2154 water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The west derives from the east supplies requisite to its growth and comfort—and what is perhaps of still greater conse- quence, it must of necessity owe the se- cure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions, to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble com- munity of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the west can hold this essential advantage, whether de- rived from its own separate strength; or from an apostate and unnatural con- nection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts com- bined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource, proportion- ably greater security from external dan- ger, a Jess frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union, an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalship alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attach- ments, and intrigues, would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persua- sive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continu- ance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can em- brace so large a sphere? let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case Were criminal. We are au- thorized to hope that a proper organiza- tion of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respec- tive subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its hands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as mat- ter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for char- acterizing parties by geographical dis- criminations,—zorthern and southern— Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local inter- ests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within pars CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ticular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burn- ings which spring from these misrepre- sentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The in- habitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal sat- isfaction at the event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions prop- agated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them every- thing they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not hence- forth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an ade- quate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interrup- tions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this mo- mentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a con- stitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This govern- ment, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature delibcra- tion, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and maintaining within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their consti- tutions of government.—But the consti- tution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obliga- tory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presuppose the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, coun- teract, or awe the regular deliberations and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.—Thcy serve to organize faction, to give it an FEBRUARY 22 artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongru- ous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modi- fied by mutual interests, However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to be- come potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enabled to subvert the power of the peo- ple, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion, Towards the preservation of your gov- ernment and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, altera- tions which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be involved, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true charac- ter of governments, as of other human institutions :—that experience is the sur- est standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country:—that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opin- ion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so exten- sive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of Mberty is indispensable. Lib- erty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and ad- justed, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the gov- ernment is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have alrcady intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with par- ticular references to the founding them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the bancful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is insepara- ble from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.—It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, con- trolled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one fac- tion over another, sharpened by the spirit
1950 of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, fs itself a frightful despotism. But this Jeads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually in- cline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, soonor or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more furtunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extrem- ity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public ad- ministration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional] riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the govern- ment itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain Mmits is probably true; and in governments of a monar- chial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor upon the spirit of party. But in those of the pop- ular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opin- ion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uni- form vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroach- ment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, areal despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into differ- ent depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes.—To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the opinion of the people, the distribu- tion or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates.— But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the custom- ary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must al- ways greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investiga- tion in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without re- ligion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclu- sion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sin- cere friend to it can look with indiffer- ence upon attempts to shake the founda- tion of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security cherish nublic credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but re- membering, also, that timely disburse- ments, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumu- lation of debt, not only by shunning oc- casions of expense, but by vigorous exer- tions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your repre- sentatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes, that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleas- ant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice 2155 of difficulties,) ought to be a decisive mo- tive for a candid construction of the con- duct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of & people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary ad- vantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Provi- dence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, noth- ing is more essential than that perma- nent, inveterate antipathies against par- ticular nations and passionate attach- ments for others, should be excluded; and that in place of them, Just and ami- cable feelings towards all should be culti- vated. The nation which indulges to- wards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a Slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is suffi- cient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when acci- dental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, ob- stinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by il! will and re- sentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calcu- lations of policy. The government some- times participates in the national pro- pensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation sub- servient to projects of hostility, insti- gated by pride, ambition, and other sin- ister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the fa- vorite nation, facilitating the {illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a par- ticipation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to con- cessions, to the favorite nation, of privi- leges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jcalousy, ill will, and a disposition to retahate in the parties
2156 from whom equal privileges are with- held; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote them- selves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obli- gation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compli- ances of ambition, corruption, or infat- uation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly en- lightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to prac- tice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!—Such an attachment of @ small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most bane- ful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be im- partial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive par- tiality for one foreign nation and ex- cessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the in- trigues of the favorite, are liable to be- come suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political cormection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be ful- filled with perfect good faith:—Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our con- cerns. Hence, therefore, it must be un- wise in us to implicate ourselves, by arti- ficial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combina- tions and collusions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation in- vites and enables us to pursuc a differ- ent course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respect- ed; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so pe- culiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be ob- served in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a re- spectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seek- ing nor granting exclusive favors or pref- erences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the gov- ernment to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dic- tate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disin- terested favors from another; that it must pay with a pcrtion of 1ts independ- ence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given eouivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from na- tion to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard, In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude FEBRUARY 22 for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far, in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the prin- ciples which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe; my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me frorn it. After deliberate examination, with the ald of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest, to take a neutral posi- tion. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon mc, to main- tain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not neces- sary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my un- derstanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the bel- ligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a ncutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to main- tain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for ob- serving that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and expericnce. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature {ts yet recent insti- tutions, and to progress, without inter- ruption, to that degree of strength, and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fer- vent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy,
1950 the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the be- nign influence of good laws under a free government—the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. Gro. WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES, 17th September, 1796. SENATE BILL REFERRED A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the Spcaker’s table and, under the rule, referred as follows: 8.75. An act authorizing the construction, Operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenart dams and canals, and tor other p'rposes; to the Committee on Public Lands. SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The SPEAKER announced his signa- ture to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles: S 204. An act for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche; S 229 An act for the relie! of E W. Eaton Coal Co; S 309. An act for the relief of Gabe Bud- wee; S 321. An act for the relief of Lloyd D. Lyles; S 481 An act for the relicf of the legal guardian of Clarence Herbert Hartman, a minor; § 53 An act for the rellef of the P. 8S. Cook Co; S 914. An act for the rellef of Gladys Inez Greenwood, S 1449. An act for the relief of Robert B. Workman, S.1916. An act for the relief of Edna A. Bauser; S 1933. An act for the relicf of C L Leffing- well and others, and S 2520 An act to authorize the sale of cer- tain allotted devised land on the Winnebago Reservation, Nebr. MOTION TO ADJOURN Mr. COX, Mr. Speaker, I offer a priv- lleged motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr Cox moves that as a further mark of respect to the memory of George Washington the House do now adjourn. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 127, nays 278, not voting 26, as follows: [Roll No. 55] YEAS—127 Abbitt Brooks Davis, Ga. Abernethy Brown, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Albert Bryson Deane Allen, 1, Butleson DeGraffenricd Andrews Burton Dolliver Barden Camp Doughton Bates Carlyle Durham Battle Chelf Elliott Beckworth Coimer Evins Bennett, Fla. Combs Fernandez Bentsen Cooley Fisher Boggs, La Cooper Frazier Bolton, Md Cox Fugate Bonner Crawford Gary Boykin Curtis Gathings XCVI——136 Gillette Gore Gossett Grant Gregory Hardy Hare Harris Harrison Hays, Ark Hébert Herlong Hobbs Hoffman, Mich Jensen Jones, Ala. Jones, N C, Kerr Kilburn Kilday Lanham Larcade Lucas Lyle McMillan, S C Magee Mahon Mason Addonizio Allen, Cant. Andersen, H Carl Andresen, August H. Angell Aspinall Auchincloss Bailey Baring Barrett, Pa Barrett, Wyo. Beall Bennett, Mich Biemiller Bishop Blackney Blatnik Boggs, Del Bolling Bolton, Ohlo Bosone Bramblett Breen Brehm Brown, Ohio Buchanan Buck'ey, Ill Buckicy, N. ¥ Burdick Burke Burnside Byrne, N Y. Byrnes, Wis. Canfield Cannon Carnahan Carroll Case, N J Case, 8 Dak. Cavalcante Celler Che.ney Chiperfield Christopher Chudoft Church Clemente Clevenger Cole, Kans. Cole, N.Y. Corbett Cotton Coudert Crook Croscer Cunningham Dague Davenport Davis, Wis. Dawson Delaney Denton D'Ewart Dingell Dollinger Dondero Donohue Douglas Doyle Eaton Meyer Miles Mills Morrison Murray, Tenn. Nicholson Norrell Pace Passman Patman Peterson Pickett Plumley Poage Preston Priest Rains Rankin Redden Regan Rich Richards Rivers Rogers, Fla. Shafer Short Sikes Simpson, Pa. NAYS —278 Eberharter Ellsworth Elston Engel, Mich. Engle, Calif. Fallon Feighan Fellows Fenton Flood Fogaity Forand Ford Fulton Furcolo Gamble Garmatz Gavin Goodwin Gordon Gorski Graham Gianahan Granger Green Gross Gwinn Hagen Ha’e Hall, Leonard W Halleck Hand Hart Hervey Havenner Hays, Ohio Heffernun Heller Herter Herelton Hill Hinshaw Hoeven Hoffman, IL. Holifield Holmes lope Hoan Howell Huber Hull Irving Jackson, Calif Jackson, Wash Jacobs James Javits Jenison Jenkins Johnson Jones Judd Karst Karsten Kean Kearney Kearns Keating Kee Keefe Kelley, Pa. Sims Smathers Smith, Kans. Smith, Va Stanley Sutton Tackett Teague Thomas Thompson Thornberry Trimble Underwood Vinson Vursell Wheeler Whitaker Whitten Whittington Williams Willis Wilson, Tex. Winstead Wood Woodruff Worley Kelly, N. ¥. Kennedy Keogh King Klein Kruse Kunkel Lane Latham LeCompte LeFevre Lemke Lesinski Lind Linehan Lodge Lovie Lynch McCarthy McConnell McCormack McCulloch McDonough McGrath McGregor McGulhe McKinnon McMillen, Il McSweeney Mack, Ill Mack, Wash, Madden Manstleld Marcantonio Marsalis Martin, lowa Martin, Mass Merrow Michene1 Miller, Calif. Miller, Md Miller, Nebr. Mitchell Monioney Morris Morton Moulder Multer Murphy Murray, Wis. Nelson Nixon Noland Norb'cd Norton O'Brien, Il. O'Brien, Mich. O'Hara, Ill. O'Hara, Mina. O'Konskt O'Neill O'Sullivan O'Toole Patten Patterson Perkins Pfeifer, Joseph Ll. Pfeiffer, Wilitam L. Philbin Phillips, Caltf. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 2157 Phillips, Tenn. Scott, Hardie Vorys Polk Scott, Wadsworth Potter Hugh D., Jr. Wagner Powell Scrivner Walsh Price Scudder Walter Quinn Secrest Weichel Ramsay Shelley Welch Reed, Il Sheppard Werdel Reed, N Y. Simpson, Il. White, Calif Rees Smith, Wis. Wickersham Rhodes Spence Widnall Ribicoff Staggers Wier Riehlman Steed Wigglesworth Rodino Stefan Wilson, Ind. Rogers, Mass Stigler Wilson, Oka Rooney Stockman Withrow Roosevelt Sullivan Wolcott Sabath Taber Wolverton Sadlak Talle Woodhouse St. George Tauriello Yates Sanborn Taylor Young Sasscer Tollefson Zablockd Saylor Velde NOT VOTING—26 Allen, La Harden Poulson Anderson, Calif, Hedrick Rabaut Arends Jennings Sadowsk! Bulwinkle Jones, Mo Smith, Ohio Chatham Kirwan Towe Davies,N Y. Lichtenwalter Van Zandt Gilmer Macy White, Idaho Goldcn Marshall Hall, Morgan Edwin Arthur Murdock So the motion was not agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr. Van Zandt against. Mr. Jones of Missouri for, with Mr. Davies of New York against, Mr. Allen of Louisiana for, with Mr. Rabaut against. Mr. against. Chatham for, with Mr. Sadowski Mr Arends for with Mr. Kirwan against. Mr. Bulwinkle for, with Mr Morgan against. Until further notice: Mr. Hedrick with Mr. Anderson of Califor- nia. Mr. White of Idaho with Mr. Lichtenwalter. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Macy. Mr Murdock with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall. Mr. VurserL changed his vote from “no” to “aye.” The result of the vote was announced as above reco rded. MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak- er, I move to dispense for the day with the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, @ parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Must not the motion be in writing? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. is in writing. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re- port the motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Rocrrs of Florida moves to dispense for the day with the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of com- mittees on Calendar Wednesday. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak- er, do the rules provide for recognition on the motion? The motion
