished in situations like the Sun Oil Co. plant in Houston and justifies some of the fears now expressed. Mr. Speaker, we are thercfore dealing with a very fundamental problem—a problem that touches dangerous situa- tions. It deals too with one of the foundation principles of our sccicty, which is that of a free industry. When- ever any law undertakes to say that an employer shall hire applicant A instead of applicant B and shall be finec. or im- prisoned for not following a Federal agency’s decision as to which employees may be discharged, surely there are alerted dangers for us to consider. As reasonable men, as legislators with re- sponsibilities to maintain a nonviolent community and a just order wherever Federal authority is projected, we are challenged to exhibit the finest intelll- gence and ingenuity that this House can summon. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Uiah Mr. GRANGER. I want to compli- ment the gentleman on the splendid statement he is making and on the effort I know he has made in trying to solve a difiicult problem. I just suspect that if more of us were in the same frame of mind as the gentleman addressing the House at this time there would not be any difficulty in getting our views to- gether on this problem that is facing the Congress. I do want to say to the gen- tleman that he has done an exceptionally fine job of research in trying to find the answer to a difficult question, and if it were myself sitting down with him I think we could satisfy ourselves on this question that is dividing the Congress, dividing the Democratic Party and divid- ing the people of our country. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I am very grateful to my friend from Utah. I re- solved at the outset since it is an issue CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE that touches the deep emotions of life I would undertake to avoid it in this case. I am not sure it is possible. I grew up among Negro people. I have respect and affection for my Negro constituents. I would regard myself as unfit to sit in this House if I were indifferent to the point of view of the 50,000 Negroes who live in my district. I am sorry, in this in- stance, that the Negro community is di- vided; that some have said I am doing the right thing for them, and others that Iam not. Dr. J. M. Robinson, of Little Rock, a prominent Negro leader, writes me emphatically that I am right and that the Negroes of the South should en- dorse my position. On the other hand, others have said something else about it. What I have tried to do is to say with candor the things I do believe, though it conflicts with the point of view of many official Negro spokesmen. I have tried to say it with kindness, and yet with vigor, because this is no time for evasion, no matter how much regard we have for the sentiments of those with whom we differ. I have taken heart, though, when I get messages such as this one. Here isa letter from Hon. Arthur W. Mitchell. Many of you served in the Congress with him. I have not gotten down to the substitute that I hope to offer for the Labor Committee bill, but Arthur W. Mitchell, one of the most distinguished Negroes in America writes me: “I have given your bill all of the time and study I could spare, and I am of the opinion that it is a workable bill and one that will help remedy the discriminatory prac- tice in the labor field as it applies to mimority groups.” Then he says he would be glad to appear in support of it if a hearing is ever given. That is the word of a trusted Negro leader, a former Mem- ber of this House. Mr. HORAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. HORAN. Iam aware of the sin- cere work that our colleague from Ar- kansas has given this subject for perhaps 25 or 30 years, practically all of his adult life, as he has said, and I want to com- pliment the gentleman. Certainly, if there were ever a time when we need more light on this subject that is before us, it is today and tomorrow. I humbly suggest that if we are to make construc- tive headway with this problem that will stand the test and remain with us, it will be somewhere in the field that our col- league from Arkansas now indicates. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas I am very grateful for that statement. You see, there are three divisions of us. We fall into three groups. There are those that are so earnest about this thing that they want to do everything overnight, and they want to do it by Fed- eral law, and they are unyielding. Now, there is another group that, in spite of their humanitarian impulses and their attitude of kindness toward the minority groups, do not want to do anything; they say there is nothing to do. Then right in the middle of these groups there is that third group. and I hope that is where 2101 my friend from Washington will find himself. There is that third group that holds that discrimination is an evil, it is a national problem; that the ideal of equal pay for equal performance should be pursued; that we should seek to grant to every man, whatever his race or re- ligion an opportunity to earn a livelihood and to be paid in accordance with his contribution to society, that these are rights to be cherished. Since it is not always easy to maintain universally for reasons that sometimes bewilder us, it creates a problem that ought to have the notice of the Congress. I think then that we will find some common agree- ment in this middle area of a Federal declaration that the denial of equal op- portunities or refusal to pay men in ac- cordance with their productiveness should engage the thoughtful attention of the Govérnment but not to clothe an agency with power to choose between applicants or employees or place fines or penalties upon any employer who does not follow their solution or recommen- dations. But, if we simply, as a matter of law, declare that the policy of the Federal Government is to seek equality and to give to some agency a mandate to enlarge upon opportunities for all people, and use conciliation to end dis- crimination, then I think we will be making headway; we will be taking for- ward steps. That is as far as I am will- ing to go. I want to get down before I close to the real issue in this case, because I have not yet stated it. The question is, Shall we have a bill that contains on the part of a Federal agency the power to fine an employer or to imprison him for not fol- lowing their orders? Is that what the Congress proposes to do? The commit- tee bill gives such power. That is the issue, because the committee bill does have such enforcement powers. That is the reason I am raising my voice today against such an extreme measure. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. gentleman trom New York. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The gentle- man admits there is a problem with which Congress must deal. The gentle- man, of course, is now recommending what is commonly known as a process of gradualism with respect to this problem. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I hope the gentleman will not atiribute that to me. The word “gradualism” has been tossed around so much that I would prefer that the gentleman use another word, if he does not mind. Mr. MARCANTONIO. In my opinion, that is the only way I can adequately de- scribe the gentleman’s position. Of course, I may be inerror. What I should like to point out to the gentleman fs that there has been no civil-rights legislation since 1875. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. not done pretty well? Mr. MARCANTONIO. No; we have not. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Does not the gentleman think that the American I yield to the And have we
2102 Negro fs the best-off minority in all the world, the best paid, and the freest? Mr. MARCANTONIO. I will answer the gentleman. The gentleman has now just given us a marvelous picture of Jim Crow and segregation. I think the best answer to that question is the answer the Negro himself gives you, He refuses to live any longer under Jim Crow and seg- regation. He resents being treated as different from anybody else. So the gen- tleman may travel all over the world and try to make comparisons, and one may disagree as to comparisons, but that is not the point at all. The point is that we here in America have to face this problem. We have refused to face it since 1875. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Not in my country have we refused to face it. We have worked pretty hard at it down in Arkansas. If I know the South, we have been working hard at it, and that ts where 70 percent of tha American Ne- groes live. I agree, of course, that we should have as our standard—not the other countrys’ but the American ideal— an ideal still to be pursued for both races. Mr. MARCANTONIO. If you have worked so hard at it, you have certainly cemented more than ever before your system of segregation and Jim Crow. That you cannot challenge. You know it is true. As a matter of fact the gen- tleman’s whole speech is based upon the perpetuation of that system. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I disagree with my friend from New York. I think the gentleman will look in vain for words of mine to sustain that statement. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Will the gen- tleman yield further? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think the gentleman is eminently fair, I think he is doing a scholarly job here this aft- ernoon and I, for one, appreciate the spirit in which he is conducting this dis- cussion, although I disagree with him. The gentleman’s position is, and I think if the gentleman reads back through his speech he will find it so, he has stated here that the system of segregation is one that exists, has existed, and must stand, and that we cannot change it. That is the gentleman’s fundamental basis, is that not true? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I have said that changes to be made anywhere that there are harsh and cruel aspects of it must be made by the municipality or by the legislature and not by the Congress, and if you have in mind the abolishment of Jim Crow, frankly tell us so. I do not think you have said that yet. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I definitely have. Oh, yes; definitely I am opposed to Jim Crow in any form or any aspect of it. I have made no bones of my posi- tion on this thing. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Let me ask the gentleman, if he does not mind, and I will yield to him to answer: Is your sup- port of the committee bill due to your enthusiasm—jet me put it another way— are you supporting the committee FEPC bill because you believe it will do away with segregation? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. MARCANTONIO. I say it will be a tremendous step toward abolishing discrimination in employment. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas, If I may in- terrupt the gentleman. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I am going to answer the gentleman. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I hope he will, because you brought in segregation. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Yes. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. If it is segre- gation you are trying to attack, that is, the problem of segregation instead of the problem of unfair employment, let us be honest about it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. You cannot separate one from the other. They are integrated because once you establish the proposition that a person cannot be de- prived of employment because of the color of his skin, then of course you be- gin to break down even social segrega- tion. Are you in favor of breaking down social segregation? I ask the gentle- man—he has asked me so many ques- tions, I ask him that question: Is he in favor of breaking it down, either by mu- nicipal legislation or Federal legislation in any manner, shape, or form? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. My answers will be provided in the choice of policies I make and my action as a citizen in the State and in the locality and not in the Congress. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I do not think the gentleman is being as frank as he started out to be at the beginning of his speech. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I think I have said a good deal about the aspects of segregation that are not consonant with our professions of equality. I have only tried to define the forum in which eriev- ances are to be expressed and adjust- ments sought. If the gentleman thinks it is the Congress of the United States that must determine whether a bus trav- eling from the east side of Atlanta to the west side of Atlanta shall have a non- segregation policy, then, of course, it is quite all right for him to entertain that view, but I do not want him to have that in mind and vote with that in mind in voting ostensibly to provide fair employ- ment in the city of Atlanta. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I have an- -swered the gentleman, I think, when I stated that once you have prohibited dis- crimination in employment you are be- ginning to attack one phase of segrega- tion. But coming back to the gentle- man’s position, because the gentleman has taken the floor to state his position, and I would like to have it clearly de- fined, the gentleman seems to find objec- tion to this type of legislation because he says it is not within the province of the Federal Government but within the province of the local authorities. Is that the gentleman's position? Then, may I ask him this question: Is that the gentleman’s only objection to wiping out segregation? Let us assume the gentleman had the power within the local framework of Government to wipe it out, would he do so? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. The gentle- man is raising moot questions here which have no relation to the problem. FEBRUARY 21 Mr. MARCANTONIO. No, I am not. I am referring to this specific problem. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas Then the gentleman will begin to ask me about the dog-license ordinance in the city of Lit- tle Rock, and I am not going to discuss that. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Of course not. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield. Mr. PRIEST. I simply want to make one statement that I think has some bearing on questions which the gentle- man from New York has been raising. In my own district there is one of the greetest Negro medical colleges in the world, Meharry College. I checked the enrollment yesterday. There are more Negroes from the State of New York en- rolled in Meharry Medical College in my district than are enrolled in the city of New York in all of the seven medical schools where there is no segregation whatsoever. Why is that true? Be- cause they cannot compete on a competi- tive basis for admission to those schools in New York. They are away down the Mist. The come down to Meharry Med- ical College and become good doctors. I think that has some bearing because it deals with a noncompulsory type of segregation. If the gentleman will check the record, he will find there are more Negro students from the State of New York enrolled in the medical college in my district than are enrolled in the entire city of New York. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield briefly. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Iam not at all trying to defend New York. As far as New York is concerned, there is more hypocrisy on this question than there is in many other places, We are hypocriti- cal about the problem. We preach a ser- mon but we practice otherwise. That is, the ruling groups. The ruling economic and social groups of the city of New York have taken the attitude and position that you gentlemen of the South take toward the Negro people. As far as colleges are concerned, there is so much discrimina- tion in those colleges that you can cut the atmosphere of discrimination with a knife. Of course, the Negroes are not ex- cluded from New York colleges because they cannot compete. They are ex- cluded because of the color of their skin, right in the city of New York. I am ashamed to make that confession for my State, but it is true. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. There is not a great deal of time remaining, Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield. Mr. DEANE. Iam sure we all appreci- ate the splendid statement being made by the gentleman from Arkansas. Several of us have from time to time during the past several weeks, advised and worked with the gentleman from Arkansas in the hope that we could evolve a sane and sound approach to this serious subject. In asking the gentleman to yield I wanted to make this observation.
1950 Within recent days I have heard words of criticism on rulings made by our dis- tinguished Speaker, as we have ap- proached the subject of the legislation which is expected to reach the floor of the House on tomorrow, I cannot but feel that the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body will support our Speaker in the rulings he has and shall make. The Speaker has been eminently fair in all of his rulings and has thus maintained the dignity and prestige of this House. On tomorrow, if FEPC is taken up, there will be serious questions, and every parliamentary maneuver possible made to advance or slow up the progress of this legislation. I rise just to voice the hope that I am sure is in the mind of every Member of this distinguished body, that the rulings of the Chair will receive the respect and admiration of every Member of this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this, too, before I take my seat, that I com- mend the views expressed by the gen- tleman from Tennessee [Mr. Priest]. In my own State of North Carolina we are paying to our colored teachers the same salaries, based upon their certifi- cates, as we pay to the white teachers. Our distinguished governor has named a Negro to the State Board of Educa- tion. If it be true that the proponents are doing so with the thought of casting reflections on the South they are mak- ing a serious mistake. We do not claim to have a perfect economy but our prog- ress does not have the best national press. Somewhere between the Holly- wood version of plantation life and the Broadway conception of Tobacco Road lies the real South of today. We read in Life magazine within recent days that the greatest transformation since the opening of the West is taking place in the South today. Surely we can take advice, but the proponents of this leg- islation will discover that the South is far ahead of many scctions of this Na- tion in its program to assist the Negro. I wish again, Mr. Speaker, to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ar- kansas for the fair and impartial way in which he is presenting this subject. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I am very grateful to my friend from North Caro- lina. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, will the genileman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas, I yield. Mr. JOHNSON. I wish before the gentleman sits down he would tell us clearly what the Federal Government would do in the event of a violation of what the national policy might be. Are there to be penalties? And also, specif- ically, would he tell us what the State and municipal governments ought to do with this problem? I have listened with much interest to his discussion and have learned something, but I would like to ave the gentleman deal with this phase, the enforcement phase of the proposed legislation. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. With the permission of the House I shall insert in the Recorp an analysis of the bill which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I offered for the consideration of the committee. My bill will be offered as a substitute. I will also offer for publica- tion in the Recorp a bill introduced some time ago by the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. McConnetu], which differs in some respects from my proposed non- penalty bill. Neither the bill introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania nor my bill include enforcement powers. That states the issue. Under the com- mittee bill, I am satisfied that a jail sen- tence or heavy fine could be imposed for violation of a cease-and-desist order issued by the FEPC. With all our good will, with all of our sens.bilities against wrong and dis- crimination, this Congress is surely not going to confer that kind of power. But let me repeat that is the issue; there will be no other issue where the House con- sidersthe FEPC. Sincere reasons will be advanced by some for not accepting the plan which I have proposed; in other words, some who have consistently op- posed what they call bureaucracy would say, “Why create another agency?” They ask, Why make this gesture? I would respect that point of view, though I differ with it. I think the op- portunity to do something that indicates our sympathies with those who have rea- son to feel that equal opportunities have not always been afforded, I think that our sympathies should lead us to go this far, that much I propose that we do. Before I analyze these two bills, the one offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, H. R. 6841, and my own, H. R. 6668 and make a comparison be- tween them and the committee bill, let me Say that I consider the committee bill an amazing thing. In an effort to bol- ster its constitutionality its drafters state that it is to promote the observ- ance of rights and freedoms undertaken by the United States under the United Nations Charter and to further national policy with respect to the universal dec- laration of human rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Na- tions. Is not that a commentary upon the legislative processes? Here we are ina free country under a sovereign govern- ment undertaking to justify a question- able statute by saying that because we have agreed with certain other nations many of whom have not come anywhere close to the high standards we have erected in jurisprudence because we have agreed with them about certain rights, we, the Congress of the United States, must adopt a questionable act. It comes under the provision of the Con- stitution to the effect that the law of the land is the law of treaties that we have entered into; so, because this treaty was made confirming what we have always believed, we will pursue this course, al- though of questionable constitutionality, That is not my idea of good craftsman- ship. An analysis of the committee bill (H. R, 4453), which I will insert, was prepared by the Legislative Reference Service. But Mr. Freeman Sharp, who prepared it, advises me that the com- mittee made these interesting additions: 2103 It will be unlawful, if this bill is adopt- ed, to discriminate against anyone, not only for reasons of race, creed, or color, but ancestry, which means now that a Hatfield would have to employ a McCoy, and a McCoy could not discharge a Hat- Meld. That is the bill. Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. GWINN. It has been said over and over again that most of the agita- tion for this is below Fourteenth Street in New York where they have FEPC. I find that true in my district. Could the gentieman tell us where we can get au- thentic information about how the col- ored people of the South feel about this compulsory legislation? Is there any- thing published or any committees formed that would give us a true picture of their own attitude in the South as dis- tinguished from Fourteenth Street? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. The gentle- man has asked me a very difficult ques- tion because if I am going to be true to my standard of honesty I am going to have to tell him that except for a few thoughtful people like former Congress- man Mitchell who now lives in Virginia and Dr. Robinson, the Negro physician of my city whom I mentioned and oth- ers, I have not found a great deal of support among the colored people of the South for my point of view. I say that not to indicate that they repudiate my approach, but simply in an effort to speak with complete candor to say that the thinking of most Negroes who have had occasion to weigh it, is congealed. And I suppose that observation applies to some extent to all of us. They are told that FEPC js in their interest. So they are for it A great many of them have been told that by a Negro press, which is not uniformly serv- ing their interests from my point of view and which because of a rather vio- lent attitude, sometimes a prejudiced at- titude, fails to lay the full facts before them. This does not apply to all Negro newspapers by any means. A great many Negroes so advised feel that the issue is much simpler than it really is and that to deny them FEPC is to deny cqual- ity. The gentleman Knows that is not the case. Mr. GWINN. I had reference par- ticularly to the compulsory feature. Do they know this means jail, fine, and all that? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I doubt that they do. I doubt that they have been fully advised. What I am trying to say is I have not been able to find, among Negroes except in the isolated instances to which I referred, a great deal of support for my middle-of-the- road position. Iam sure they have been very charitable to me. I have spoken of the problem in Negro churches. I have received some support where I have been able to reach them. The warnings I have issued on that point, of course, are valid and they should interest the Negro because he would be the victim. This bill is not in his interest. The force bills following the Civil War were
2104 not in his interest. They retarded the progress of the Negro and caused a lot of bitterness and hardship. It was not a southern Democrat who said that there was more bitterness caused fol- lowing the Civil War by utterances in the Halls of Congress than by incidents on the battlefields of the South. But Thaddeus Stevens’ point of view was repudiated by sound-thinking peo- ple who observed the injustices growing out of the use of force. I appreciate the efforts made by many outside the South to understand our history and our cur- rent problems. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to my colleague from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. I want to also, Mr. Speaker, compliment my colleague for the very fine spirit in which he has ap- proached this problem and the very scholarly way in which he has discussed it to the House today. On the point that was just asked by the distinguished gentleman from New York, so far as our people down in our State are concerned, is it not true that they have been wholly misinformed as to what actually is pro- posed in the legislation her: reported by the committee? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I think s0, at least in many instances. Mr. HARRIS. And is it not also a fact that when you have an opportunity to discuss it with those sounder thinking people there they do understand, and then they immediately and automati- cally reflect the impression that they are not in favor of such a proposal, but to those who are following the lcader- ship and the conjectures of the organi- zations who get this propaganda sent down to them, it reflects the thinking that was expressed by the gentleman propounding the question a moment ago? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Yes. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The gentle- man has made historical reference to Thaddeus Stevens and his position. His position, if adopted, would have solved this problem many years ago. Forty acres and a mule would have given eco- nomic implementation to the Emancipa- tion Proclamation, and that is what we are still fighting out now. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Of course, the gentleman knows that he will not find much support for that point of view. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- sent to include in my remarks an analy- sis prepared by the Legislative Refer- ence Service of the committee bill, H. R. 4453, and an analysis prepared by the seme Office of the McConnell bill, H. R. 6841, and the bill that I introduced, H. R. 6668, and other extraneous matter, and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Arkansas? There was no ob§ection. Mr. HORAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman will yield, I wonder if he would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE include a list of the States which have enacted FEPC or civil rights legislation.: Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I will in- clude that, Mr. Speaker, and will indi- cate on that list those who have included enforcement power. I said at the outset that this is a thing that I hope will linger in the minds of every person in this Chamber tomorrow. The real issue is whether or not you are going to enforce an agency’s findings with reference to employment, whether or not you are going to impose fines and jail sentences upon employers who have their own employment policies to work out. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I just wanted to ask the gentleman to yield to say that I want to congratulate him on the fairness and the impartiality with which he has advo- cated his position Whatever Members of the House may disagree as to the so- lution of this problem, I am sure that none of the Members of the House will disagree with the fact that the gentle- man approaches all of these questions sincerely and honestly, and we all re- spect him very highly for his opinion on this matter as well as other legislation. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. It is very kind of the gentleman to say it and I propose now to conclude in just a moment. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. KEEFE. I have been pleased to remain here during the period of this special order because I know of no other man in this House for whom I have a more profound respect than I have for the distinguished gentleman from Arkan- sas. He is a Christian gentleman, and everyone in this House understands that. In this week dedicated to tolerance and brotherhood, with commentators and writers all over the country calling attention to the necessity for tolerance in our attitudes and in our thinking and in our speaking, it is refreshing indeed to find in the discussion of this very difficult problem the magnificent manner of ap- proach that has been adopted by our distinguished friend from Arkansas. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. KEEFE. May I add just this to my friend. May I say that in the dis- cussion which is to come about tomorrow I hope the high level of intelligent ap- proach and the approach of tolerance that has been manifested by my friend from Arkansas will be maintained during that debate. I have just one little inkling in the in- terrogation by the gentleman from New York of the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas that leads and points the way to the thinking of some of those who for years have been most militant in the advocacy of those problems that hew close to the Communist Party line, when he raised the question as to whether or not the gentleman from Arkansas is a believer in the gradualist policy of solue tion of this problem, FEBRUARY 21 I can say that when I was privileged to serve on a committee of this House that brought before it men who were known to be of the Communist philosophy and associating with Communists, they in- variably denounced what was known as the gradualist policy of solution of these problems and advocated the sharp break of revolution as the solution. That came up here inferentially today in the remarks of the distinguished gen- tleman from New York. It should be pin pointed, and we should put our fin- gers upon it for what it is here today. I hope the Members of the House will listen attentively tomorrow to gentlemen of the character of the gentleman from Arkansas in the consideration of this very important and vital question. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the gentleman from Arkansas be permitted to proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Min- nesota? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. I should like to add to what has been said truly with regard to the Christian spirit of tolerance and brotherhood demonstrated by our friend and colleague from Arkansas that per- haps even more impressive, if possible, is his courage, his political courage. In trying to find a middle road of progress which will lead toward a solution of this exceedingly difficult problem and will not create in some areas the exact opposite of what is desired, he inevitably alien- ates some of his friends and supporters in his own State, who may call him a traitor to the South, and at the same time alienates some of his liberal breth- ren, who may decide he is just a south- ern reactionary because he does not be- lieve brotherhood can be achieved by compulsion. Such a stand takes political courage. He doubtless will get little credit and plenty of criticism from both sides because he is trying to find a just and workable solution to a problem for which there is no quick, easy, and ready solution, I commend the gentleman. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. The gentle- man is very kind. Whatever my feelings of loneliness when I find myself between two extremes, I have felt in very good company today, among warm-hearted friends, whether they agree with me or not. I want to say to all in closing that it does move me deeply to have these things said. It does not matter that they are exaggerated and uncalled for For example, my friend the gentleman from Minnesota, WattTgR Jupp, speaks of courage. I would not regard it at all as courage. What I have tried to do at home is to say, “Now, here is the sensible thing, as I see it.” I have taken the people of my district into my confi- dence, and I have talked this over with them in that spirit. But I am grateful for what you have said. Let me bring this to a conclusion quickly. I would join with what has