2158 The SPEAKER. Yes; 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. The Chair rec- ognizes the gentleman from Florida for 6 minutes. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Is not that motion subject to a motion to table? The SPEAKER. The Chair would not think so. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speak- er, we have just heard read the Farewell Address of George Washington, the Father of our Country, who was first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow-countrymen. In that mes- sege he enjoined unity and harmony among the people of this Nation. He called upon the North; he called upon the South; he called upon the East, and he called upon the West to cooperate and work together in har- mony and unity for the perpetuity of this great Nation. Yet today we are at- tempting to call up FEPC, a measure that will bring dissension, that will bring turmoil, confusion, and hatred among our people at a time when we should have unity, when we should have har- mony and cooperation. In the greatest Jaw-making body in the world this measure embroils discord, engenders dissension, and brings about confusion. There is on the part of some an effort to jam down the throats of others a measure, a principle, that is contrary to American ideals, to American liberty, and to the American Constitution and our American way of life. Mr. Speaker, the FEPC is a measure that will take away from that man who is in business the freedom and the liberty of choosing those who may work in his plant or who may get into his employment. It takes away a constitu- tional liberty which the employer should enjoy. It takes away from the employer the right and liberty to say whether he will employ one man or another. If this measure is passed, the employer’s choice of selecting who shall work for him and be placed on his pay roll will be taken away. Is that right? Is that Ameri- canism? To me that is a step toward dictator- ship. To me that is a step toward totali- tarianism which all of us good Ameri- cans are supposedly fighting against. Let me make the suggestion to you Members who are anxiously crying for FEPC for political purposes. Take it back to your State legislatures, for this is a State function for the legislatures of the various States. If the people of Florida do not want this legislation, for God's sake do not put it upon them. Go back to your State legislatures. That is the place for this type of legislation. That would be de- mocracy. Let the people of the various States say whether or not they want this legislation. If they do, put it into effect; Congress should not undertake to dic- tate to the several States in this type of legislation. If you will do that and the States pass it, that is up to them; that is local self-government. Let me say now to those who are such stanch supportcrs of this legislation, if CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE you will go back to the States with it you can give more employment than under this measure because this measure only applies to interstate commerce, or to those who produce goods by interstate commerce. Many thousand more em- ployees will be tvken care of if you go back to your States. So, if it is good at all, go to your State legislatures and let them doit. I think that should be done. If we are to be free, we must preserve State’s rights against national power, and protect the rights of the States and the people in their freedom. Let us re- call in this solemn hour what Thomas Jefferson said: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread,” and paraphrasing this—if Congress is to tell our people whom to hire in their own business, then sooner or later there will be no private enterprise, but only Gov- ernment business. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. COLMER. If the gentleman’s motion prevails, then this House will have done that which it has done from time immemorial, since the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, and that is to adjourn after the reading of George Washington's Farewell Address. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. This Con- gress has always adjourned in memory of the Father of our Country after the reading of his Farewell Address, and to refuse to adjourn now and take up this controversial and unconstitutional measure is a desccration of the memory of the Father of our Country, who stood for peace, unity, and harmony. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Florida has expired. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman a member of the committee? Mr. BIEMILLER. I am not, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman a member of the committee? Mr. MORTON. Iam, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman may proceed. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion that we dis- pense with Calendar Wednesday pro- ceedings. Regardless of how any one of us may feel on the question of this legis- lation, it is high time that this body took action. The issues involved have been debated, not only in this well and on this floor but on every street corner of America, for several years past. These continuing arguments have been gener- ating passions and emotions which are directly contrary to the elimination of prejudice. Every man in this body is interested in the elimination of prej- udice and intolerance. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. And everywhere that they have discussed it thoroughly they FEBRUARY 22 have taken it up in the legislatures and beaten the fire out of it. Mr. MORTON. I thank the gentle- man for his observation. I am not argu- ing the merits of this bill; I am arguing only this motion. Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. NICHOLSON. Do not the States have a right to make their own laws and run their States as they please without the Federal Government doing it? Mr. MORTON. I agree with the gen- tleman, and I am not arguing that point. I am arguing the point of whether here today and now we will settle this issue by voting one way or the other or whether we will continue this travesty on the greatest legislative body in the world. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. BIEMILLER. I think the REcorp ought to show that an offer was made by the majority leader to postpone Calendar Wednesday until Thursday of this week in deference to George Washington's Birthday anniversary, but such a move would have to be by unanimous consent, and the opponents of this bill objected. Mr. MORTON. Iam not interested in getting into the politics of the situation. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. WILLIAMS. Let those who would perpetuate this crime or the American Constitution—— Mr. MORTON. I yielded for an ob- servation in connection with the motion, and not a speech. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. JAVITS. Is not what the gentle- man is saying directed solely to the point that it is always said that a majority could control this House, and what the gentleman asks is that we act? Mr. MORTON. That is exactly it. I think it is time that we face up to this issue and not hide behind parliamentary tricks, or the Committee on Rules, or anything else. You know, we raise a lot of horses and we race them down in Ken- tucky. It is a funny thing that this FEPC bill seems to be a part of that sta- ble that runs so poorly at this time of year. The horses in that stable seem to run their best in November. Now, let us run FEPC one time during the winter while Congress is in session and vote it up or down. Mr. HALLECK. gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Indiana. Mr. HALLECK, I think it might be an opportune time to point out to Congress and to the country that those of us who contend and have contended that the rules of the House, in respect to the Com- mittee on Rules, need not be changed in order that matters reported by legisla- tive committees be brought on for action have had our position justified in the Mr. Speaker, will the
1950 fact that today under the call of Calendar Wednesday the FEPC measure will be before the House for consideration and action if the majority of the Members of the House so desire and act in further- ance of that desire. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr, Speaker, a Parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. M-. McCORMACK. It is my under- standing that in order for this motion to prevail to suspend Calendar Wednes- day, it must be by two-thirds vote. The SPEAKER. That is correct. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr HOFFMAN of Michigan. As I re- call, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] made the observation that the majority of the House could control its actions. That is all very true, but every time I have heard him speak he has been speaking in favor of the minority ruling in business. Mr, MORTON. Mr. Speaker, the ac- complishments of this session of the Eighty-first Congress are just about zero. One reason is that we have spent most of our time ducking the issue of FEPC. Now let us quit stall walking and get to work. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. PICKETT. On that motion, Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays, The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, a par- liamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER, The gentleman will state it. Mr. NICHOLSON. Does it take a two- thirds vote on this motion? The SPEAKER. It does. The question was taken: and there werc—yeas 121, nays 285, not voting 25, as follows: Mr. [Roll No. 56] YEAS—121 Abbitt Fisher Murray, Tenn Abernethy Frazier Nicholson Albert Fugate Norrell Allen, Ill. Gary Pace Andrews Cathings Passman Barden Gillette Patman Batcs Gore Peterson Batt e Gossett Pickett Beckworth Grant Plumley Bennett, Fla Gregory Poage Bentxen Hardy Preston Boggs, La. Hare Priest Bonner Harris Rains Boykin Harrison Rankin Brooks Haves, Ark. Redden Brown Ga Hébert Regan Bryson Herlong Rich Burleson Hobbs Richards Burton Hoffman, Mich Rivers Camp Jensen Rogers, Fla. Carlyle Jones, Ala Shafer Chelf Jones, N C, Short Colmer Kerr Sikes Combs Kilburn Simpson, Pa. Cooiey Kilday Sims Cooper Lanham Smathers Cox Lareade Smith, Kans, Curtis Lucas Smith, Va Davis, Ga Lyle Stanley Dav:s, Tenn McMillan, S C. Sutton Deane Magee Tackett DeGraficniied Mahon Teague Doughton Mason Thomas Durham Meyer Thompson Elliott Mills Thornberry Evins Morrison Trimble Underwood Vinson Vursell Wheeler Whitten Addonizio Allen, Calif. Andersen, H Carl Andresen, August H. Angel) Aspinall Auchincloss Bailey Baring Barrett. Pa Barrett, Wyo. Beall Bennett, Mich Biemiller Bishep Blackney Blatnik Boggs, Del. Bolling Bolton Md Bolton, Ohio Bosone Bramblett Breen Brehm Brown, Ohio Buchanan Buck'!ey, Ill. Buckley, N. ¥ Burdick Burke Burnside Byrne,N Y. Byrnes, Wis. Canfield Carnahan Carroll Case,N J Cavaicante Celler Chiperfield Christopher Chudoft Church Clemente Clevenger Cole, Kans Cole, N Y. Corbett Cotton Coudeit Crawford Crook Crosser Cunningham Dague Davenport Davis, Wis. Dawson Delaney Denton D'Ewart Dingell Doilinger Dolliver Dondero Donohue Douglas Doyle Eaton Ebeiharter Ellswoith Elston Engel, Mich. Engle, Calif. Fallon Feighan Fellows Fenton Fernandez Flood Fogarty Forend Ford Fulton Furcolo Gamble Garmatz Gavin Golden Goodwin Gordon Gorski Graham Granshan Granger CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Whittington Wood Williams Woodruff Wills Worley Wilson, Tex. Winstead NAYS—285 Green Morris Gross Morton Gwinn Moulder Hagen Multer Hale Murphy Hail, Murray. Wis. Edwin Arthur Nelson Hall, Nixon Leonard W- Noland Halleck Norb'ad Hard Norton Hart O'Brien, Il. Harvey O'Brien, M ch Havenner O'Hara, 11 Hays, Ohio O'Hara, Minn Heffernan O’Konski Heller O'Neil) Herter O'Sullivan Herelton O'Toole Hill Patten Hinshaw Patterson Hoeven Perkins Hoffman, III. Pfeifer, Holifield Joseph L. Holines Pfeiffer, Hope William L Horan Philbin Howell Phillips, Ca’if Huber Phillips, Tenn Hull Polk Irving Potter Jackson, Calif Poulson Jackson, Wash Powell Jacobs Price James Quinn Javits Rabaut Jenison Ramsay Jenkins Reed, Ill Johnson Reed, N Y¥ Jonas Rees Judd Rhodes Karst Ribicoff Karsten Rlehlman Kean Rodino Kearney Rogers, Mass. Kearns Rooney Keating Roosevelt Kee Sabath Keefe Snadlak Kelley, Pa 8t George Kelly, N Y. Sanborn Kennedy Sasscer Keogh Baylor King Scott, Hardie Kirwan Scott, Klein Hugh D Jr Kruse Scrivrer Kunkel Scudder Lane Secrest Letham Shelley TeCompte Sheppard LeFevre Simpson, IN. Lemke Smith, Wis. Lesinekl Spence L.chtenwaltcr Staggers Lind Stced Linehan Stefan Lodge Stivter Lovie Stockman Lynch Sullivan MeCarthv Taber McConnell Talle McCormack Taurlello McCulicch Taylor McDonough Tollefson McGrath Velde MeGrcgor Vorys MeGutie Wagner McKinnon Walsh McM.JJeu, Il Walter McSweeney Weichel Mock, Ill Welch Mack, Wach. Werdel Madden White, Calif. Mansfield Widnall Marcantonio Wier Mar‘ alis Wigglesworth Maitin, Iowa Wilson, Ind. Muitin, Mass. Wilson, Okita. Merrow Withrow Michener Wolcott Miles Wolverton Miller, Calif. Woodhouse Miller, Md. Yates Miller, Nebr. Young Mitchell Zablock! Monroney Mogan NOT VOTING—25 Allen, La. Gilmer Smith, Ohio Anderson, Calif. Harden Towe Arends Hedrick Van Zandt Bulwinkle Jennings Wadsworth Cannon Jones, Mo Whitaker Case,S Dak Macy White, Idaho Chatham Marshall Wickersham Chesney Murdock Davies, N Y¥ Sadowski So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof), the motion was rejected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr Gilmer and’ Mr. Jones of Missour! for, with Mr. Van Zandt against. Mr Allen of Louisiana and Mr. Chatham for, with Mr. Davies of New York against. Mr. Arends and Mr. Macy for, with Mr. Sadowrki against. Mr. Bulwinkle and Mr. Whitaker for, with Mr. Towe against. Until further notice: Mr. Hedrick with Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Chesney with Mr. Smith of Ohio. Mr. Wickersham with Mrs, Harden. Mr. White of Idaho with Mr. Case of South Dakota Mr Murdock with Mr. Anderson of Cali- fornia. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Jennings. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. GARY. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and seven Members are present; not a quorum. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered, The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: Speaker, I [Roll No. 57] Allen, La Hedrick Plumley Arends Herter Sadowski Beckworth Hope Smith, Ohio Bolton, Chto Jonnson Thomas Bulwinkle Jones, Mo, Towe Cannon King Van Zandt Chatham Macy Wadsworth Combs Mahon Whitaker Davies, N Y. Marshall White, Idaho Doughton Meyer Whittington Engle, Calif. Murdock Young Gilmer Patman Harden Phillips, Calif. The SPEAKER. On this roll call 394 Members have answered to their names, @ quorum, Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, @ point of order, The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that proceed- ings under the call of the House have not been completed; and I ask that they be completed. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that motion I demand the yeas and nays. The ycas and nays were ordered,
2160 The Clerk called the roll, and there were—yeas 290, nays 115, not voting 26, as follows: [Roll No. 58] YEAS—290 Addonizio Gore Martin, Mass. Allen, Calif. Gorsk1 Merrow Allen, 11, Graham Michener Andersen, Granahan Miller, Calif. H Carl Granger Miller, Md. Anderson, Calif Green Miller, Nebr. Angell Gross Mitchell Aspinall Gwinn Monroney Auchincloss Hagen Morgan Batley Hale Morris Baring Hall, , Morton Barrett, Pa Edwin Arthur Moulder Barrett, Wyo Hall, Multer Bates Leonard W. Murphy Beall Halleck Murray, Wis. Bennett, Mich Hand Nelson Bentsen Hart Nixon Biemiller Harvey Noland Bishop Havenner Norblad Biackney Hays, Ark. Norton Blatnik Havs, Ohio O'Brien, Tl Boges, Del. Heffernan O'Brien, Mich. Bolling Heller O'Hara, Ill, Bolton, Md. Herter O’Konski Bolton, Ohio Heselton O'Neill Bosone Hill O'sullivan Bramblett Hinshaw O’Toole Breen Hoeven Patten Brehin Hoffman, Il Patterson Brown, Ohio Holifield Perkins Buchanan Holmes Pfeifer, Buckley, Ill Hope Joseph L. Buckley,N Y Horan Pfeiffer, Burdick Howell William L. Burke Huber Philbin Burnside Hull Phillips, Calif. Byrne, N Y. Irving Phillips, Tenn. Byrnes, Wis. Jackson, Calif. Polk Canfield Jackson, Wash. Potter Cannon Jacobs Poulson Carnahan James Powell Carrall Javits Price Case,N J Jenison Quinn Cavalcante Jenkins Rabaut Celler Jennings Ramsay Chesney Johnson Reed, Ill. Chiperfield Jonas Rees Christopher Judd Rhodes Chudoff Karst Ribicoff Church Karsten Riehlman Clemente Kean Rodino Clevenger Kearney Rogers, Mass. Cole, Kans. Kearns Rooney Cole,N Y. Keating Roosevelt Corbett Kee Sabath Cotton Keefe Sadlak Coudert Kelley, Pa St George Crook Kelly, N Y. Sanborn Crosser Kennedy Sasscer Cunningham Keogh Saylor Curtis Kilburn Scott, Hardle Dague King Scott, Davenport Kirwan Hugh D., Jr. Davis, Wis. Klein Scrivner Dawson Kruse Scudder Delaney Kunkel Secrest Denton Lane Shelley Dingell Latham Sheppard Dollinger LeCompte Simpson, Nl. Dolliver LeFevre Spence Dondero Lemke Staggers Donohue Lesinsk! Steed Douglas Lichtenwalter Stefan Doyle Lind Stigler Eaton Linehan Stockman Eberharter Lodge Sullivan Ellsworth Lovre Taber Elston Lynch Talle Engel, Mich. McCarthy Tauriello Fallon McConnell Taylor Feighan McCormack Tollefson Fellows McCulloch Towe Fenton McDonough Velde Fisher McGrath Vorys Flood McGregor Wadsworth Fogarty McGuire Wagner Forand McKinnon Walsh Ford McMillen, Ill. Walter Fulton McSweeney Weichel Furcolo Mack, Ill. Welch Gamble Mack, Wash. Werdel Garmatz Madden White, Calif, Gavin Mansfield Wickersham Golden Marcantonio Widnall Goodwin Marsalis Wier Gordon Martin, lowa Wigglesworth CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Withrow ‘Woodhouse Young Wolcott Worley Zablocki Wolverton Yates NAYS—116 Abbitt Gossett Rains Abernethy Grant Rankin Albert Gregory Redden Andrews Hardy Regan Barden Hare Rich Battle Harris Richards Beckworth Harrison Rivers Bennett, Fla Hébert Rogers, Fia. Boggs, La Herlong Short Bonner Hobbs Sikes Boykin Hoffman, Mich. Simpson, Pa. Brooks Jensen Sims Brown, Ga. Jones, Ala. Smathers Bryson Jones, N.C Smith, Kans, Burleson Kerr Smith, Va Burton Kilday Smith, Wis. Camp Lanham Stanley Carlyle Larcade Sutton Chelf Lucas Tackett Colmer Lyle Teague Combs McMillan, 8 C. Thomas Cooley Magee Thompson Cooper Mahon Thornberry Cox Meyer Trimble Crawford Miles Underwood Davis, Ga Mills Vinson Davis, Tenn Morrison Wheeler Deane Murray, Tenn. Whitten DeGraffenried Nicholson Whittington D’'Ewart Norrell Williams Durham O’Hara, Minn. Willis Elliott Pace Wilson, Ind. Evins Passman Wilson, Okla Fernandez Patman Wilson, Tex. Frazier Peterson Winstead Fugate Pickett Wood Gary Poage Woodruff Gathings Preston Gillette Priest NOT VOTING—26 Allen, La, Engle, Calif. Plumley Andresen, Gilmer Reed, N Y August H. Harden Sadowskl Arends Hedrick Shafer Bulwinkle Jones, Mo. Smith, Ohio Case,S Dak. Macy Van Zandt Chatham Marshall Vursell Davies, N Y. Mason Whitaker Doughton Murdock White, Iduho So the motion was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Van Zandt for, with Mr. Gilmer against. Mr Davies of New York for, with Mr. Jones of Missouri against. Mr. Sadowski for, with Mr. Allen of Louist- ana against. Until further notice: Mr Hedrick with Mr. Case of South Dakota. Mr. Whitaker with Mrs. Harden. Mr. Murdock with Mr. Shafer. Mr. White of Idaho with Mr. Macy. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Mason. Mr. Chatham with Mr. Reed of New York, Mr. Bulwinkle with Mr. Vursell. Mr. Doughton with Mr. August H, Andresen. Mrs. Bo.ton of Ohio changed her vote from ‘‘nay’”’ to “yea.” Mr. AvucnIncLoss changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” Mr. Gavin changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” Mr. BEaLu changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” Mr. Nicwotson changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.” Mr. ALBERT changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded, A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, FEBRUARY 22 MOTION TO ADJOURN Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SIKES. I wonder if it will not be in order, in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we cannot dur- ing the remainder of the day possibly give due consideration to the measure it is proposed to bring up—— Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand the regular order. The SPEAKER. The Chair will not listen to the gentleman make a speech. If the gentleman desires to propound a parliamentary inquiry, he should state it. Mr. SIKES. Would it be in order to move that further proceedings under the call of the Calendar of Committees be dispensed with? Mr. SABATH. That has been voted down twice. The SPEAKER. That has just been voted on. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, that has been voted down twice. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. KEEFE, Where a point of order of no quorum has been made and the Speaker directs the calling of the roll, and at the conclusion of the calling of the roll a quorum is established, what further proceedings under the call are contemplated that require the making of a motion that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with, and force another roll call on that issue? The SPEAKER. It might be possible that the Members present would want to call other Members to the session; they might want to send out to get absent Members. Mr. KEEFE. With all due deference to the Speaker, I am merely seeking in- formation. I have been here 12 years and this is a matter that has always bothered me and bothered many other Members of the House. Is there any reason why further proceedings should be had once the call of the roll indicates the presence of a quorum? The SPEAKER. That is a matter to be decided by the membership of the House. They may want other Members here for the consideration of certain business; they could have a further call of the House and send out and get the absent Members, Mr.McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard? The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McCORMACK. The Speaker js absolutely correct, but may I not add the further thought that when a quorum call is made the doors are closed, and the Sergeant at Arms is directed to notify absent Members. There are certain pro- cedures that must be followed after the calling of the roll, such as the opening of the doors. Furthermore, when a quorum call is made it presumably con- tinues or could continue until Members
1950 are sent for. That motion is made to bring it to a definite conclusion. Mr, KEEFE. Theoretically the doors are closed. That is what I have observed since I have been here. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida |Mr. SIKEs] moves that the House do now adjourn. Mr MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, a point of order on the motion. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will State it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is dilatory. While I recognize that intervening busi- ness has been transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar ‘Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House has expressed its will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has re- fused to adjourn and the motion, there- fore, is dilatory. The SPEAKER. The Chair has al- ready entertained the motion. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Spcaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 127, nays 284, not voting 20, as follows: {Roll No, £9] YEAS—127 Abbitt Fugate Poage Abernethy Gary Preston Albert. Gathings Priest Allen, Nl. Gillette Rains Andrews Gore Rankin Barden Gossett Redden Bates Grant Regan Battle Gregory Rich Beckworth Hardy Richards Bennett, Fla. Hare Rivers Bentsen Harris Rogers, Fla. Boggs, La Harrison Shafer Bolton, Md. Hays, Ark Short Bonner Hébert Sikes Boykin Herlong Simpson, Pa. Brooks Hobbs Sims Brown, Ga Hoffman, M.ch Smathers Bryson Jensen Smith, Kans. Burleson Jones, Ala Smith, Va. Burton Jones, N C, Stanley Camp Keir Sutton Cannon Kilburn Taber Carlyle Ki'dey Tackett Chelf Lanham Teague Colmer Larcade Thomas Combs Lucas Thompson Cooley Lyle Thornberry Cooper MeMillan S C Trimble Cox Magee Underwood Crawford Mahon Vinson Cutis Mason Vursgell Davis, Ga Meyer Wedsworth Davis, Tenn. Mills Wheeler Deane Morrison Whitten DeGraffenried Murray,Tenn Whittington Dolliver Nicholson Williams Doughton Norrell Willis Durham Pace Wilson, Tex. Eaton Passman Winstead Elliott Patman Wood Evins Peterson Woodruff Fisher Pickett Frazier Plumley NAYS— 264 Addonizio Bailey Boggs, Del. Allen, Calif Earing Bolling Andersen, Barrett, Pa Bolton, Ohio H Carl Earrett, Wyo Bosone Anderson, Calif.Beall Bramblett Andresen, Bennett, Mich Breen August H Biemiler Brehm Angell Bishop Brown, Ohio Aspina!l Plackney Buchanan Auchincloss Blatnik Buckley, Il. Buckley, N. Y Burdick Burke Burnside Byrne, N. ¥. Byrnes, Wis Canfield Carnahan Carroll Cace,N. J. Cavalcante Celler Chesney Chiperfield Christopher Chudoft Church Clemente Clevenger Cole, Kans Cole,N ¥ Corbett Cotton Coudert Crook Crosser Cunningham Dague Davenport Davis, Wis Daw: on Delanoy Denton D'Ewart Dingell Dollinger Dondero Donohue Douglas Doyle Eberharter Ellsworth Elston Engel, Mich Fallon Feighan Fellows Fenton Fernandez Flood Fogaity Forand Ford Fulton Furcolo Gamble Garmatz Gavin Golden Goodwin Gordon Gorski Graham Granahan Granger Green Gioss Gwinn Hagen Hale Hall, Hoffman, Ill. Holtfield Holmes Hope Horan Howell Huber Hull Irving Jackson, Calif Jackson, Wash Jacobs James Javits Jenison Jenkins Johnson Jonus Judd Karst Karsten Kean Kearney Kearns Keating Kee Keefe Kelley, Pa Kelly, N. ¥ Kennedy Keogh King Kirwan Klein Kruse Kunkel Lane Latham LeCompte LeFevre Lemke Lesinski Lichtenwalter Lind Linehan Lodge Lovre Lynch McCarthy McConnell McCormack McCulloch McDonough McGrath McGregor McGuire McKinnon McMillen, Ill McSweeney Mack, Ill Mack, Wash Madden Mansfield Marcvntonto Marsalis Martin, Iowa Martin. Mass Merrow Michener Miles Miller, Calif Edwin Arthur Miller, Md Hall, Leonard W Halleck Hand Hait Harvey Havenner Hays, Ohio Heffernan Heller Herter Heselton Hill Hinshaw Hoeven Allen, La. Arends Bulwinkle Case,S Dak Chatham Davies, N.Y. Engle, Calif. Miller, Nebr Mitchell Monroney Morgan Morris Morton Moulder Multer Murphy Murray, Wis. Nelson Nixon Noland Norblad Norton CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE O'Brien, Il, O'Biien, Mich. O'Hara, Il. O'Hara, Minn. O'’Konski O'Neill oO’8ullivan O'Toole Patten Patterson Perkins Pfeifer, Joseph L Pfeiffer, William L. Philbin Phillips, Calif. Phillips, Tenn. Polk Potter Poulson Powell Price Quinn Rabaut Ramsay Reed, 1, Reed. N Y Rees Rhodes Ribicoff Rieh!man Rodino Rogers, Mass Rooney Roosevelt Sabath Sadlak St George Sanborn Sasscer Saylor Scott, Hardie Scott, Hugh D, Jr Scrivner Scudder Secrest Shelley Sheppard Simpson, Il Smith, Wis. Spence Stargers Steed Stefan Stigler Stockman Sullivan Talle Tauriello Taylor Tollefson Towe Velde Vorys Wagner Walsh Walter Weichel Welch Werdel White, Calif. White, Idaho Wickersham Widnall Wier Wigglesworth Wilson, Ind. Wilson, Okla. Withrow Wolcott Wolverton Woodhouse Yates Young Zablockt NOT VOTING—20 Gilmer Harden Hedrick Jennings Jones, Mo. Macy Marshall Murdock Sadowski Smith, Ohio Van Zandt Whitaker Worley So the motion was not agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr. Van Zandt against. 2161 Mr, Jones of Missouri! for, with Mr. Davies of New York against. Mr. Allen of Louisiana for, with Mr. Sadow- ski against. Mr. Chatham for, with Mr. Hedrick against. Until further notice: Mr. Whitaker with Mr. Arends. Mr. Worley with Mr. Case of South Dakota. Mr. Engle of California with Mrs. Harden. Mr. Bullwinkle with Mr, Macy. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Smith of Ohio. Mr. Murdock with Mr. Jennings. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY The SPEAKER. This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call the committees. Mr. LESINSKI (when the Committee on Education and Labor was called). Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Commit- tee on Education and Labor I call up the bill (H. R. 4453) to prohibit discrimina- tion in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, a point o1 order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will State it. Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor has not been properly directed to call up the bill under the rules and precedents that are required to be followed in keep- ing with the practice on Calendar Wednesday, and on that I should like to be heard. The SPEAKER. The gentleman has been heard. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order? The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I was authorized by the committee to use all parliamentary means to bring the bill before the House. Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point or order? The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman very briefly. The Chair has the most recent rules of the House before him and desires to read them. The Chair fecls that possibly their read- ing will satisfy the gentleman. Mr. PICKETT. If I am not satisfied with what the Speaker reads may I be heard on the point of order? The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the rentleman briefly now. Mr. PICKETT. My point of order is based on the precedents of the House annotated on page 460, paragraph 898, of the House Rules and Manual, where it is stated that authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday must have been given by the committee, and a mem- ber not authorized to do so may not call up such bill. The annotations refer to Hinds’ Precedents, volume 4, paragraphs 3127 and 3128; and the Hinds’ Prece- dents, volume 7, paragraphs 928 and 929. I wish to call these paragraphs to the attention of the Speaker. The SPEAKER. Those paragraphs have already been called to the attention of the Speaker,
2162 Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, further in reference to the point of order, if it be contended that the Reorganization Act of 1846 which became effective on January 3, 1947, at section 133 thereof, paragraph (c), empowers the chairman of this committee to call up the bill, in view of the language that {t directs him to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote, then my response to that would be that one of the necessary steps to cause this bill to be brought to the attention of the House for a vote is to comply with the requisites and get his committee to give him specific directions to call this bill up on Calendar Wednesday. The SPEAKER. The Chair ts pre- pared to rule. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LestnskI] has already stated that the committee did give him this authority. The present occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committce and thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct. Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph (c), of the Legis- lative Reorganization Act, and there is very good reason for this rule because in times past the chairmen of committees have been known to carry bills around in their pockets for quite a while and not present them. The rule is as follows: It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. The Chair overrules the point of ordcr. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration of this bill. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider the bill? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 287, nays 121, not voting 23, as follows: [Roll No. 60} YEAS—287 Addonizio Burdick Davenport Allen, Calif. Burke Davis, Wis. Andersen, Burnside Dawson H Cart Byrne, N. Y. Delaney Anderson, Calif. Byrne», Wis Denton Andresen, Canfield D'Ewart August H. Cannon Dingell Angell Carnahan Dollinger Aspinall Carroll Dolliver Auchincloss Case,N J. Dondero Batley Case, S. Dak. Donohue Baring Cavalcante Douglas Barrett, Pa. Celler Doyle Barrett, Wyo. Chesney Eberharter Beall Chiperfleld Ellsworth Bennett, Mich. Christopher Elston Biemiller Chudoff Engel, Mich. Bishop Church Engle, Calif. Blackney Clemente Fallon Blatnik Clevenger Feighan Boggs, Del. Cole, Kans. Fenton Bollin: Cole, N.Y. Flood Bolton, Ohio Corbett Fogarty Bosone Cotton Porand Bramblett Coudert Ford Breen Crewlord Fulton Brehm Crook Furcolo Brown, Ohio Crosser Gamble Buchanan Cunningham Garmatz Fuckley, Il Curtis Gavin Buckley, N.Y. Dague Golden Goodwin Latham Gordon LeCompte Gorski LeFevie Graham Lemke Granahan Lesinsk! Granger Lichtenwalter Green Lind Gross Linehan Gwinn Lodge Hagen Lovre Hale Lynch Hall, McCarthy Edwin Arthur McConnell Hall, McCormack Leonard W. McCulloch Halleck McDonough Hand McGrath Hart McGregor Harvey McGuire Havenner McKinnon Hays, Ohto McMillen, Int Heffernan McSweeney Hiller Mack, Il. Herter Muck, Wash. Heselton Madden Hill Mansfield Hinshaw Marcantonio Hoeven Marsalis Hoffman, Il. Martin, Mass Holifield Merrow Holmes Michener Hope Miller, Callf. Horan Miller, Md. Howe} Miller, Nebr Huber Mitchell Hull Monroney Irving Morgan Jackson, Calif. Morris Juckson, Wash. Morton Jacobs Moulder James Muiter Javits Mu-phy Jenison Murray, Wis Jenkins Nelson Jennings Nixon Jensen Noland Johnson Norblad Jonas Norton Judd O'Biten, Nl Karst O’Brien, Mich. Karsten O’Hara, Il. Kean O'Hara, Minn. Kearney O'Konski Kearns O'Nein Keating O'Sullivan Kee C'Toole Kevle Patten Kelley, Pa. Patterson Kelly, N. ¥. Perkins Kennedy Pfeifer, Keogh Joseph L. King Pfeiffer, Kirwan Wiliam L. Klein Philbin Kruse Phillipe, Calif Kunkel Phillips, Tenn Lane Polk NAYS—121 Abbitt Evins Abernethy Fernandez Albert Ficher Alien, Ii Frazier Andrews Fugate Barden Cary Bates Gathings Battle Gillette Beckworth Gore Bennett, Fla Gossett Bentsen Grant Boggs, La Hardy Bolton, Md Hare Bonner Harris Boykin Harrison Brooks Hays, Ark. Brown, Ga. Hébert Bryson Herlong Burleson Hobbs Burton Hoffman, Mich Camp Jones, Ala Carlyle Jones, N.C. Chelf Kerr Colmer Kilburn Combs Kilday Cooley Lanham Cooper Larcade Cox Lucas Davis, Ga. Lylo Davis, Tenn. McMillan, 8.C Deane Magee DeGraffenried Mahon Doughton Mason Durham Meyer Elliott Miles CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Patter Powell Price Quinn Rabaut Ramsay Reed, IN. Reed, N. ¥. Rees Rhodes Ribtcoff Riehlman Rodino Rogers, Mass Rooney Rooscvelt Sabath Sadlak St George Sanborn Sasscer Saylor Scott, Hardie Scott, HughD,Jr Sciivrer Scudder Secrest Shelley Sheppard Svence Stagrers Steed Stetan Stig er Stockman Sullivan Tulle Tauriello Tavior Tollefson Towe Velde Vorys Wadsworth Warner Walsh Wa'ter Weichel Welch Werdel Whit, Calf. White, Idaho Wickersham Widnall Wier Wigglesworth Wilson, Ind. Wilson, Okla. Withrow Wolcott Wolverton Woodhouse Woodruff Yates Young Zablocki Mills Morrison Murray, Tenn. Nicholson Norrell Pace Passman Patman Peteison Pickett Posge Preston Priest Rains Rankin Redden Regan Rich Richards Rivers Rogers, Fla. Shafer Short Sikes Simpson, M1, Simpson, Pa. Sims Smathers Smith, Kans. Smith, Va. Stanley Sutton Taber Tackett Teague FEBRUARY 22 ‘Thomas Vursell Wilson, Tex. Thompson Wheeler Winstead Thornberry Whitten Wood Trimble Whittington Worley Underwood Williams Vinson Willis NOT VOTING—23 Allen, La. Gregory Plumley Arcnds Harden Poulson Bulwinkle Hedrick Sadowski Chatham Jones, Mo. Smith, Cnto Davies, N Y. Macy Smith, Vr lo Eaton Marshall Van Zandt Fellows Martin, Iowa Whitaker Gilmer Murdock So the House decided to consider the bill. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Van Zandt for, with Mr. Gilmer against. Mr. Davies of New York for, with Mr. Jones of Missouri against. Mr. Sadowski for, with Mr. Allen of Loue isiana against. Mr. Hedrick for, with Mr. Arends against. Mr. Plumley for, with Mr. Macy against. Until further notice: Mr. Gregory with Mr. Eaton. Mr. Whitaker with Mr Fellows Mr Chatham with Mr Martin of Iowa. Mr. Murdock with Mr Smith of Wisconsin. Mr. Bulwinkle with Mr. Smith of Ohio. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. THE FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT The SPEAKER. The House auto- matically resolves itself into the Com- mittce of the Whole House on the State of the Union. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] will take the chair. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill (H. R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or na- tional origin, with Mr. WaLtTer in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. FULTON. Mr, Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. will state it. Mr. FULTON. If the House were now to adjourn would the first order of busi- ness tomorrow be the consideration of this bill by the Committee of the Whole? The CHAIRMAN. The parliamentary inquiry is directed to a state of facts that does not exist. The House has re- solved itself into the Committee of the Whole, and the Committee of the Whole cannot adjourn. The Clerk will read the bill. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc.— SHORT TITLE Secrion 1. This act may be cited as the “Federal Fair Employment Practice Act.” FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that, despite the continuing progress of our Nation with respect to protection of the rights of individuals, the rights of some persons with- in the jurisdiction of the United States to employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin are being denied, and that such infringements upon the American principle of freedom and The gentleman
1950 equality of opportunity are destructive of the basic doctrine of the integrity and dignity of the individual upon which this Nation was founded and which distinguishes it from the totalitarian nations, force large segments of our population into substandard condi- tions of living, foment industrial strife and domestic unrest, deprive the United States of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production, and thereby adversely affect the interstate and foreign commerce of , the United States. The Congress recognizes that it is essential to the general wolfare that this gap between principle and practice be closed, and that adequate protection of such nights of individuals must be provided to pre- serve our American herita,je and prevent serious damage to our moral, social, economic, and , Slitical Hfe, and to our international relations. (b) The Congress, therefore, declares that the right to employment without discrimina- tion because of race, color, religion, or na- tional origin is a right of all persons within the jutisdictiun of the United States, and that it is the national policy to protect the right of the individual to be free from such discrimination, (c) The Congress further declares that the succeeding provisions of this act are neces- sary for the following purposes. (1) To remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce among the States and with foreign nations. (41) To insure the more complete and full enjoyment by all persons of the rights, privi- leges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States (it1) To promote universal respect tor, and observance of human rights and tunda- mental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race or religion, in accordance with the undertaking of the United States under the United Nations Charter, and to further the national policy in that regard by sccuring to all persons under the Jurisdiction of the United Statés effective recognition of certain of the rights and freedoms proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights DEFINITIONS Sec 3. As ed in this act—- (a) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, or any or- ganized group of persons and any agency or instrumentality of the United States, includ- ing the District of Columbia, or of any Tei- ritory or possession thereof (b) The term “employer” means # person engaged in commerce or in operations aflect- ing commerce having in his employ 50 or more individuals; any agency or instiumen- tality of the United States, including the District of Columbia, or of any Territory or possession thereof; and any person acting in the interest of an employcr, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any State or municipality or political subdivision there- of, or any religious, charitable, fraternal, social, educational, or sectarian corporation or association, not organized for private profit, other than a labor organization (c) The term “labor orgunization” means any organization, having 50 or more mem- bers employed by any employer or employers, which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning grievances, wages, hours, terms or conditions of employment, or for other mutual aid or protection in con- nection with employment, (d) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or com- munication among the several States; or be- tween any State, Tefritory, possession, or the District of Columbia and any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession; or between CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE points in the same State but through any point outside thereof. (e) The term “Terrltory’ means Alaska, Hawali, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (f) The term “possession” means all pos- sessions of the United States, and includes the trust territories which the United States holds as administering authority under the United Nations trusteeship system, and the Canal Zone, but excludes other places held by the United States by lease under inter- national arrangements or by military occu- pation. (zg) The term “Commission” means the Fair Employment Practice Commission, cre- ated by section 6 hereof. EXEMPTION Sec 4. This act shall not apply to any em- ployer with respect to the employment of aliens outside the continental United States, its Territories and possessions. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES DEFINED Sec. 5. (a) It shall be an unlawful em- ployment practice for an employer— (1) to refuse to hire, to discharge, or other- wise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, or national origin; and (2) to utilize in the hiiing or recruitment of individuals for employment any employ- ment agency, placement service, training school or center, labor organization, or any other source which discriminates against such individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any Jabor organization to dis- criminate against any individual or to limit, segregate, or classify its membership in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive such individual of employment opportuni- ties. or would Hmit his employment oppor- tunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, 0: would affect udversely his wages, hours, or employment conditions, because of such individual's race, color, re- ligion, or national origin (c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer or labor organiza- tion to discharge, expel, or otherwise dis- criminate against any person, because he has opposed any unlawful employment prac- tice or hus filed a charge, testifled, partici- pated, or assisted in any proceediney under this act TH FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION fr« 6 (a) There ts hereby ercated in the executive branch of the Government a com- mission to be known as the Fair Employment Practice Commission, which shall be com- posed of five members who shall be appointed by the President hy and with the advice and consent of the Senate One of the original members shall be appointed for a term of 1 yenr, one for a term of 2 yeais, one for a term of 3 years, one for a term of 4 years, and one fur aterm of 5 years, but their succe-so1s shall be appointed for terms of 5 years ench, except that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the un- expired term of the member whom he shall succeed, The President shall designate one member to serve ns Chairman of the Com- mis‘ion, and one member to serve as Vice Chairman. The Chairman shall be respon- sible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative operations of the Commis- sion. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chair- man in the absence or disability of the Chairman or in the event of @ vacancy in that office. (b) A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all the powers of the Commission and three members thereof shall constitute @ quolum, 2163 # (c) The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed. (d) The Commission shall make an an- nual report to the Fair Employment Practice Commission, which shall be its activities during the preceding fiscal year, including the number and types of cases it has handled and the decisions it has rendered; and shall report to the President from time to time on the causes of and means of eliminating dis. crimination and make such recommenda- tions for further Icgislation as may appear desirable. (e) Each member of the Commission shall receive a salary of $17,500 a year, except that the Chairman shall receive a salary of $20,000 a@ year (f) The principal office of the Commission shall be in the District of Columbia, but it may meet or exercise any or all of its powers at any other place and may establish such regional offices as it deems necessary. The Commission may, by one or more of its mem- bers or by such agents as it may designate, conduct any investigation, proceeding, or hearing necesrary to its functions in any part of the United States. Any such arent, other than a member of the Commission, desig- nated to conduct a proceeding or a hearing shall be a resident of the judicial circuit, as defined in title 28, United States Code, sec- tion 41, within which the alleged unlawful employment practice cccurred (g) The Commission shall have power— (1) to appoint, in accordance with the Civil Service Act, rules, and regulations, such officers, agents, and employees, ns it deems necessary to assist it in the performance of its functions, and to fix their compensation in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended; (2) to cooperate with regional, State, local, and other agencies; (3) to pay to witnesses whose depositions are taken or who are summoned before the Commiseion or any of its agents the samo witness and mileage fees as are paid to wit- nesscs in the courts of the United States; (4) to furnish to persons subject to this Act such technical assistance as they may request to turther their compliance with this Act or any order issued thereunder; (5) upon the request of any employer acting in good faith, whuse employees or some of them refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate in effectuating the provisions of this ect, to assist in such effectuation by conciliation or other remedial action; (6) to make such technical studies as are appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act and to make the results of such studies available to interested gov- ernmental and nongovernmental agencies; and (7) to create such local, State, or regional advisory and conciliation councils as in its judgment will aid in effectuating the pur- pose of this act, and the Commission may authorize them to study the problem or spe- cific instances of discrimination in employ- ment because of race, color, religion, or na« tional origin, and to foster through com- munity eftort or otherwire good will, co- operation, and conciliation among the groups and elements of the population, and make recommendations to the Commission for the development of policies and procedures in general and in specific instances. Such ad- visory and conciliation councils shall be com- posed of representative citizens residents of the area for which they are appointed, who shall serve without compensation, but shall receive transportation and pcr diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by section 6 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S C. 73b-2), for persons serving without compensation; and the Commission may make provision for technical and clerical assistance to such councils and for the expenses of such assist- ance.
2164 PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT 8 PRACTICES S:c.7. (2) The Commission is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any per- son from engaging in any unlawful employ- ment practice as set forth in section 5. This power shall be exclusive, and shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be estab- lished by agreement, code, law, or otherwise: Provided, That the Commission is empow- ered by agreement with any agency of any State, Territory, possession, or local govern- ment, to cede to such agency jurisdiction over any cases even though such cases may involve charges of unlawful employment practices within the scope of this act, unless the provision of the statute or ordinance ap- plicable to the determination of such cases by such agency is inconsistent with the cor- responding provision of this act or has re- ceived a construction inconsistent there- with (b) Whenever a sworn written charge has been filed by or on behalf of any person claiming to be aggrieved, or a written charge has been filed by a member of the Com- mission, that any person subject to the act has engaged in any unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall investigate euch charge and if it shall determine after such preliminary investigation that proba- ble cause exists for crediting such written charge, it shall endeavor to eliminate any unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and per- suasion. Nothing said or done during and as a part of such endeavors may be used as evidence in any subsequent proceeding. Any written charge filed pursuant to this section must be filed within 1 year after the com- mission of the alleged unlawful employment practice. (c) If the Commission fails to effect the elimination of such unlawful employment practice and to obtain voluntary compliance with this act, or in advance thereof if cir- cumstances 50 warrant, it shall cause a copy of such written charge to be served upon such person who has allegedly committed any unlawful employment practice, herein- after called the respondent, together with a notice of hearing before the Commission, or @ member thereof, or before a designated agent, at a place therein fixed, not less than 10 days after the service of such charge (ad) The respondent shall have the right to file a verified answer to such written charge and to appear at such hearing in person or otherwise, with or without counsel, to present evidence and to examine and cross- examine witnesses (e) The Commission or the member or designated agent conducting such hearing shall have the power reasonably and fairly to amend any written charge, and the re- spondent shall have like power to amend its answer. (f) All testimony shall be taken under oath, (g) The member of the Commission who filed a charge shall not participate in a hear- ing thereon or in a trial thereof, except as a witness (nh) At the conclusion of a hearing before a member or designated agent of the Commis- sion, such member or agent shall transfer the entire record thereof to the Commission, together with his recommended decision. The Commussion or a pane! of three qualified members designated by it to sit and act as the Commission in such case, shall afford the parties an opportunity to be heard on such record at a time and place to be specified upon reasonable notice. In its discretion, the Commission upon notice may take fur- ther testimony. (1) With the approval of the member or designated agent conducting the hearing, @ case may be ended at any time prior to the transfer of the record therecf to the Commission by agreement between the par- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ties for the elimination of the alleged un- lawful employment practice on mutually satisfactory terms. (J) If upon the record, including all the testimony taken, the Commission shall find that any person named in the written charge has engaged in any unlawful employ- ment practice, the Commission shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requir- ing him to cease and desist from such un- lawful employment practice and to take such affirmative action, including reinstate- ment or hirlng of employees, with or with- out back pay, as will effectuate the policies of the act: Provided, however, That interim earnings or amounts earnable with reason- able diligence by the person or persons dis- criminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable. If upon the record, including all the testimony tak- en, the Commission shall find that no person named in the written charge has engaged or is engaging in any unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall state its find- ings of fact and shall issue an order dis- missing the said complaint. (k) Untdl @ transcript of the record in a case shall have been filed tn a court, as here- inafter provided, the case may at any time be ended by agreement between the parties, approved by the Commission, for the elimi- nation of the alleged unlawful employment practice on mutually satisfactory terms, and the Commission may at any time, upon rea- sonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it. (1) The proceedings held pursuant to this section shall be conducted in conformity with the standards and limitations of sec- tions 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act. JUDICIAL REVIEW Src. 8. (a) The Commission shell have power to petition any United States Court of Appenis or, if the court of appeals to which application might be made is in vaca- tion, any district court or other United States court of the territory or place within the judicial circuit wherein the unlawful employment practice in question occurred, or wherein the respondent transacts busi- ness, for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate temporary relief or restrain- ing order, and shall certify and file in the court to which petition 1s made a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, in- cluding the pleadings and testimony upon which such order was entered and the find- ings and the order of the Commission. Upon such filing, the court shall conduct further proceedings in conformity with the standards, procedures, and limitations es- tablished by section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. (d)) Upon 6uch filing the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such re- spondent and thereupon shall have jurisdic- tion of the proceeding and of the question determined therein and shall have power to grant such temporary relicf or restraining order as it deems just and proper and to make and enter upon the pleadings, testi- mony, and proceedings set forth in such tran- script a decree enforcing, modifying, and en- forcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Commission. (c) No objection that has not been urged before the Commission, its member, or agent shaH be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circum- stances. (ad) If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hear- FEBRUARY 22 tug before the Commission, tts member, or agent, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission, its member, or agent and to be made a part of the transcript. (e) The Commission may modify its find- Ings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of additional evidence so taken and filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings and tts recommendations, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its orig- inal order. (f) The jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States court of appeals, if application was made to the district court or other United States court as hereinabove provided, and by the Supreme Court of the United States as pro- yer in titie 28, United States Code, section 54, (g) Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Commission may obtain a review of such order in any United States court of appeals of the judicial circuit wherein the unlawful employment practice in question was alleged to have been engaged in or where= fn such person transacts business, by filing in such a court a written petition preying that the order of the Commission be modi- fied or set aside. A copy of such petition shail be forthwith served upon the Com- mission and thereupon the aggrieved party sholl file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding certified by the Commission, including the pleadings and testimony upon which the order complained of was entered and the findings and order of the Commission. Upon such filing, the court shall proceed in the same manner as in the case of an application by the Com- mission under subsection (a), and shall have the same exclusive jurisdiction to grant to the petitioners or the Commission such tem- porary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper, and in iike manner to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as s0 modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Commission. (h) Upon such filing by a person aggrieved the reviewing court shall conduct further pro- ceedings in conformity with the standards, procedures, and limitations established by section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. (1) The commencement of proceedings un- der subsection (a) or (g) of this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission's order. INVESTIGATORY POWERS Sre. 9. (a) For the purpose of all investi- gations, proceedings, or hearings which the Commission deems necessary or proper for the exercise of the powers vested in it by this Act, the Commission, or any member thereof, shall have power to issue subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to any investigation, proceeding, or hearing before the Commission, ite member, or agent conducting such investigation, pro- ceeding, or hearing. (b) Any member of the Commission, or any agent designated by the Commission for such purposes, may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. (c) Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such evidence may be required, from any piace in the United States, includ- ing the District of Columbia, or any Terri- tory or possesaton thereof, at any designated place of hearing. ({d) In case of oontumacy or refusal to Obey @ subpena issued to any person under this act, any district court of the United States as constituted by chapter 5, title 28, United States Code (28 U. 8. C. 81 et seq.), or the United States Court of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, within the jurisdiction of