1950 been said here so eloquently by our be- loved Speaker when he speaks of this as the highest honor that can come to men, to serve in this House. This idea of representative government is ours to cherish. I have justified my reference to my Negro constituents on that basis. I must not forget their interests. At the same time I have spoken with vigor on the question of force and with complete compatibility, I think, with this other sentiment because we will work against the Negro’s interest if we adopt these measures of compulsion. The fact is that the interests of the races are bound togcther. No social practices can untie them. I have stood at the graveside of too many loved ones of my father’s fam- ily, the victims of tuberculosis, for ex- ample, not to realize that if we conquer disease that has caused such suffering, we must conquer it by fighting it wherever it appears among the Negro race or among the white race. I know that if we advance as a people we must advance educationally by providing op- portunities to both races. It is a wise saying that the white man cannot hold the Negro in a ditch with- out staying there with him What I have said of our beloved Southland is, I trust, not from the sectional point of view. We have demonstrated our ability pretty well, I think, to forget the past. We have acknowledged the error of clinging to old traditions which have been outmoded, There is a new South and that South marches on. The South recognizes itself as part of a great Na- tion So, while now and then we make mistakes, we may band together at times to protect an idea which might well be discarded, but nevertheless, we are con- scious of our responsibilities as citizens of the Nation. The key to it all is justice. If there has been an element of suffering grow- ing out of our poverty, something we do not speak of ofien and yet the complete picture requires 1t, the picture of eroded hills and limited markets, if we speak of suffering, it is because an element of suffering affects us all and draws us together. Emil Brunner put it like this, “All suffering is bitter. Suffering that is unjust is doubly bitter. Suffering that is of destiny unites. Suffering that 1s unjust divides.” We must heed the cry of suffering wherever it is said that 1t is the result of a faulty Federal policy. I want to meet that challenge, in order that there may be no suffering among any minority group, whether it is racial or religious, and in order that there should be no feeling that they are not wanted. Our Negro people, and every group, whatever their faith are wanted in this great land. It is up to us to work toward a policy of perfect justice for all men. And when our labors are done I will be content if we apply that simple standard of justice for both worker and employer and find a greater unity in the happiness of peo- ple who resolve their conflicts on such a basis. It will fortify equal justice in the courts in the provision for equal facilities to all people in all public services and in equal opportunities for men of every race. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks I include the following: Ten States have adopted Fair Employment Practices Acts, as follows: Enforcement powers Connecticut____.---.--.-~-------+--- Yes, Indiana____----- - No. Massachusetts_.- - Yes New Jersey_.---- - Yes New Mexico.____-.--------.--+--- - eens New York_.__-_~_------------------ - Yes Oregon......--.--------------- == eee Rhcde Island____--_--.---~ ~-------+--- ---- Washington.._.--.-------~ ---------- ---- Wisconsin......----- wee ne ee ene wenn No. ANALYsIs OF H R 4453 (By MR POWELL) A. Name of act (sec 1): 1, Federal Fair Employment Practices Act. B. Findings and declaration of policy (sec. 2): That persons are being denied employ- ment because of race, color, religion, or na- tional origin; that it Js essential to the gen- eral welfare that these rights be protected; and that this act 1s necessary (1) to remove obstructions to commerce; (2) to insure complete enjoyment of constitutional rights; and (3) to promote observance of rights and freedoms undertaken by the United States under the United Nations Charter and to further national policy with respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations C Definitions clude “Employer’—a person engaged in com- merce employing 50 or more, except States and political subdivisions or nonprofit or- ganizations which are of a religious, char- itable, fraternal, social, educational, or sec- tarian character. Exempts employers of aliens working out- side the continental United States, its Ter- ritorles and possessions (sec. 4). D Unlawful employment practices (s8cc. 5): It shall be an unlawful practice— (a) For an employer (1) To refuse to hire, to discharge, or dis- criminate against a person with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employ- ment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. (2) To utilize in hiring any employment agency, placement service, or other source which discriminates. (b) For a labor organization: (1) To discriminate against any persons. (2) To limit, segregate or classify its mem- bership because of race, color, etc. (c) For either an employer or a labor or- ganization, (1) To discharge, expel, or dis- criminate against a person because he has opposed such unlawful employment practice or participated in any proceeding under this act. E Fair Empicyment Practice Commission (sec. 6) : Crentes « Fair Employment Practice Commission in the executive branch com- posed of fiv2 members appointed by the Pres- ident with advice of the Senate for 5-year terms The Commission shall have— (a) Powers’ (1) To appoint officers and employees un- der civil service rules. (2) To cooperate with regional, State, local and other agencies. (3) To pay witnesses the same fees as in United States courts. (4) To furnish technical assistance to further compliance with the act. (5) To assist an employer whose employ- ees refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate in effecting the provisions of the act. (6) To make technical studies to effectu- ate the act. (7) To appoint local, State, or regional advisory and conciliation councils to aid in (sec 3): Definitions in- 2105 effectuating the act and to make studies and recommendations for that purpose. (b) Invectigatory power (sec. 9): (1) To tssue subpenas (2) To administer oaths, examine wit- nesses and receive evidence. (3) To apply to United States district courts to enforce subpenas, etc., against contumacious persons. F. Self-incrimination (sec. 9 (e)) : No per- son shall be cxcused from testifying or pro- ducing evidence in obedience to a subpens on the ground that the testimony or evidence may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture but no such person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture on account of such testimony or evidence except perjury in 80 testifying. G Prevention of unlawful employment practices (sec. 7): The Com nission shall have exclusive powers to prevent unlawful employment practices under the act but may cede juris- diction to State and local agencies where State and local acts are comparable to this act The Co imission on a written sworn charge shall investigate and endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practices through informal conterence, conciliation, and per- sunsion On failure to obtain voluntary compliance by informal methods, a formal hearing may be held before a member of the Commission or designated agent with the right to counsel and to cross-examine witnesses, etc At conclusion of the formal hearing the record thereof shall be transferred to the Commis- ston (or three designated members) for de- cision. The Commission shall then issue a cease-and-desist order or an order of dis- missal. The whole proceedings hereunder shall conform to the Administrative Pro- cedure Act. H Judicial review (sec. 8): Provides for a petition, by either the Commission or a party aggrieved by a final order of the Com- mission, to the United States Court of Appeals under the procedures established by the Administrative Procedure Act. Decision of the Court of Appeals 1s subject to a review by the United States Supreme Court. I Enforcement of orders directed to Gov- elnment agencies and contractors (sec 10): Authorizes the President to make Federal practice conform to the policies of the act and to prescribe administrative remedies by Executive order with no judicial review. The Commission may request the President to take such action as he deems appropriate to obtain compliance with the Commission's orders Authorizes the President to make regula- tlons to prevent Government contractors (contracts exceeding $10,000) from continu- ing unfair-employment _ practices. The Commission shall enforce such reculations, J Notices to be posted (sec. 11): Requires employers and labor organizations to keep @ notice prepared by the Commission, with ex- cerpts from the act, posted in conspicuous places on thetr premises under penalty of a $500 fine. K. Forcibly resisting the Commission or its representatives (sec. 14): To forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a Member, agent, or employees of the Com- mission in the performance of duties under the act or because of the same is punishable by a $5C0 fine and/or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both. L. Veterans’ preference (sec 12): This act shall not modify Federal, State, Territorial, or local veterans’ preference. M Rules and regulations (sec 13)' The Commission shall make, modify, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the act. The regulations must conform to the Admin- istrative Procedure Act. N Separability clause (sec. 15); The usual provision.