1950 which the investigation, proceeding, or hear- ing 1s carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or trans- acts business, upon application of the Com- mission shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to appear before the Commission, its member, or agent, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony relating to the inves- tigation, proceeding, or hearing. (e) No person shall be excused from at- tending and testifying or from producing documentary or other evidence in obedience to the subpena of the Commission, on the ground that the testimony or evidence re- quired of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no individual shall be prosecuted or sub- jected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after hav- ing claimed his privilege against self-incrim- ination, to testify or produce evidence, ex- cept that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punish- ment for perjury committed in so testifying. The immunity herein provided shall extend only to natural persons so compelled to testi- fy. ENFORCEMENT Of ORDERS DIRECTED TO GOVERN- MENT AGENCIES AND CONTRACTORS Sec. 10 (a) The President is authorized to take such action as may be necessary (1) to conform fair employment practices within the Federal establishment with the policies of this act, and (2) to provide that any Federal employee aggrieved by any employ- ment practice of his employer must exhaust the administrative remedies prescribed by Executive order or regulations governing fair employment practices within the Fed- eral establishment prior to seeking relief under the provisions of this act. The pro- vision of section 8 shall not epply with re- spect to an order of the Commission under section 7 directed to any agency or instru- mentality of the United States, or of any Territory or possession thereof, or of the District of Columbia, or any officer or em- ployce thereof The Commission may re- quest the President to take such action as he deems appropriate to obtain compliance with such orders. (b) The President shall have power to pro- vide for the establishment of regulations to prevent the committing or continuing of any unlawiul employment practice as herein defined by any person who makes a contract with any agency or instrumentality of the United States (excluding any State or po- litical subdivision thereof) or of a Terri- tory or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, in any amount exceeding 10.000 Such regulations shal) be enforced by the Commission according to the procedure hereinbefore provided. NOTICES TO BE POSTED Sec 11, (a) Every employer and labor or- ganization shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises a no- tice to be prepared or approved by the Com- mission setting forth excerpts of the act and such other relevant information which the Commission deems appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the act. (b) A willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 for each separate offense. VETERANS’ PREFERENCE Sec 12. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify any Fed- eral, State, Territorial, or local law creating special rights or preference for veterans, RULES AND REGULATIONS Src. 13, The Commission shall have au- thority from time to time to issue, amend, or rescind suitable regulations to carry out the provisions of this act. Regulations issued CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE under this section shall be in conformity with the standards and limitations of the Administrative Procedure Act. FORCIBLY RESISTING THE COMMISSION OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES Sec. 14. Whoever shall forcibly resist, op- pose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with & member, agent, or employee of the Com- mission while engaged in the performance of duties under this act, or because of such performance, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE Sec, 15, If any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this act or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it ts held invalid shall not be affected thereby. Mr. LESINSKI (interrupting the read- ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the bill be dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. man, I object. The Clerk continued the reading of the bill. Mr. SMITH of Virginia (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlen.an will state it. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. It is difficult for us to follow the reading. I would like to know where the Clerk is reading and when the offering of a substitute will be in order. The CHAIRMAN. A substitute cannot be offered until general debate is com- pleted. The Clerk 1s reading on page 2. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. He is reading the bill the first time? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. McCONNELL. Do I understand that after 2 hours of general debate and under the 5-minute rule will be the time to offer amendments? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Clerk continued the reading of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, there are 2 hours of general debate. The gentleman from Michigan | Mr. LEsInsexr] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr, McCon- NELL] for 1 hour. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes; and the balance, 55 minutes, I will yield to the gentleman from New York |Mr. PoweEtu], who will control the time on this side. The CHAIRMAN. The _ gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 min- utes. Mr. LESINSKI Mr. Chairman, first I wish to say to tne Members of the House that I hope they will stay on the floor in a number not less than 100 so that we may avoid all types of roll calls. I wish to assure the membership that I will stay here until 6 o’clock in the morn- ing or until we pass the bill. Mr. Chair- 2165 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, & parliamentary inquiry. Mr. LESINSKI. Iam sorry; I cannot yield for a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman de- clines to yield. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, it is with a feeling of real satisfaction that I bring this bill before the Members of the House of Representatives. FEPC is no newcomer to Congress. Besides appro- priation measures for the wartime FEPC body, created by President Roosevelt’s Executive order and continued by Presi- dent Truman, FEPC legislation was in- troduced in the Seventy-eighth, Sev- enty-ninth, and Eightieth Congresses, as well as in this, the Eighty-first. With the additional reports from both Houses in the current session, this legislation has been reported seven times. However, to date we have not had the privilege of debating it upon the floor. Now after a total of 43 days of hearings since August 1944, 2,231 pages of testimony, and 254 witnesses overwhelmingly in favor, the House is getting a chance to vote on the FEPC bill. This latter fact is not sur- prising, since FEPC has been and is a platform promise of both political parties, and has the support of countless church, civic, business, labor, and fra- ternal organizations. In speaking for this measure, I feel it important to stress that it is not aimed at any particular section of our Nation, nor ts it a bill designed to benefit one or a few segments of our population. It 1s truly a national bill, and its benefits are widespread. All minority groups in America are subject to discrimination of some sort at various times and places. Discrimi- nation is not limited to the major portion of America’s 15,000,000 Negroes, nor to her 5,000,C00 Jews, 26,000,000 Catholics, 3,000,000 Spanish- or Mexican-Ameri- cans, nor even to her 34,000,000 foreign- born and children of foreign-born mem- bers of various sects that make up the so-called majority group in this land— white protestants—often find themselves in a minority, and subjects of discrimina- tion. All of these manifestations of in- tolerance and bigotry must be removed. They must be removed not only for the sake of the immediate victims, but for the sake of those who discriminate, and for the sake of America as a whole. For the act of discrimination takes both a moral toll from the person practicing discrimination, and a multibillion an- nual burden upon our economy. In hearings held by a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor last May, economist Leo Cherne esti- mated a minimum annual loss from dis- crimination as $15,000,000,000. Other competent economists have arrived at varying figures—but all run into the bil- lions. Whatever the exact figure, there can be no doubt that a huge amount is paid annually for discrimination. To name a few of the gutters down which this sum flows, there is the cost of train- ing those whom we deprive of the oppor- tunity to use their training; the cost of industry of selecting personnel from an artificially limited manpower pool; the creation of economically depressed is- lands in minority communities, which
2166 ripple out to the surrounding communi- ties: the break-down in morale—and the resultant drain on health services— among those who know that they will not be permitted to utilize their highest degree of skill in the Nation’s economy. Even these few examples indicate what a body blow America receives from the un-American practice of job discrimina- tion. Let us not forget that thrvuughout the world, and perhaps here at home, as well, the Communists eagerly await a break- down in the free enterprise system, s0 as to prove the validity of their claim that capitalism is doomed. How well we play into their hands when we permit job discrimination to drain off our efficiency into nonproductive channels. The Commies also like to point to discrimination in this country as an ex- ample of our failure to practice what we preach. As far back as 1946, Dean Acheson observed that the existence of discriminations against minority groups in the United States is a handicap in our relations with other countries. He ex- plained that our opponents make much of these situations, causing an atmos- phere of suspicion and resentment which becomes a formidable obstacle to the de- velopment of mutual understanding and trust between the United States and other nations. How ridiculous then for us to appropriate billions for the cold war, and then sink other billions into weakening our own side of that conflict. We have seen the economic and for- eign policy arguments for enactment of FEPC. Surely there can be no question of the moral persuasiveness of this meas- ure which every leading religious body in the land—Catholic, Jewish, and Prot- estant—supports. What then, can be said against such a measure? All that I, for one, have heard have been arguments attacking some bill other than the one now before us—attacks on a radical, novel measure which would force an employer to hire workers he did not want, which would wreck the small-business man, which would subject private industry to government interference, and so forth. These critics must have some other bill in mind than H. R. 4453. Nothing in this bill makes any employer hire anyone he does not need or want, nor anyone who is not qualified for the job; all that is insisted upon is that capable, qualified workers shall not be denied the oppor- tunity to compete for a job solely be- cause of their color, religious belief, or origin. Nor does the bill contain fea- tures that would wreck any business- man; rather, it would help innumerable businessmen, by making available to them a wider manpower pool from which to choose employees. Also, since the FEP Commission would screen all alle- gations of discrimination and throw out unwarranted charges, the employer has additional protection for irresponsible attacks that he does not have today. As for Federal interference with business, it is traditional that the Government set certain minimum standards of health, welfare, working conditions, and so forth. Here is but another similar case—one which says that an American employer has a responsibility not to flout the Con- stitution in the running of his business. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE One final point. Here in this body we represent the citizens of all the United States. We ourselves come from all] the States of the Union and we, therefore, bring to the Congress the varying experi- ences of our States. Let us profit from these experiences. Let us note not only that wartime FEPC mct with some degree of success, but that eight States now have FEPC laws similar to the proposal now before us. Nowhere has there been trouble. Officials in every case report the workability and success of their laws. The time for guesswork and experimen- tation has passed. The time has come for us to utilize the laboratory experience of our States—eight States which cover about a third of our population—and en- act an FEPC law which will bring Amer- ica closer to fulfillment of the democratic ideal of freedom for all, and success according to individual merit and ability. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks to the members of the FEPC subcommittee for the cooperation they gave me in the hearings on this bill. I would like to publicly thank our col- league from Ohio [Mr. Brena], whose cold has been plaguing him and devel- oped into laryngitis. His actions on the subcommittee were greater than any words he could utter today. Also I want to thank members of the full committee on Education and Labor, and I refer to Members on both sides, those who agreed and disagreed, for the coopera- tion and understanding that we had in committee. I trust that further debate on this bill will be in an atmosphere of dignity, even though we may oppose it bitterly or we may be in favor of it wholeheartedly. I have allotted myself only 6 minutes because there are scores of Members who want to talk and I do not want to cover myself with any personal glory. I would like to say one or two things concerning the bill so that we can re- move from our minds anything that we may not know concerning the details. A. GENERAL BACKGROUND Bills before committee: S. 1728—Sen- ator McGrath—and 8. 174~—Senator Ives. Senator Ives, testifying before a House subcommittee in favor of H. R. 4453, identical to S. 1728, said: There are a few differences between H. R. 4453 * * * and Senate bill174 * * # [which] are not very vital. © * * J ene dorse specifically H. R. 4453. Previous consideration of similar measures: Senate: Seventy-eighth Congress, 5S. 2048; hearings in August and September 1944, Report No. 1109; Seventy-ninth Congress, 8S. 101; hearings, Report No. 290; Eightieth Congress, S. 984; hear- ings June and July 1947, Report No. 980. House: Seventy-eighth Congress, H. R. 3986; hearings, Report No. 2016; Sev- enty-ninth Congress, H. R. 2232; hear- ings, Report No. 187; Eightieth Congress, H. R. 2824; no hearings; Eighty-first Congress, H. R. 4453; hearings May 1949, Report No. 1165. Witnesses appearing at 1949 House hearings: FEBRUARY 22 Opponents: Five Representatives and one private individual, a constituent of another Representative. Proponents: Thirteen Representatives, three Senators, and the Secretary of Labor; various State commissioners of local fair employment practices commis- sions, and former staff members of war- time Federal FEPC; the Catholic Church, Federal Council of Church of Christ in America, National Baptist Convention, National Fraternal Council of Negro Churches, Friends Service Committee, Methodist Church, and the Synagogue Council of America; American Civil Liberties Union; CIO and AFL; NAACP; Urban League; Americans for Demo- cratic Action and Students for Demo- cratic Action; Improved BPOE of the World; American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; American Veterans Committee and Jewish War Veterans; National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Labor Committee; Jap- anese-American Citizens League; Na- tional Community Relations Advisory Committee, National Council for Perma- nent FEPC, and so forth Previous and present FEPC’s: War- time Federal FEPC, created by Execu- tive Order 8802 and continued by 9346 and 9664. Furst established, June 25, 1941; final report dated June 28, 1946. States: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey have for several years had laws similar to the pro- posed S. 1728; also, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oregon had _ anti-discrimination statutes of a weaker nature. This year FEPC's were created in Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Washington, while Oregon changed its law so as to give it strength. B. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BILL Declaration and findings: The bill de- clares a right to freedom from employ- ment discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin—the House committee added ancestry—and finds that this right is being denied some persons. Scope and outlawed practices: Viola- tion of this right is made an unfair em- ployment practice when committed by an employer of 50 or more individuals en- gaged in commerce. Such employers in- clude labor organizations, but exclude other religious, charitable, fraternal, so- cial, educational, or sectarian groups. Unfair practices include discharges, re- fusals to hire, and discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; they also include union practices which would adversely affect the individual's employment opportunities. Procedure: The named rights are pro- tected by a five-man Commission which is empowered to investigate sworn writ- ten complaints; where preliminary in- vestigation indicates probability of such charges, the Commission must attempt to secure compliance by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persua- sion, Failing in these, the Commission may proceed to formal hearings, which— in case of findings of violations—result in cease-and-desist orders, plus affirma- tive action where appropriate; these orders are enforceable in United States courts, to which appeals may also be
1950 taken by persons aggrieved by such orders. The Commission also has au- thority to cede jurisdiction to appro- priate agencies of any “State, Territory, possession, or local government.” C. THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS INVOLVED I. Does job discrimination exist?: There can be no serious question that employment discrimination is wide- spread. In its final report, the wartime FEPC predicted that even such gains as it had made were dissipating and pre- dicted further, accelerated dissipation, Rather than provide an independent sur- vey, there is hereto attached the findings included in the recent House report—see appendix. II. Should it be eliminated?: Without going into the vast wealth of detail available in answer to this question, it should suffice here to indicate briefly some of the areas adversely affected by employment discrimination. (a) The democratic principles on which the Nation was founded are flaunted by discrimination. Any viola- tion of these principles has an adverse effect. Furthermore, the general moral code to which we pay allegiance, dc- mands that all men be considered as in- dividuals and rated according to their individual worth. As the bill states, “it is essential that this gap between prin- ciple and practice be closed.” (b) Our foreign relations are ham- pered by the publicity our enemies give to our discriminatory practices. Secre- tary of State Acheson describes discrimi- nation as “a handicap in our relations with other countries.” Senator Dulles, when a United States delegate to the UN said that FEPC 1s necessary to ‘‘crase what today is the worst blot on our na- tional escutcheon.” The United States is bound by its international agreements to eliminate discrimination—for ex- ample, the Inter-Amcrican Conference in Mexico City, 1945; the Charter of the UN: and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the Gen- eral Assembly. (c) The economic waste of discrimina- tion cannot be totally computed. One econcmist estimated before the House subcommittce that we send at least $15,000,000,000 annually down the drain because of discrimination. Contributing to this total is the cost of training those whom we will not allow to use their training; the cost to industry of using artificially limited pools in selecting what should be the most skilled man- power; the creation, in minority popula- tions, of a disproporvionate degree of unemployment, resulting in an island of depression which affects its surround- ings—“a man who can’t earn can’t buy”; the break-down in morale among those who know that no matter what their skills, they cannot compete on an equal basis with those whom they are taught to believe are their equals; the person- ality difficulties resulting from lack of home life when mothers are forced to work to supplement inadequate income brought in by fathers. The only remaining question, then, is— III. Can S. 1728 properly do the re- quired job? Since the testimony at the various hearings in support of FEPC, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE combined with the analysis of the S. 1728 above, seems to make out a prima facie case for an affirmative answer to this question, it would appear sensible to put the burden on the objections raised. The chief ones are as follows: (a) “The bill is unconstitutional; it violates States’ rights.” But, first, the Federal Government has the right to impose any reasonable regu- lations regarding its own employment re- lations, including regulations against dis- crimination—United Public Workers against Mitchell. Second. It can do likewise re employ- ment relations of those who contract with it—Perkins against Lukens Steel Co. Third. It may regulate the employ- ment relations of private businesses en- gaged in commerce—NLRB against Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Fourth. It can therefore impose regu- lations against discrimination in such businesses, (i) logically, from first, sec- ond, and third above, and (ii) on the basis of cases like New Negro Alliance against Sanitary Grocery Co. (b) “Even if constitutional, this matter should be left to the States; it is a south- ern problem.” But, first, the problem is not a south- ern problem—nor a Negro, or Jewish, or Catholic, or Mexican problem. Discrimi- nation exists in the North, South, East, West, and middle of America; it is an American problem. Second. Cutting across State lines as it does, discrimination is of national legislative concern. Third. In general, the greater num- ber of discriminators in a given area, the more difficult to enact local antidiscrimi- nation laws; so the areas which do prac- tice the most discrimination will be just those with no statutory inhibition. Fourth. Many large businesses have their affairs spread out into many States; where one Sells may not be where it hires. Federal legislation is the only feasible way to meet this problem. (c) “Maybe so, but it won’t work in some areas, particularly the South.” But, first, wartime FEPC, much weaker than the proposal now _ before us, achieved some notable successes in the South. Public opinion in many cases ac- tively supported FEPC. Alabama may be considered a typical State for this purpose: The leading newspapers in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Anniston editorialized i favor of the wartime FEFC, spring 1942. Second. Many unions in the South have insisted upon and obtained inte- prated working conditions; many locals have Negro officers. ° Third. Industry, too, has found inte- gration can work; for example, Interna- tional Harve:.ter with 25 percent Megro workers in Memphis has absolute inte- gration in all operations. (ad) Closely related to (c)——‘‘Workers won't accept FFPC.” But, first. see an: wers to (c). Second. State FEPC experience shows many instances of workers threatening to strike when informed of a new inte- gration policy in their plant. But where the program has nevertheless been car. 2167 ried out, there has not once been a case of a strike or even of a worker quit- ting. Wartime FEPC reported a similar pattern. Third. The railroad brotherhoods were perhaps the most intransigent violators of wartime FEPC, which was in the last analysis powerless to invoke effec- tive sanctions. However, the brother- hoods testified before the House sub- committee that if S. 1728’s enforceable FEPC becomes law, they will comply. (e) “But what of the worker’s right to pick his associates?” First. No worker has such a right even without an FEPC: His only right is to quit if he doesn’t like someone who is hired. FEPC does not affect this right. Second. As above, no case of any worker quitting upon introduction of minority group members to the work sit- uation. Third. This argument carries a pre- sumption of invalidity arising from fact that CIO and A. F. of L. support FEPC. (f) “How about the employer’s right to hire someone he doesn’t want?” First. FEPC does not make him hire anyone. No new jobs are created; no percentage of jobs for race, and so forth, is set up; no duty is created to hire any- one who does not meet whatever stand- ards the employer may set, and such standards may be as strict as he desires, even may be completely irrelevant to the job’s demands so long as such irrele- vancies are not the particular few named in the act. No special privileges are con- ferred on any group. (g) “Well, what about the general right to run one’s own business?” First. We regulate many business pro- cedures for what we realize to be the best interests of the community. Second. FEPC only affects business with over 50 employees, not including sectarian, and so forth, groups. This means big business, which generally does not have intimate and personal em- ployer-employee relationships. The em- ployer’s interest is chiefly in obtaining the most efficient work force. (h) “People naturally seek to segrc- gate themselves”; “You are trying to force social equality,” and so forth. But, first, this bill deals only with em- ployment discrimination. Nowhere does it mention, or sanction interference with, segregation or any social customs, or, in fact, discrimination any place but on the job. di) “You can’t outlaw prejudice, look at prohibition,” and so forth. But, first, this is not a bill against prejudice, but only against the overt acts that prejudice leads to; it is therefore not like a bill to outlaw driking, but like one which outlaws driving while drink- ing. Second. Although laws against mur- der do not eliminate murder, the pun- ishment of most murders cuis down the incidence greatly. (j) “This is ust a communistic meas- ure.” But first, the Republican Party and Democratic Party platforms have for several years endorsed FEPC. 8S. 1728 was written by the White House and the Justice Department,
2168 Second. Many prominent industrial- ists and businessmen support FEPC— for example, William L. Bett, Allen W. Dulles, Paul G. Hoffman, Eric Johnston, Harry R. Luce, Dwight R. G. Palmer, Martin Quigley, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Beardsley Rum], Spyros P. Skouras, Her- bert Bayard Swope, Charles H. Tuttle, and so forth. See also the program of International Harvester, mentioned above. Third. The Catholic Church supports FEPC, as well as leading Protestant and Jewish groups. Fourth. The Communist Party would give special rights to minority groups— for example, a Negro nation in the South. This bill merely grants equal rights. (k) “Why can’t the problem be han- dled in the courts?” First. Courts are overburdened al- ready, and the additional load of FEPC cases would break them down alto- gether. Second. The Commission is able to screen worthless complaints, which pro- tect employers and saves them time, money, and so forth. The testimony be- fore the House subcommittee by the various State commissioners discloses a high number of rejected complaints. Third. Commission procedures and determinations are speedier than those in courts. Fourth. Uniformity—1 stead of 94 Federal courts. Fifth. Expertise—the Commission de- votes full time to the problems and all its facets. Sixth. Commission procedure avoids the necessity of criminal penalties, which juries hesitate to invoke, (1) “Education is the answer, not leg- islation.” This is the chief argument of those who propose eliminating the enforcement provisions of the act. Agreed that education is necessary and desirable, but, first, note that the bill instructs the Commission to use in- formal methods. However, such meth- ods lose their effectiveness without the existence of sanctions in the back- ground. Wartime FEPC experience was that compliance was very often secured once the violator attended an informal session. But the most adamant viola- tors refused to discuss the matter with the Commission, knowing that nothing could be done to them anyhow. The sanctions are needed to make the viola- tor willing to come in and talk things over; once he does that, in a great ma- jority of cases he will comply with the Commission requests. The State commissioners before the House subcommittee testified that they had never used their sanctions, but that their informal methods would have failed without the existence of such sanctions. AS an impartial study made by the Library of Congress states, education alone is not sufficient to do the job, APPENDIX I A. Discriminatory employment prac- tices based on race, color, religion, na- tional origin, or ancestry are widespread throughout the United States, and in- creasing. agency in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry is practiced by government, by business, and by labor unions. It is manifested by a refusal to hire, by a de- nial of in-service training or upgrading opportunity, by wage differentials, by the formation of auxiliary unions lacking the usual benefits of union membership, or by blanket exclusion from such mem- bership. Today, with unemployment at its highest level since before the war, the fear of discriminatory discharges weighs heavily upon all who have ever known the frustration and bitterness of job dis- crimination, notably upon the approxi- mately 26,000,000 Catholics, 15,000,000 Negroes, 5,000,000 Jews, 3,000,000 Ameri- cans of Mexican or Hispanic origin, 11,- 000,000 foreign-born, and the 23,000,000 children of foreign-born, who have con- tributed so much to the building and to the defense of this country. The familiar maxim “last hired and first fired” as applied to minority-group workers, unhappily, is once again prov- ing itself all too valid. Data released by the Bureau of Census reveal that whereas unemployment among whites increased 176.4 percent between July 1945 and April 1949 there was an increase of 280 percent in unemployment among non- whites during the same period. The Census Bureau concluded that because of the tendency to lay off Negroes before whites, and because of the relative lack of skill required in jobs usually assigned to them, Negroes will suffer an increas- ingly higher percentage of unemploy- ment In any recession that may over- take us. Contrary to the general impression, discrimination is not confined to any par- ticular geographical area, industry, or group. A survey of the Illinois labor market by the Illinois Interracial Commission revealed that private fee-charging em- ployment agencies did not even list non- white applicants. Ninety-five percent of private employment agencies reported that Jewish applicants faced serious dis- criminatory barriers in attempting to qualify for jobs; substantial percentages reported similar discrimination against Catholic workers. The survey also re- vealed that over 100,000 discriminatory “help wanted” ads were published annu- ally in newspapers in the State of Illi- nois; that of 1,600 Hlinois business firms polled, over half reported no nonwhite employment; that 70 percent of all fi- nancial and 75 percent of all account- ing, advertising, and other service firms in the State had no nonwhite employees; that only 3.6 percent of the employees of the public utilities of the State of Illfnois are nonwhite. In Missouri, a special committee of the House reported on March 2, 1949, to the general assembly on its investigation of violations of equal rights under the Missouri Constitution. Among these violations, the committee enumerated discrimination against colored workers in job placement in the metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City, ex- clusion of Negroes from membership by certain building trades and other craft unions, and other evidence. FEBRUARY 22 A Minneapolis self-survey conducted by the mayor’s commission on human relations found that Jews, Negroes, Jap- anese-Americans, and other minority group members are widely discriminated against by employers. Of 523 Minneap- olis firms from which reports were tab- ulated, 63 percent hired no Jews, Ne- groes, or Japanese-Americans; 37 per- cent hired one or more Jews, Ne- groes, and/or Japanese-Americans; 13 percent hired Jews only; 5 percent hired Negroes only; 2 percent hired Japanese- Americans only; 9 percent hired Jews and Negroes; 8 percent hired Jews, Ne- groes, and Japanese-Americans. Within the past 2 months, the Ohio State Employment Service reported that two out of every five job openings referred to its offices bore openly dis- criminatory specifications. A survey of employment opportunities for Jews in public accounting in Cincinnati revealed that the 15 largest public accounting firms employing a total of 286 account- ants have only 3 Jewish employees, and have employed a total of only 11 Jews over the past 30 years. The Michigan State Employment Service reported as of May 1948 that “about three-quarters of recent job list- ings for unskilled workers were not open to nonwhite workers.” Recent reports from the Colorado State Employment Service contain the following observations: No openings In professional or managerial jobs were found for minority applicants reg- istered at the Denver office of the CSES tn January 1949 * * *, Nationality is a factor explaining unemployment among per- sons under 40 * * *. Race stood in the way of jobs for one-fifth of all Denver vet- erans receiving unemployment compensa- tion under the GI bill of rights. A survey by the Salt Lake City Council on civic unity contains the following findings: Sixty-one of one hundred and sixty-seven employers who responded to a questionnaire excluded colored citizens from certain types of employment, Forty-seven out of one hun- dred and sixty-two employers said they ware unwilling to give colored citizens the same seniority rights as other citizens. Twenty- seven out of one hundred and seventy-eight employers were unwilling to pay the same wages to colored people, even though the colored employees have equal skills with whites. Since 1941 the school district of Phila= Gelphia has been collecting data by race based on the records.of its employment certificating service. These records show that prior to World War II only 2.7 per- cent of the employment certificates were issued to Negro boys and girls 16 and 17 years of age. According to a state- ment by the Philadelphia school system: The percentage of employed youth in- creased steadily during the war years until 1945 when 17 percent of all 16- and 17-year- old youths working full time in Philadelphia were Negroes. Then the employment of Ne- gro youth began to decline. In 1947 only 6 percent of the 18,924 full-time employment certificates issued for 16- and 17-year-old youths in Philadelphia were for Negroes. This is especially pertinent since Negroes make up 17 percent of that age group.