2106 Farr EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES COMMISSION—AN ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF H. R. 6668 aND H.R 6841, EicuHTy-Finst CONGRESS H.R. 6668 (HAYS) A Name of act (sec. 1): Minorities Em-e Ployment Act B Declaration of policy (sec. 2): Declares it to be the policy of the United States: 1 To eliminate discrimination because of rice, religion, color, national origin, or an- cestry in regard to: (a) opportunity for em- Floyment, (b) tenure, terms or conditions of employment; (c) membership in labor or- ganizations; and 2. To encourage to the fullest possible ex- tent a policy of nondiscrimination through- out industry. C Administering agency (sec 3): The Sec- retary of Labor (creates a Minorities Em- Floyment Bureau to perform functions dele- gated to it by the Secretary; see F, below). D. Functions of the Secretary (sec 3): The Secretary shall— (1) Recetve and investigate complaints charging diccrimination because of race, re- ligion, color, etc., in regard to employment opportunities, tenure, terms, or conditions of employment; or membership in a labor organization, (2) Endeavor by mediation and concilia- tion to eliminate any discrimination; (3) Investigate and study the character, causes, and extent of discrimination in general, (4) Study the best methods to eliminate discrimination and formulate plans to that end; (5) Publish and disseminate the results of such studies and investigations (exempted from sec 306, Penalty Mail Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1049) which prohibits distribution of Government documents without a prior re- quest therefor); and (6) Cooperate with employees, labor organ- izations, and private and public agencies to formulate programs, educational and other- wise, to eliminate discrimination. E. None. F. Minorities Employment Bureau (sec. 4): Creates a Minorities Employment Bureau within the Department of Labor headed by a Director appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate to perform dele- gated duties under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor. G. Local advisory councils (sec. 5): The Secretary of Labor may create local, regional or State advisory councils to— (1) Study the general problem of dis- crimination and investigate specific instances in their respective areas; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Fam EMPLOYMENT PracTicrs COMMISSION—AN ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON oF H. R. 6668 AND H, R. 6841, Eiautry-rirst CONGRESS H.R. 6841 (M’CONNELL) A. Name of act (sec, 1): Fair Employment Practices Act. B. Findings and declaration of policy (sec. 2): Declares that the denying of employment opportunities and discrimination against properly qualified persons by reason of race, creed, or color deprives the United States of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production, and defense, and burdens, hin- ders and obstructs commerce. Declares it to be the policy of the United States to elimi- nate discrimination because of race, creed, or color in employment relations. C Administering agency (sec. 3): Creates a Fair Employment Practices Commission composed of five members appointed by the President with advice of the Senate for 5- year terms. D. Powers and duties of the Commission (sec, 3): The powers of the Commission shall be to— (1) Appoint officers and employees, (2) Cooperate with and utilize regional, State, local, and other agencies und to use volunteer and uncompensated services; (3) Pay witnesses the same tees as in United States courts, (4) Make, amend, and rescind in such manner as prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, rules and regulations to carry out the act; (5) Serve processes and other papers, etc.; and (6) Make technical studies to effectuate the purposes of the act. The duties of the Commission shall be to (sec 4)— (1) Make comprehensive studies of dis- crimination in various sections of the coun- try and of the best methods of eliminating it; (2) Formulate plans in cooperation with interested public and private agencies for its elimination; (3) Publish reports relating to elimination of discrimination; (4) Cooperate with and furnish technical assistance to employers, labor unions, and other public and private agencies; (5) Receive and investigate complaints; and (6) Make specific and detailed recommen- dations to interested parties for the elimi- nation of discrimination. The investigatory powers of the Commis- sion shall be to (sec. 5)— (1) Examine and copy evidence; (2) Issue subpenas; (3) Administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and conduct investigations; and (4) Apply to United States district courts to enforce subpenas, etc., against contuma- cious persons. E. Self-incrimination (sec. 5 (f)): No per- son shall be excused from testifying or pro- ducing evidence in obedience to a subpena on the ground that the testimony or evidence may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture but no such per- son shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture on account of such testimony or evidence except perjury in so testifying. F. None. G. None. FEBRUARY 21 H.R. 6668 (HAYS) (2) Foster good will, cooperation and con- ciliation in their areas through community effort or otherwise; and (3) Make recommendations to the Sscre- tary with respect to his functions under the act. Council members are to be citizens of the area, serve without pay and be assisted by technical and clerical employees appointed by the Secretary without regard to civil- service laws H. National Advisory Council (sec. 6): The Secretary may create a National Advisory Council on Minority Problems composed of 7 members representing employees, employ- ers and the public with equal representa- tion as between employces and employers. The National Advisory Council] shall— (1) Consult with the Secretary; and (2) make recommendations to the Secre- tary in regard to his functions under the act, I. None. J. None. K. Annual report (sec. 7): The Secretary shall submit to Congress and the President an annual report covering his activities under the act together with such further informa- tion and recommendations for further legis- lation as he deems advisable. BASING -POINT SYSTEM—MARYLAND THE GAINER BY ENDING THE SYSTEM—SU- PREME COURT DECISION AN ECONOMIC BLESSING, INSTEAD OF A CALAMITY, AS ALLEGED—MARYLAND'S EXPERIENCE TYPICAL—REGIONAL EXPANSION RE- SULTS FROM ENDING THE BASING- POINT SYSTEM—IMPARTIAL SURVEY AND REPORT MADE BY MARYLAND STATE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 2 minutes, revise and extend my re- marks, and include a statement. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Mary- land State Planning Commission has is- sued a report which is of great signifi- cance in the basing-point controversy. The report is entitled “Survey of the Impact of f. o. b. Mill Pricing on Mary- land Manufacturers,” I have asked for an analysis and summary of this report, which I am pleased to insert in the Recorp, with the permission of the House, as part of my extended remarks. MARYLAND BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATION OF BASING-POINT SYSTEM In November 1949 the Maryland State Planning Commission issued a report titled “Survey of the Impact of f. o. b. Mill Pricing on Maryland Manufactur-
1950 H.R. 6841 (34’CONNELL) H. None. I. Discrimination {in employment by the Federal Government (sec. 6): The Commis- sion shall make a study of discrimination in the Federal Government aid recommend to Conrress a specific plan for its elimination together with the necessary logislation, J Willful interference with Commission agents (sec. 7): To forcibly resist, oppose, inipede, intimidate or interfere with a mem- ber, cgent, or employee of the Commission in the performance of duties under the act or because of the same is punishable by a $5,000 fire and/or imprisunment for not more than 1 year or both. K. Annual report (sec 4 (b)): The Com- mission shall submit to Congress and the President an annual report describing in do- tail the investigations, proceedings, and heur- ings it has conducted and their outcome, the decisions it has rendered and the other work performed by it and may make such recommendations for further legislation as may appear desirable. The Commission may make such other recommendations to the President or any Federal agency as decmed necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act. ers” This is a factual report prepared by the staff of the Maryland State Plan- ning Commission. It is based in part upon replics to some 1,000 questionnaires sent out in July 1949 to manufacturers accounting for 87 percent of the total industrial employees in Maryland. It is also based upon actual market data for several industries; that 1s, the known quantities of certain products produced in the State and the known quantitics of these products purchased or consumed within the State and within adjoining market areas. This report should be of interest not merely to Members of Congress from the State of Maryland; it should be of in- tcrest to all Members of Congress in their deliberations upon the pending legisla- tion to legalize the basing-point system of pricing, Senate bill 1008. While the factual data presented are applicable only to Maryland, and to some extent to other eastern seaboard and New England States, these data will serve in an illus- trative way to clear up many of the gen- eral misapprehensions concerning the effccts of the Cement and Rigid Steel Conduit decisions upon other areas of the country. One of the quite pointed lessons demonstrated by these data is the general industrial expansion and the in- creased volume of industrial investment which will be possible throughout the country, provided industry can be ridded CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of the restrictive effects of the basing- point system. One feature which greatly enhances the usefulness of the Maryland study is the simplicity with which it handles the legal issues involved in the present bas- ing-point controversy. It avoids the un- certainties which might arise from vary- ing understandings as to what forms of freight absorption and phantom freight are legal and under what circumstances, In short, it avoids the questions of which, if any, Maryland manufacturers misht be participating in an illegal pricing scheme. The investigators simply asked themselves, and asked the Maryland manufacturers, what the effect would be if all industry sold f. o, b. mill. As it turns out, a majority of the industrics of the State would not be affected at all by such pricing. Products of these indus- tries are now markcted in the same way agricultural commodities are sold; that is, the producer does not absorb freight and, conversely, does not charge phan- tom freight. A producer’s net price, ex- clusive of freight, is the same at any particular time for all buyers Similarly, these industries do not depend upon sup- plies or materials which are sold on a basing-point system or zone-price basis, or the materials which they do buy on such a basis are so unimportant that a shift to f. o. b. pricing would not affect their production costs. These industries are as follows: Food and kindred prod- ucts; tobacco; textile mill products; ap- parel and other finished products; furni- ture and fixtures; printing, publishing, and allied industries; leather and leather products; machinery and transportation equipment; professional, scientific, and controlling instruments; miscellancous industries. On the other hand, several Maryland industries would be, or have been, af- fected by a shift to f. 0. b. mill pricing— elther because of their own selling meth- ods, or because of the selling methods of the industries from which they obtain supplies. Some of these would be af- fected in very slight degree, some in more important degrees. In some instances, the effects would be disadvantageous to Maryland manufacturers; in other in- stances they would be advantagcous to Maryland manufacturers. Those indus- tries which would be affected in any de- gree are as follows: Iron and steel; lum- ber and wood products; fabricated metal products; paper and allied products; chemicals and allied products; rubber and allied products; stone, clay, and glass products. On the whole, manufacturers, em- ployees, and consumers would benefit from the elimination of unnecessary transportation costs, and from a general industrial expansion. But on this point the report speaks for itself. The sum- mary of the findings appearing on pages 81 and 82 Is as follows: The study of the effect on the Maryland manufacturers of a compulsory shift to f. 0. b. mill pricing has indicated that a major portion of the manufacturing iIndus- tries of the State will be affected very slightly. Some sections of the chemical and fabri- cated-metals industry could very well be 2107 adversely affected if an f. 0. b. mill-pricing system were made compulsory, but the ad- verse effects should not be large. On the other hand, one might expect a slight expan- sion in the paper, cement, and lime indus- tries, which might more than overbalance any loss in chemicals or metal fatricating. The one industry that would be very no- ticeably affected by a shift to compulsory f. 0. b. mill pricing ig the iron and steel industry. Maryland stecl manufacturers could greatly benefit by f. 0. b. mill pricing. An expansion of over 60 percent in Mary- land's steel capacity is a reasonable guess if the basing-point system is abolished in favor of f. 0 b mill pricing. Of cuurse, while over-all sales or employ- ment in an industry may not be seriously affected, a large reshuffling or swapping of customers may well occur under f. o. b. mill pricing The local mill will tend to sell products in or near Maryland and, where possible, to buy supplies from local producers, This ‘drewing in’ of sales by local pro- ducers will tend to minimize transportation costs, and, consequently, many local firms will either realize a larger average mill-net price or will lower their f. o b, mill prices so that customers will be able to purchase more cheaply, or a combination of both will occur. This minimization of transportation cost might concetvably result in lower prices to the final consumer or a larger take-home pay for the Maryland industrial worker, or both. A point-by-point summary of the effect on Maryland follows: 1. A major portion of Maryland manufac- turers will not experience any effect because: (a) They do not sell on any identical deliv- ered-price system; and (b) they purchase Mttle or no ceupplies from firms selling on & bating-point or zone system. 2 Other manufacturers who sell on & basing-point or zone system will experience only a slight loss or gain in sales because the result of swapping customers with competli- tors will tend to balance. That is, the loss of distant customers will be balanced by the gain in local purchasers. 3. Manufacturers who purchase a major portion of their supplies from firms selling on a zone or basing-point system will shift their sources of supply to the nearest pro- ducer wherever possible. If the nearest sup- plier is not 1 a position to fill orders placed by a manufacturer, or will not supply him lor any other reason, the manufacturer may experience un increase in the cost of supplies. 4 The steel industry may expand as much as 50 percent in the next 10 yeais, because of the apparent deficit production on the east coast, 5 Transportation costs will tend to be minimized, thereby causing larger mill-net receipts, or lower prices to consumers, or both. 6. Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County may experience an increase in employment as a result of ex- pansion in the steel industry. The total increase in employment as a result of ex- pansion in the steel industry could be over 10,000 directly, and many more indirectly. 7. The other sections of Maryland should not be noticeably affected, favorably or adversely. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday next, after the legislative business of the day and any other special orders hereto- fore entered, the gentleman from Ala- bama [Mr. Boykin] may address the House for 40 minutes, and that he may revise and extend his remarks on that occasion.
2108 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HORAN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the PrEcorRD in two instances and include newspaper articles. Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Reconrp and include a letter from a constituent. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House for 8 minutes on Thursday next, following the legislative business of the day, and any other special orders hereto- fore entered. FEPC Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr Speaker, I would not have taken the floor except for the insistence of the gentleman from Wisconsin | Mr. Keere] that my remarks, injected into the speech delivered by the very able gentleman from Arkansas | Mr. Hays!, be pin pointed. What is it ex- actly that he wants to have pin pointed? First, that I criticized the gentleman's position as one of gradualism, I do not know if the gentleman from Wisconsin heard my remarks fully. I make no apology for them. I reassert them now in the hope that he will understand them. I pointed out that the policy of grad- ualism has brought us nowhere 1n this problem, and that not a single piece of civil rights legislation has come out of this Congress since 1875; that the ob- Jectives of the men who fought for free- dom in the Civil War have been com- pletely negated since 1875; that one of the greatest travesties of the history of this country is the calumny that has been heaped on the men who fought to carry out and fulfill the objectives for which many men died in the Civil War. The gentleman infers that it is come munism to insist, as I have been insist- ing, that there must be an end to Jim Crow; that you can never solve this problem by degrees, by gradualism. The Negro people have waited too long and have suffered too much under Jim Crow to wait for the success of graduahstic solutions. He implies that I am intol- erant. I am intolerant. I am intoler- ant of any one who would tolerate con- ditions of segregation and Jim Crow. I am intolerant of inequality. I am in- tolerant of those Jim Crow conditions, and I shall continue to do all that I can in my limited capacity to destroy them. So, if that is intolerance, if it is com- munistic, as the gentleman from Wiscon- sin would call it, then all I can say about it is that I accept that charge. I do it with pride. There is a fundamental dif- ference of opinion between us. I simply say that I prefer to stand by my position CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and I apply that position to FEPC. I say that it is gradualism to come here, as the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays] does, and advocate merely a state- ment of policy. You cannot have any guaranty against discrimination in em- ployment unless you do give the Fair Employment Practice Commission the power to apply for and obtain cease and desist orders. That is the committee bill. The gentleman’s substitute, as well as the substitute of the gentleman from Pennsylvania {Mr. McConnetu], do not provide for enforcement and are there- fore gradualism. I am opposed to that because I oppose inequality. Iam not for 50 percent equality. Iam not for 90 per- cent equality, because anything less than 100 percent equality is not equality. There 1s only one kind of equality, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and that is 100 percent full equality. Call it communism, call it what you please, but that is the only solution to this problem. Now I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr KEEFE. MayTI say to the distin- guished gentleman from New York that the speech which the gentleman from Arkansas made was dedicated to the proposition that involves fair employ- ment practices legislation to come before this House tomorrow. The gentleman from New York, as he always does, at- tempted to pervert the purposes of that argument so as to include an extraneous argument relating to segregation and Jim Crowism. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I have heard the gentleman; I will answer him. Mr. KEEFE. I just want to answer the rentleman from New York. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I wish to con- tinue my answer. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speeker, I ask the gentleman to yicld, he used my name. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Very well; I will yicld to the gentleman, although I do not have to. This is my time and I do not have to yield to him, but I will. Mr. KEEFE. I would like the gentle- man to understand, and the record is clear, that the point at issue is not Jim Crowism or segregation. When he states that, he is stating something which the record will not sustain and which my record in this Congress will not sustain, as the gentleman well knows. The gen- tleman has admitted that this gradual- ist policy which he objects to faces the very objection that the Communists of this country have urged time and time again, which they have urged in their writings and in their speeches, They are opposed to the gradualist policy. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for five addi- tional minutes. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has answered himself. The Communists are opposed to a policy of gradualism with respect FEBRUARY 21 to this problem. That does not change the validity of the opposition to the policy of gradualism because the Com- munists oppose it. If the Communists opposed nudist colonies the gentleman would be in favor of them. Mr. KEEFE. But your Communist friehds advocate them and defend them time and time again. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The gentle- man must be an expert on this subject. Mr. KEEFE. That is exactly what they advocated, nudist colonies. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Then if the Communists condemned them the gen- tleman would also advocate nudist colonies. He says the Communists are opposed to gradualism and because the Communists oppose fradualism, there- fore, gradualism is good. So if Com- munists opposed nudist colonics the gentleman would rather have them. That is how sound his argument is. That is his super logic, but that is not the point. The gentleman has left him- self wide open. Here is what it is. It is the crux of the entire argument be- tween him and me. The gentleman says that I infected extraneous matters into this discussion, that I was injecting the question of segregation and Jim Crow. The gentle- man says that is extraneous. This demonstrates how shallow his argument is. Is it extraneous? Is FEPC extrane- ous to Jim Crow and Seegrc2zation? Are we not dealing with Jim Crow and segre- gation when we are dealing with the problem of discrimination in employ- ment? The two are simply different Phases of the same problem: One is the phase in the industrial life of the Nation; Jim Crow and segregation exists in the industrial life, and FEPC is aimed at that; so, Jim Crow and segregation are not extraneous to this problem; and the fact that the gentleman from Wisconsin says that they are extraneous demon- strates that the gentleman from Wiscon- sin does not have any real understanding of the whole issue involved. He has a superficial attitude toward this issue. This issue is much more fundamental then FEPC, FEPC is just a phase of it. This issue goes back to the days of the thirteenth amendment. When the thirteenth amendment was under con- sideration that issue was raised in this House by a man whose memory has been done violence here and by Hollywood, Thaddeus Stevens; and it was raised by Republicans, by real Republicans, the anniversary of whose leader you have just been celebrating this last week. Those real Republicans stated right here in this House that emancipation meant nothing if there was no economic imple- mentation; in other words, you did not free the Negro if you did not give him full equality and the wherewithal with which tolive. It was proposed right here in this House by Thaddeus Stevens that every emancipated slave be given a 40-acre farm andamule. It would have meant breaking up the big landed feudal- ism of over 200 acres. Radical, is it not? If that policy had been adopted, if there had been no betrayal of the ideals for which men died in that Civil War, we would not be having this problem here today. You would not be having,
1950 for instance, the so-called Black Belt of the South with 5,000,000 Negroes ex- ploited and subjected to the vilest form of racism, with 180 counties in which the Negro people constitute a majority ranging from 50 to 85 percent, subjected to the Bourbon rule of a minority. What is this business you are perpet- uating? You have perpetuated a politi- cal and social and economic scheme to deprive the Negro people of the democ- racy to which they are entitled, to de- prive them of that political power with which they can protect themselves from economic slavery. So this system has been solidificd, it has bcen perpetuated. Do you want to deal with that system gradually? Do you want to temporize with it? Do you want the bill of the eentleman from Pennsylvania or the bill oftered by the gentleman from Arkansas which says that we declare for the prin- ciple of equality here in this Congress but we refuse to enforce that principle; we refuse to have any power given to the Federal Government to step in. The ecntleman from Minnesota [Mr. Jupp] made a statement. Maybe I misunder- stood him. He referred to it as a police- state system? Does the gentleman think that is a police-state system? Did the pfentleman refer to it as a police-state system? Mr. JUDD No; TI did not. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one additional minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, the struggte that is going on here in ref- erence to FEPC is an old strugele§ It goes back to the very establishment of slavery in the United States. We wit- nessed that struggle in the enunciation of the Declaration of Independence, we witnessed the debate on continuation of the slave trade in the Constitutional Convention, we witnessed the debates in Congress You remember the Dred Scott decision which said that no Negro had any right that any white man must respect. We saw Americans shed their blood in the Civil War to wipe out that vicious decision of our Supreme Court. But then all that was negated. A presi- dential election took place, the Tilden- Hayes election, a dubious presidential election which was won only by agreeing to the withdrawal of Federal troops from the South and as a result the imple- mentation of emancipation, the eco- nomic, political, and social implementing of that emancipation was stopped. Since 1875 not a piece of civil-rights legisla- tion has come before this House. Mr. Speaker, if it {is communism to ficht against temporizing with inequality, then I accept the challenge. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HEOUSE Mr KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes. XCVI——133 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. 1 should like to make this comment on what the gentleman from New York has said. He apparently equates logislation with social prozress. He imphes that because no Icislation has been enacted on civil rights since 1875, there has been no progress in civil rights for the Negro people in this coun- try. Yet no people in history has made more progress in education, health, bet- ter living standards and employment at skilled, as well as unskilled, employment than the Negro people have made in this country in the last 90 ycars. Evcryone admits the task is far from complcte and there 1s a long way to go, but it is not right to allow the impression to go out that lack of legislation on this point mans no progress has been made Mr KEEFE. That is exactly why I asked for this time to answer the spu- rious argument of the xentleman from New York which I have heard him re- peat almost weekly ever since I have been a Member of Congress, 12 years. There 1s ncthing new in the statements of the gentleman from New York He has been making the same type of argu- ment in all the years I have been here and the remarks which he has made are an indictment, whether he meant it or not, of the colored people of this country whom he attempts to champion. He let the impression go out that there has b2en hitle or no progiess since 1875 be- cause he challenges the fact that the Conrress of the United States has not legislatively developed this prorram in accordance with his concept as to what ought to have been done. He fans to realize that this whole rreat question 1s one of human relationships, and I say to him that the colored people of this coun- try have made tremendous strides ceo- nomically, physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and every other way beyond any comparable race that I know of any- where. And, they have done it because they have had the couraze and the am- bition even in the face of frustration, which I well know about and which the egcntleman from New York knows I have tried in my humble way to climinate in various aspects of this problem. They still have made tremendous progress and they have been encourarcd to make that progress gradually just as the States and the citizens of those States have sone along with the gradual policy of provid- ing security, economic and otherwise, for the colored people of this country. The gentleman assumes in his argu- ment that because the Congress of the United States has not legislated in this field that therefore the colored people have been denied any opportunity for progress. Now, I am not so naive as to stand here and not admit that so far as I am concerned I know the frustrations in- cident to Jim Crowism and incident to segregation. You do not have segrera- tion in New York, sa I am told, but you have voluntary segregation by which the will the 2109 colored people themeselves are located substantially in one area in the great city of New York. I do not know what the answer is un- less it is education, constant and ever- lasting education, and the opportunity given to the colored people of this coun- try to secure education and the right to prepare themselves for economic ad- vancement in their jobs and in their po- sitions, and I have fought for that very situation as the gentleman well knows in my work as a Member of the Congress to see to it that they have opportunity for advancement, and I have not got over two or three colored people in my district. Iam not motivated by political implica- tions nor by political expediency, per- haps, as some Members are who have large foreign-born populations in their districts to whom they must constantly appcal in order to get votes. So, when I made the statement which I did this afternoon as to the attitude of Communists—you find it in book after book, paper after paper, speech after speech, all of which are part of the rec- ords of this Congress, 1t indicates that as one of the basic party lines, “We are through with gradualism; we cannot wait for constituttonal processes to take place.” They advocate the sharp break of revolution and they have done so for years, and the gentleman well Knows it, and that is one of the fundamentals of the Communist Party line. I am sur- prised to hear him attack the integrity, if you please, of the gentleman from Arkansas, because he has the courage to stand here and advocate what he has desciibed as a policy of gradualism I will say to the gentleman that in my humble opinion, from my observations ot this problem in the North and in the Scuth, if the people were to follow the Icadership of the gentleman from New Yoik, the minorities would be in a much worse position than they are at the pres- ent time by following the pohcy that has becn indulged in all these years, which has lifted the cconomic opportunity of these minority groups, and is gradually brcaking down the age-old intolerance that has existed and, may I say to the gentleman in my humble opinion, when you attempt to jam it down the throats by force you are attempting to create just what the gentleman from Minnesota well described as the utilization of police state methods. I do not want any part of that so far as I am concerned. The SPEAKER. The time of the gcon- tleman from Wisconsin has expired. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted as follows: To Mr. Barinc (at the request of Mr. WHEELER), for 1 day, on account of 1Jl- ness. To Mr. Gary (at the request of Mr. Harpy), for Tucsday, February 21, on account of official business. SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The SPEAKER announced his signa- ture to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title: §S 1890 An act to amend section 429, Re- vised Statutes, as amended, and the act of
2110 August 5, 1882, as amended, s0 as to substt- tute for the requiremont thut Cetailed an- nual reports ko mede tu the Congross cone cerning the proceeds of all sales of con- @emned naval material, a requirement that information as to such proceeds be filed with the Committees on Armed Services in the Congress ADJOURNMENT Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speeker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o’clock and 51 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 22, 1950, at 12 o'clock noon. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 125). A letter from the Administrator, Vet- erans’ Admuistrution, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled “A bill to assure that expenditures under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, as amended, for educa- tion and training yield a proper return both to the veteran and to the Nation as a whole"; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 1251. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United Stutes Army, dated Janu- ary 3, 1950, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and un illustration, on & preliminary examination and survey of Deep Creek, Accomack County, Va, author- ized by the River and Harbor Act approved on March 2, 1945 (H. Doc No. 477); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with one illustiation, 1552 A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engincers, United States Army, dated Decem- ber 22, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on a review of reports on Guadalupe River, Tex, with a view to providing a harbor of refuge for fishing craft at or near Seadrift, requested by a resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representa- tives, adopted on February 15, 1946 (H. Doc. No. 478); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with two illustrae tions. 1253. A letter from the Postmaster Gen- eral, transmitting a draft of proposed legisla- tion entitled “A bill to amend the act en- titled ‘An act to authorize the Postmaster General to impose demurrage charges on un- delivered collect-on-delivery parcels,’ ap- proved May 23, 1930, as amended (39 U. 8. C. 246c)”; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 1254. A letter from the Acting Attorney General, transmitting copies of orders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Nat- uralization Service granting the status of permanent residence to the subjects of such orders; to the Committee on the Judiclary. 1255 A letter from the Acting Attorney General, transmitting copies of orders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Nat- uralization Service suspending deportation, as well as a list of the persons involved; to the Committee on the Judiciary. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. PATMAN: Select Committee on Small Business Report pursuant to House Reso- lution 22, resolution creating a select com- mittee to conduct a study and investigation CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of the problems of small business; without amendment (Rept. No, 1675). Referred to the Committee uz the Whole House on the State of the Union. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of cemmittees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar as follows: Mr. KEATING. Committee on the Judi- clary. S. 507. An act for the relief of Mrs. Lorraine Malone, with an amendment (Rept. No 1671). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. KEATING: Committee on the Judi- ciary. S 2125. An act conferring jJulisdic- tion upon the United States District Court ior the District of Oregcn to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claims of J N Jones and others; without smendment (Rept. No. 1672). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House Mr KEATING: Committee on the Judl- clary. H R 1082 A bill for the relicf of the Bunker Hill Development Corp, with an finchdment (Rept. No 1673). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr KYATING Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R 4041 A bill for the relief of Paris Bros, with an amendment (Rept No. 1674). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. AUCHINCLOSS: H.R. 7374 A bill to prohibit annuity pay- ments under the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, in the case of any person hereafter convicted of a tel- ony committed while serving as a Member of Congress; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. DONDERO: H R 7375. A bill to amend section 124 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to the amortization deduction for emergency fa- cilities, to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr GORSKI: H R. 7376. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 so as to provide full annuities at half salary or wages, basei on the five highest years of earnings, for in- dividuals who shall have completed 30 years of service or have attulned the age of 60, to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. JONAS: H R. 7377. A bill to authorize the commer- cial operation of the vessels Cornwall, Johns- town, and Saucon on the Great Lakes; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. By Mr. KEE: H R. 7378, A bill to amend the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. MACK of Illinois: H.R. 7879. A bill to provide pension for certain widows of recipients of the Medal of Honor; to the Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs. By Mr. RANKIN (by request) : H.R. 7380. A bill to assure that expendil- tures under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, as amended, for education and training yield a proper return both to the veteran end to the Nation as a whole; to the Com- mittee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mrs. 8T. GEORGE: H.R. 7381. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1987, as amended, so as FEBRUARY 21 to provide full annuities, at compensation of half salary or wages based on the five high- est .ears of earnings, for individuals who have completed 30 years of service or have attained the age of 60; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. ANGELL: H R. 7382. A bill to terminate the war tax rates on certain miscellaneous excise taxes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr MARCANTONIO: H R 7383. A Bill to repeal section 2385 of title 18, United States Code (54 Stat. 670); to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SHAFER: H R. 7384. A bill exempting from tax the transportation of Boy Scouts ane Scouters to the Naticnal Jamboree of the Boy Scouts of America to be held at Valley Forge, Pa.; to the Committee on Ways ard Means. By Mr. LEONARD W. HALL: H R.7385 A bill to amend section 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, with re- Bpect to cooperation with State commis- sions; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce By Mr. KLEIN: H R 7386. A bill to extend and protect the rights of Fedeial cmployecs, to the Com- mittee on House Administration. By Mr MORRISON: H R. 7387. A bill to provide for the pay- ment of severance pay to certain Officers and employees sepurated from the service of the Federal Government or of the municipal government of the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service By Mrs ROGERS of Massachusetts: H R 7388 A bill to authorize payments by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on the purchase of automobiles or other convey- ances by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Vet- erans’ Affairs By Mr TRIMBLE: H Res 483 Resolution to authorize the Committee on Public Works to determine a policy to govern the use of public land ac- quired in the course of the construction of flood-control dams; to the Committce on Rules By Mr MACK of Illinois: H Res 484 Resolution sxuthorizing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit to the Abraham Lincoln Association at Springfield, Ill , copies of certain Abraham Lincoln documents; to the Committee on House Administration. MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legis- lature of the State of Texas, relative to the Senate urging the defeat of the attempt to eliminate or reduce the depletion allowance now made in connection with income taxes on producers of natural resources; to the Committee on Ways and Means. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Texas, relative to the House urging the defeat of the attempt to eliminate or reduce the depletion allowance now made in connection with income taxes on pro- ducers of natural resources; to the Commit- tee on Ways and Means. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. ALLEN of California: H.R. 7389. A bill for the relief of Rhoda AKiko Nishiyama; to the Committee on the Judiciary,