1950 This same statement went on to say: We can assume from this that when war- time pressures anc manpower problems de- creased, discrimination against Negroes in- creased. In a report on segregation in Wash- ington, the National Committee on Seg- regation in the Nation’s Capital re- vealed the shocking extent of all forms of racial discrimination here in this very city, the seat of our National Govern- ment. Here are but a few points in the indictment: Negroes are excluded from most skilled trades by the craft unions, and from whole industries by management policy. In retail trade, utilities, communications, and trans- portation they have little chance. The tele~ phone company employs no colored mechan- ics or linemen, The big department stores deny Negro women a chance to become clerks—even one large bargain store whose customers are two-thirds Negro. In 1940 three-quarters of all Negro job holders were employed as laborers, domestics, or service workers while only one-eighth of white cm- ployees were in these categories. Even in the city government, a Negro cannot get a job as a water-meter reader, a building in- spector, a weights-and-measures inspector, or as a guard in a Jail. These various studies, together with the testimony presented during the hearings on H. R. 4453, demonstrate all too strikingly that in virtually every sec- tion of this country qualified workers are being denied an opportunity of making a living—and a life—solely because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. Gentlemen, let us conduct this debate in dignity. Let us now proceed to the business of restoring integrity to this body. Both parties and Presidential nominees pledged this in their platforms and we will now show the world that at least the House of Representatives is a place that keeps its word. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Simpson]. Mr. SIMPSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair- man, the exploiting of the Negro started when the first shipload of those unfor- tunate people were landed by force on North Americar. soil. This occurred in 1619 when a Dutch man-of-war landed on the soils of Virginia bringing 20 Negrocs which were captured or kid- naped on the African coast, recaptured in the West Indices, and sold to the Colonists. Since the freeing of the Negro from human bondage and the thirtcenth amendment to the Constitution, there has been an improvement in their lot. There is still room for much more up- lifting in their case. . The lynching of any human being is wrong from every standpoint. Adequate Jaws can legally condemn any criminal violation. The poll-tax qualification and Jim Crow cars should be eliminated. The Negro and any so called under- privileged group should be given every possible moral and educational uplift- ing. They should be given employment at good wages and under proper working conditions, Mr. Chairman, it, to me, is a national disgrace that both major political par- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ties and their leaders are trying still to exploit the Negro for political purposes. As 1 of 435 Representatives in Congress, I do not propose to be a party to it. I do not believe the right-thinking Negro wants to be exploited by the two major parties. I think the Negro wants an educational opportunity for his chil- dren. He wants the same opportunity to purchase a decent home, to be in busi- ness, farm or become a professional per- son. He or she wants the same oppor- tunity for advancement as any other American, and they do not believe you can legislate them into these positions. This or any other congress cannot legis- late any American, regardless of race, creed, or color, into such a position either. These things must be worked for and not handed to anyone, notwithstand- ing race, creed, or color; otherwise, this republican form of government will fail. H R. 4453 has to me some serious de- fects. Under “Definitions,” section B, page 4, the term “employer” means a person engaged in commerce having in his employ 50 or more individuals. This means if you employ 50 persons or less you are exempt if this legislation becomes Public Law. This is discrimination it- self in the rankest form. If this legisla- tion, as a whole is fair and good, why should there be any exemptions? The employer of 59 or less can hire or dismiss at will. The employer of over 50 must conform to regulations. So, the unfor- tunate person working with 50 or less is sill discriminated against if such dis- crimination exists. This situation I again do not propose to be a party to. H. R. 4453 under “unlawful employ- ment practices” defined under section 5 (a), paragraph 2, “To utilize in the hiring or recruitment of individuals for employ- ment any employment agency, place- ment service, training school, or center, labor organization, or any other source which discriminates against such in- dividuals because of their race, creed, color, or national origin” would make any employer responsible for acts of discrim- ination absolutely beyond his control. Why should an employer seeking help through an agency be held responsible if that agency discriminated which under this section they could do? Hl. R. 4453 on page 7 under the Fair Employment Fractice Commission sets up a commission of {five members for staggered terms at $17,500 per ycur with $20,000 for the chairman, This means another Government bureau in Wash- ington with State set-ups employing more and more and more pcople. H.R. 4453, under investigatory powers, page 19, section E, states: No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or trom producing documen- tary or other evidence in obedience to the subpena of the Commission, on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no individ- ual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-discrimination, to test.fy or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt 2169 from prosecution and punishment for per- jury committed in so testifying. The ime munity herein provided shall extend only to natural persons so compelled to testify. Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a viola- tion of constitutional rights, and again I will not be a party to it. The report to accompany H. R. 4453 on page 2 states, as follows: Today, with unemployment at its highest level since before the war, the fear of dis- criminatory discharges weighs heavily upon all who have ever known the frustration and bitterness of job discrimination, notably upon the approximately 26,000,000 Catholics, 15,000,C00 Negroes, 5,000,000 Jews, 3,000,000 Americans of Mexican or Hispanic origin, 11,- 000,000 foreign-born, and the 23,000,000 chil- dren of foreign-born, who have contributed 580 much to the building and to the defense of this country. This, Mr, Chairman, by inference is a total of 93,000,000 people in this country who are discriminated against and which I do not believe exists. If it is the truth as stated in the report, then by the same inference the ones doing this discrim- inating in this country ere the Prot- estants. This I do not believe for one moment, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is un- American, I think, from many angles. An American should still have the right to work or not as he or she sees fit. An employer, under our form of govern- ment, should still have the right to hire, and for cause, discharge. For my part, I do not propose to change it Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Morton}, Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is late in the day to make a plea for cool heads, and reason, and reality, but I feel that I should be dere- lict if I did not do so. I would like, if possible, to remove from our thinking some of the passions and emotions that have become injected into this picture and bring it down to its very basic reality. This has become known as a Dill to eliminate discrimination. Of course, in fact, it is a bill whose purpose it is to eliminate dG -crimination that is coupled with prejudice. One cannot attack dis- crimination, per se, for discrimination in itself is a part of freedom. A medi- cal school selects 100 students out of perhaps 600 or 1700 applicants. Of course they discriminate against the 500 who have not the academic preparation that the 100 enjoy. First, let me state my own position and then give you the reasons My po- sition is this: I opposed the bill before us, the Powell bill, in committee. When the Legislative Committee, of which I happen to be a member, voted that bill out, I came to the conclusion that it was not my obligation or right to oppose the legislative processes by which that bill would come before this body. I have done nothing in the months since our committee voted this bill out to prevent its coming out on the floor. My votes have been in such a direction that would permit it to come vp on this floor and to permit the Members of this House to say “Yea” or “Nay.”
2170 I favor the substitute that will be of- fered by the gentleman from Pennsyi- vania {Mr. McConne.] and shall vote for it in committee. I shall support it if it prevails in committee when we go back into the House, and vote for it on final passace if it is then the pending ques- tion. If the bill offered by the gentle- man from New York prevails in commit- tee, I shall vote against it on final passage. I want this to be clearly understood, that I appreciate the sincerity behind those who are the proponents of this bill as well as the opponents of this bill in our committee and in this House. Now, to reduce this to its basic realities, I think I will use the lyrics from a song in a very popular show today. I will not try to reduce today’s travesty to its com- plete asburdity by singing that song, but I will attempt to quote the lyrics as I re- member them. It comes from the popu- lar show, South Pacific. If you are lucky enough to ect tickets and you can afford them—they are pretty steep over there— I can recommend it. The words to the song, as I remember them, are: You've got to be taught to hate and fear, You've got to be taught from year to year. It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear, You've got to be carefully taught. You've got to be taught to be afraid Of people whose eyes are queerly made, People whose skins are a different shade; You've got to be carefully taught. You've got to be taught before it's too late, Before you are six or seven or eight, To hate the people your relatives hate; You've got to be carefully taught. The words of that song express what is s0 fundamental in this bill. We come into this world as God created us, without prejudice in our hearts and minds. We are taught prejudice. It is not part of our birthright, certainly not. How will we develop tolerance and re- move prejudice? By the same methods, by teaching, by leading men away from the hates and the prejudices of this world. That must be done. That is a fundamental, moral concept underlying this entire problem. That can be ac- complished, and great good can be ac- comphshed through a measure such as that offered by the gentleman from Penn- sylvania. I think that these things should be brought into the open. I think that employers should be required to submit records and show whether or not they are discriminating because of race or creed for the purposes of employment. I think we can carry the message to those em- ployers and accomplish a lot of good. Eefore I came to this body I made a living traveling in the South. I suppose I have been in as many counties south of the Ohio and Potomac and east of the Mississippi as any man here. I was traveling for a company out of Louisville, but traveling into the deep South. I think I know something, and perhaps ob- jectively, of the problems there. I tell you that if we approach this thing on any basis except a voluntary basis, the basis of education, the basis of taking men by the hands and leading them into the right path, then we are in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE deep water. If we try to force them into that path or kick them into that path, we are going to do great harm to the principal minority race in this country. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill introduced by the gentleman from New York on these two basic grounds: First, morally, I can see in it Great danger to a people who constitute @ substantial segment of our society, for the most part in the Southern States; and, second, that if we want to do some- thine for thase »neople, and I do, the only thing that will be done by this Eighty- first Congress, the only bill that can be passed—and we are political realists in this body-——the only thing that can pos- Sibly be passed is a bill such as the sub- stitute to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. For these reasons I commend to you the substitute bill, and for these reasons I urge you to oppose the bill offered with ail sincerity and good faith by the gen- tleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, may we turn our hearts from votes and hate. May realism pre- vail. May we once more attain the courage of our heritage. Mr. POWELL. dlr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Burxe], a member of the FEPC subcommittee. Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, it was with a great deal of satisfaction that I received my assimment from the Com- mittee on Education and Labor to the subcommittee dealing with the fair em- ployment practices legislation. I had some previous noticns on this legislation, because I had a great deal to do with employment gencrally in my vocation in life, so that I felt I had some knowledge which I could bring to the subcommit- tee, to the committee, and to the Con- gress. I was very happy to have the op- portunity to listen to the testimony be- fore the subcommittee and to evaluate the evidence which was submitted to the subcommittee on this piece of iegislation. My idea at the outset was that con- trary to the belief of many people in this Nation this type of legislation is not the conferring of some new right. Some right which does not exist in people. But rather it is what I believe to be the real concept of law. That is that law has no rcason for existence unless it pro- tects and guarantees the free exercise of either natural or constitutional rights of people. I believe that this legislation would furnish necessary protection and guaranty of free exercise of natural and constitutional rights. The barriers that have been set up, based on race, creed, color, and national origin, to me have always been artificial boundaries between peopie, boundaries that really have no logical reason for ex- istence. To ask that people recognize those boundaries as a condition of em- ployment I have always felt was tram- pling upon a natural and constitutional right that people have as citizens of a great country such as ours. T have heard in the last few days many of the statements made against this leg- islation. I can understand the feeling of many people because of the condi- tions peculiar to the sections from which FEBRUARY 22 they come. But I want to assure all of those people that certainly the motives of most of those who are proponents of this legislation are such that they feel this legislation is not directed at any particular section. Paradoxical as it may seem, the evi- dence submitted to our subcommittee seems to indicate that this legislation is needed, so far as the Negro people are concerned, as much in the North as in the South. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. JACKSON}. Mr. JACKSON of California. Mr. Chairman, during the maneuvering which has taken place here in the House today I have voted on all occasions to continue consideration of this measure. I have felt that the part of true demo- cratic processes would be best served if the membership of this House were per- mitted to express its will on the measure. I respect the deep convictions of the many Members of this body who have sought by every legislative device to delay that moment when FEPC would come to a vote. However, I do fee) that this matter should be squarely con- fronted and that we should, out of the depths of our own personal convictions and out of our own sense of obligation and duty, come to the point very soon when we can all stand up and express our own beliefs with respect to the legisla- tion. In these days of confused social and economic thinking, it is one of the most dificult of tasks to determine on some occasions the will of the people whom we all have the great honor to represent in this body. We cannot in good conscience simply weigh the letters of those who oppose and those who endorse any given legislative proposal and cast our ballots in terms of ounces, pounds, and tons. Life would be much more simple if it were possible to follow this course of action. However, after a short period of legis- lative responsibility in this House one comes to the certain knowledge that forces and pressures artificially stimu- lated and highly organized often create a clamor entirely out of proportion to actual numbers and, like the long line of soldiers marching around and around a hill in sight of the enemy, gives an im- pression of strength which is deceptive and misleading. There has been a great deal said with respect to the action of the California electorate in repudiating at the polls a compulsive FEPC proposal in the general elections of 1946. It is well known that in spite of an all-out campaign to insure passage of the measure, every county in the entire State joined in sending the bill down to unqualified defeat. The voters of California did not want to delegate to the State government some of the constitutional rights which reside with the individual, and are a matter of personal conscience and responsibility. Unlike Federal antilynch legislation and anti-poll-tax measures, which many of us have supported to the limit of our
1950 individual abilities, Federal legislation on employment is a horse of another color. In this field one departs from the well- defined area of minority rights and en- ters the even greater area of the legal civil rights of majorities. It is an area in which the social and economic aspects of American life become so in- extricably intertwined as to comprise a bediam of claims and counterclaims and of vexatious controversy. It must be remembered that those who employ and are responsible for the con- duct of millions of small-business en- terprises in this country are also cit- izens with certain clearly defined rights and obligations. Having invested the finances necessary to the creation of any given enterprise, it then becomes nec- essary to make the business work. If it fails, both the employee and the em- ployer lose, but the employer’s loss may entail bankruptcy and many additional years of toil as he seeks to clear his name and reestablish his credit. True, until he can make other arrangements for employment the worker is idle, but no financial responsibility falls upon his shoulders. It follows, then, that employment pol- icies are not only a question of social and civil rights, but of economic con- siderations as well. If to be required to employ a mem ker of any given minority group in a situation where the credit and the future of a small business is con- cerned is to mean in economic terms that the employer will suffer economic loss as a result, then any legislation which seeks to impose qualifications upon the employer 1s to place in jeop- ardy the employer's right to a fair exer- cise of his privilege of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In repudiating, by an overwhelming margin the FEPC proposal the voters of California were simply restating an individual and collective belief in the rights of all Americans, majoritics as well as minorities. It is unfortunate that other Strtes which have adopted the restrictive practice have not given their citizens an equal opportunity to obtain the consent of the governed. Now, what was the Cahfornmia law? What did it providc? In almost every major instance it provided exactly what is provided in the bill introduced by the gentleman from New York. It declared as a State policy, that all persons have the right of equal opportunity to secure emfloyment. To cffect| such policy it made it unlawful to refuse to hire and discharge or to discriminate in condi- tions of employment against any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. It cstablished a commissicn to prevent such unlawful practices by conciliation or order, and by education. It provided for judicial review of the commission’s orders and appropriated a sum for the commission. Aad what happened in the State of California? From the northern part of the State bordering on Oregon to the southern part of the State bordering on the Republic of Mexico, every county from north to south and from east to west in the sovereign State of California repudiated FEPC by a vote which varied CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE from 2 to 1 to 5 to 1. What were the totals? Out of the total vote cast of 2,358,343 citizens of California, 1,682,664 voted “no” and 675,697 voted ‘“‘yes’’ on FEPC, and that expression was given in the only referendum which has been held upon this important subject in which the basic rights of every citizen in this country stand at stake. The Sixteenth District of California, which I have the honor to represent in this body, is a progressive and enlight- ened one. In economic and social re- spects it is perhaps as liberal a district as can be found anywhere. The popula- tion is comprised of many elements gen- erally considered to be minority groups. Democrat registrants far outnumber Re- publicans. Every race, creed, color, re- ligious faith, and economic group Is rep- resented in the district. To my mind it is a characteristic congressional dis- trict. However, in that district, when the question of adopting FEPC legislation appeared on the ballot, an emphatic re- pudiation of the Icgislation was reg- istered, and there is no reason for me to believe that the opinion expressed at that time has changed materially in the interim. I do not intend to labor the academic question as to whether or not it is pos- sible to legislate morals, or instill fra- ternity and brotherly love through the legislative process. The people of my own district and the people of California have answered this particular question to the extent that a compulsory Fair Employment Practices Act is concerned. It is unfortunate that this measure does not come to us as a constitutional amendment. In that manner and only in that manner could we truly determine the wishes of the people of the United States as a whole. This is far too im- portant a subject to be taken lightly or voted upon quickly, expressing as it does an entirely new, novel, and possibly dangerous concept of human relation- ships. Mandates are generally fuzzy affairs. One person interprets a so-called man- date to mean one thing, while a second will interpret the same vote to mcan something entirely different. In the present instance, however, the mandate is clear and impelling. Here was no po- litical clash of opposing personalities, no involved or complex proposal. Here was simply a legislative proposal put before the people of the State of California for their answer in the American way. Their answer was unmistakable and clear. That answer was a resounding “no” to a compulsory and penalty-pro- viding FEPC. I may be required to tell 24,814 voters why I voted against com- pulsion on this measure, but I can also tell 99,549 voters who opposed FEPC in my district that I have followed the cx- plicit instructions given me in this con- nection. I shall oppose any provision in this or any other measure which will jail an American citizen for an entirely proper exercise of judgment in the conduct of his affairs. I will not become a party to the bootlegging of employees under the counter nor force citizens to evasion of the law in employment matters. We 2171 Americans have come 2 long way toward true civil liberties since slaves were sold to the Lighest bidder from the auction block, and we still have a long way to go, but we are not going to progress through legislation of this type and character. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot lead a free-born American citizen to the willing abdication of his consti- tutional rights. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Cal- {fornia |Mrs. Doucras]. Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, the question of fair employment is before us—this is not a question that affects the South only, and not a question to be decided by the South—the question of fair employment affects all of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we Know that we have discrimination in some instances in the United States in our employment practices, discrimination because of race, color, creed and national origin. We know that. We know that when we found ourselves in war these practices of discrimination greatly hindered our war effort. We know that the President, therefore, issued an Executive order set- ting up a national FEPC. We know that it worked. Since the end of the war FEPC legislation has been introduced in Congress after Congress—I have worked for the passage of legislation to guar- anty fair employment to all American citizens since I first came to Congress in 1945, the Seventy-ninth Congress. The war is over but can we return to a situation where again we tolerate dis- crimination in our employment prac- tices? Shall we idly sit by and ignore such discrimination now that the war is over? I donot think wecan. Not only because discrimination undermines de- mocracy here at home but because it se- riously handicaps us in our efforts to-help build a democratic world. Remember that the majority of the people of the world are colored and we do not endear ourselves to those people by talking out of one side of our mouth abroad and out of the other side of our mouth at home. The gentleman from California [Mr. Jackson 1 of the Sixteenth Congressional District has just informed you that in California a majority of voters voted against FEPC legislation. He is right. They did. Do you know how FEPC was discussed in California? ‘There were billboards from one end of the State to the other—screaming that this was a communistic program. The majority of the people in the State in my opinion, misunderstood FEPC. Many of the people who are discriminated against in California, the Mexicans, the Filipinos and the Negroes did not understand what the FEPC was. How could they understand. Many thousands of dollars were spent to misrepresent the issue— wild statements were made and delib- erately misled the voters—but these same people knew, when they went to get a job for which they were qualified but were turned down, why they were turned down—because of their national origin or because their skin was black— and they resented it. And to the degree they felt they had been unfairly used— democracy was weakened—and commu- nism had struck a telling blow. Had they
2172 understood that FEPC would guarantee them a fair chance to obtain employment for which they were qualified—they would have voted for it also. The reason FEPC was defeated in the State of Cali- fornia was the way it was presented, the fact there was 2 vast sum of money spent in the campaign to defeat it and that it was deliberately misrepresented to the people. The committee against FEPC was guided by such people as the Rever- end James W. Fifield of spiritual-mobili- zation fame. It was stated throughout the State that the bill denied the right to fair trial, that no court review was Possible and so forth. I might also point out to the gentle- man from California that the housing program that was presented to the people of California last election was also de- feated. Again this proposal was misrepre- sented—again vast sums of money were used—does that mean the majcrity of California voters are acainst decent hous- ing? No. They were misled by the prop- aganda. Housing was not defeated in my dis- trict, because I got out and explained to the people what the proposal before them was. And I want to say that some of the folks who voted against these things in Congress were defeated in the recent elections, and I do not think that Iam overstating it when I say that some ox. those who will vote now against prog- ress to strengthen democracy in this Congress will be defeated in the future. The voters have a way of catching us with bogus issues. Given time, a major- ity always endorses and votes for those proposals that are designed to strengthen and develop our democracy. The direct objective of the bill before us is to prohibit discrimination in em- ployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. This civil- rights objective—protection of the wage earner in his basic right to seek a liveli- hood without arbitrary discrimination— has more than ample justification. But I would contend that H. R. 4453 has a larger objective and an even wider justi- fication. It is a bill that provides for the com- mon defense in an era of critical world tensions. It is designed to strengthen the conduct of American diplomacy by removing a blot of America's leadership in world affairs. It is designed to pro- mote America’s economic self-interest by raising living standards and by increas- ing market opportunities. It is designed to strengthen our free enterprise system by strengthening the most basic enter- prise of earning a living against unrea- sonable, bigoted interference. Finally, the bill is designed to carry out the moral principles of our religious heritage in a practical program suited to our day. Nationel morality and national con- science dictate that we close the gap be- tween some American practices and American ideals. When we are charged with catering to minority interests, with fishing for minority votes, we assert that this is a truly national program, as devoid of sec- tional gain or partisan interest as any legislation that ever came before the Coneress. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The discrepancy between American ideals and American practice—between our aims and what we actually do— creates a moral dry rot which eats away at the foundations of our demo- cratic faith. Democracy cannot thrive in a climate of hypocrisy. Democracy cannot prosper in a land where 40,000,- 000 pcople—members of one minority group or another—are denied the basic assurance of healthy community life, the assurance that they belong, the as- surance that they count, the assurance that there is only one class of citizenship and that they enjoy it. Our national morality based on our religious heritage demands an end to discrimination rooted in bigotry. In the words of George Washington, “to bigotry, no sanction.” And I hope it is as significant to you, as it is to me, that every major church denomination in the United States has endorsed the provisions of this bill. During the war, we found that we lacked skilled workers for many vital jobs. This dangerous shortage might have been avoided if minorities had not been denied opportunities for training and experience. Now we find that job discrimination continues to cripple busi- ness opportunitics. Hundreds of business leaders have come forward to testify that fair employment practices are good busi- ness practices. They tell us that denying jobs to certain people denies markets for other peorple—and such a policy drags down the whole economic level in a vi- cious cycle They have discovered that they cannot sell electric refrigerators to a family that cannot afford electricity be- cause its principal breadwinner is de- nied an opportunity to work at any but the most menial trades. They under- stand that real economic progress re- quires that the whole nation move for- ward at the same time without artificial barriers erected by ignorance or intoler- ance. Prejudice produces no wealth. Discrimination is bad business. And so I insist that our fair employment prac- tice bill is a real and significant contri- bution to America’s productive capacity and to the preservation of our free enter- prise system. Today democracy as we know it is on trial throughout the world. In the last analysis that trial will not be won by our magnificent airlift, or unmatched indus- trial strength, or our stock pile of atom bombs. Ultimately, our way of life will win out only if its promise of moral and spiritual leadership is fulfilled. Fair treatment for racial minorities in America is basic to our chance for a just and lasting peace. The world will not trust us if we talk out of both sides of our mouth—if we are on one side abroad and on another side at home. Two- thirds of the world’s peoples are colored. We cannot expect that they will respect our good faith or our avowed purposes if we continue to practice an ugly discrimi- nation here at home against our own minorities. We will have to fight a rear- guard battle in Europe and Asia so long as each lynching is carried in the head- lines of foreign newspapers, so long as our enemies can point out the fact that so many millions of our people are not full partners in our democracy. For the sake of our national defense we must not FEBRUARY 22 permit prejudice and discrimination to become our Achilles’ heel. We are a Nation blessed by God with material riches beyond all others. Our mountains, our plains, our rivers, our harbors have given us industry and com- merce, agriculture and mining resources, that are the envy and despair of the rest of the world. But our richest and our greatest resource is people—people living under free and fair institutions which permit them to develop fully the talents God gave them. We waste this resource if we sanction discrimination. i. THE NEID FOR LEGISLATION While there is no precise measure of the extent of employment discrimination, there is convincing evidence that dis- crimination is increasing. So the Com- mittee on Fair Employment Practices re- ported to President Truman in June 1946 upon the completion of its task. The United States Census Bureau sur- vey reveals that in April] 1947 the pro- portion of unemployed among white workcrs was 3.8 percent and among non- whites 67 percent. Also significant is the fact that the unemployment ratio had increased since 1945 about 150 per- cent among white workers but more than 300 percent among nonwhites. An anal- ysis of the report indicates that the problem is not confined to any one sec- tion of the country but is equally acute on the Pacific coast, in Detroit, Ohio, and New York. A survey made by the Ohio State Em- ployment Service indicated chat 24 per- cent of the job requests received carried the condition “white only.” Negro work- ers did not even have an opportunity to discuss with prospective employers their qualrfications for doing the job which he needed done. Of course, the 23-percent figure must be considered a minimum since we know from ample experience that a substantial number of other job openings were discriminatory although not specified as such. At the same time that discrimination increases at the hiring gate itself, we have noted that there has been a forced retreat by Negroes from skilled and semi- skilled jobs into the common-laborer classifications, and from production jobs to service jobs. The Labor Market Re- ports issued by the United States De- partment of Labor illustrates this point by quotations from surveys of industry after industry—agriculture, machinery, hosiery, prefabricated housing, tele- phone communications, bakeries, and so forth. Employment discrimination is, of course, not limited to Negroes. The 1948 annual survey of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith reports “a spot survey of private employment agency registration forms conducted during Sep- tember 1948 in 33 of the 48 States showed that 60.6 percent of these asked ques- tions about religion; 33.9 percent about nationality; 28.4 percent inquired into place of birth; 16.5 percent asked about descent; 11.9 percent asked about race.” Similar discrimination, often in more aggravated form, is suffered by countless other Americans whose mode of worship, national origin, or skin color served to disqualify them for securing employment commensurate with their ability—Jap-
1950 anese Americans, Mexican Americans, Indians. Their story is set out in con- vincing detail in the report of the Presi- dent’s Committee on Civil Rights. i, FAIR EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION IS EFFECTIVE “This form not to be used in the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey” reads the heading of a 1948 application blank of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The application for & position with this giant American cor- poration then goes on to ask such ques- tions as religion, lineage, father’s birth- place, and so forth, and says: “Please attach recent photograph of yourself. This is essential. Otherwise your ap- plication will not be considered.” Here in dramatic summary form fs an example of what has been accomplished by FEPC legislation. The four States listed at the top of the application are the States which for the past 3 years have had fair employment practice acts with enforce- ment provisions. Prior to the passage of these State laws, statements were made to the effect that business would leave the State, white em- ployees would quit their jobs, and em- ployers would be harassed with irre- sponsible charges. These dire predic- tions have proven groundless. We have the sworn testimony of the chairmen of the commissions of the three States with the longest experience with antidiscrimination laws. All report that there has not been a single instance of a business leaving a State, of a mass walk-out, or a complaint by any employer that compliance with the law has result- ed in the loss of either customers or reve- nue. Quite to the contrary, they testi- fied that a growing number of companies had come to the conclusion that anti- discrimination laws helped business by promoting a more efficient utilization of labor. As one executive put it, “Some of the people I have hired under the new law are outstanding. You ought to point out to employers the advantages they get from an increased labor market where they have access to so many qualified workers.” The three commission chairmen were unanimous in declaring that the FEPC laws in their respective States had re- sulted in a marked decline in discrimina- tory practices and in the virtual elimina- tion of discriminatory advertisements and employment application forms. Especially significant is the fact that they reported a total of 1,220 cases, and in not a single case was it necessary to go beyond the processes of conferences, conciliation, and persuasion to effect a Satisfactory adjustment. They were unanimous, too, in the opinion that en- actment of a Federal statute would strengthen and facilitate the administra- tion of their own laws. The experience of the States is fortified by experience on the Federal level by the record of per- formance of the wartime FEPC. Dur- ing its most active 2 years, FEPC closed an average of 250 cases a month. About 100 cases 2 month were closed as having been satisfactorily adjusted. Some war- plant gates were thereby opened to mi- norities hitherto refused admittance. Government and industry were persuad- XCVI-——137 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ed to advance many minority workers to their established skills. The effect of these cases on the morale of minority-group workers is not pre- cisely measurable. That the effect was far-reaching and beneficial was shown by the minimum of interracial friction during World War II as compared with World War I. Vociferous threats to strike if minorities entered a plant evap- orated when responsible workers and employers took a firm position against discrimination. The record of the Federal FEPC is con- cededly not as successful as the State FEPC’s. The reason is clear, The Fed- eral Government program lacked en- forcement powers. The chairmen of the State commis- sions who have testified on the subject are unanimous in emphasizing that al- though no State had as yet found it nec- essary to invoKe legal sanctions, the very fact that it is part of the procedure has had its effect and has helped make pos- sible the really remarkable record of cases settled through concillation alone. We know of instances where State commissions have succeeded while the Federal Commission failed. In New York, for example, the commision suc- cessfully concluded an arrangement with a number of railroad unions to eliminate discriminatory clauses in their constitu- tions and bylaws. The Federal FEPC, lacking the reserve power of enforce- ment, failed to do this. Ill. THE NEED FOR ENFORCEMENT POWERS It is significant that the foes of this legislation have all joined with us in professing their oposition to discrimina- tion, and that hardly a voice has been raised in defense of such practices. The attack is always on method. We are told that racial or religious prejudice can be eliminated only by education and that legislation in this delicate field will pro- mote strife and conflict. The opposition ignores a fundamental distinction between prejudice and dis- crimination. Prejudice is a state of mind and discrimination is an overt act. Our system can indulge a man’s individual prejudice however wrongfully conceived, so long as they remain a state of mind. But our democratic system cannot per-~ mit a man to translate his prejudices into action which infringes the rights and liberties of others. This is a funda- mental premise of our civil and criminal law. When prejudice is translated into active discrimination whereby men, sole- ly because of their race, religion, color, or national origin are denied an opportu- nity of earning a Hvelihood for them- selves and their families, it is the proper function of government to prevent such practices, Nor does experience justify the fear that passage of this legislation will pro- mote strife and conflict. Decency and fair play have never fostered strife. On the contrary, such tension and conflict arise more frequently when people feel they cannot obtain redress from their government for a recognized evil. We are more likely to have disorder and riot when a government disregards the demand for justice. We should not ex- 2173 pect members of minority groups who have fought and bled for our democracy to sit by indefinitely when they are toid in effect “you have won freedom for the peoples of all the world, but it is to be denied you here at home.” ‘The purpose of this legislation is in accord with tra- ditional concepts of the role of govern- ment in promoting the general welfare— in providing an orderly official proced- ure for dealing with a recognized evil, employment discrimination. To those who say that education rather than legislation is the answer, we reply that they have offered us false alternatives. There is no conflict be- tween education and legislation. It is the educators who have told us that we learn best by doing. It is the legislators who tell us that law constitutes one of the most powerful instruments of edu- cation. The complementary character of education and legislation is aptly summed up in the fact that it became necessary to pass laws making school attendance compulsory before our edu- cation system itself was able to func- tion effectively. As Bishop Francis J. Haas put it: Frankly, I become a bit impatient with persons who insist that the whole matter of securing fair employment opportunity is solely the business of education. In too many instances their position amounts to holding that a just social order is to be built brick by brick, but that only one brick is to be laid every hundred years We may not resign ourselves to such a policy of de- featism and of doing nothing. We are also told that the program of civil rights contravenes the principle of States’ rights. Let us put the issue more accurately. The legislation before us is designed to protect the right of all Americans to earn a livelihood at any trade without discrimination because of race or creed. Surely this is a basic right. Surely this is one of the founda- tions of the dignity of the human per- son. And surely it must be preferred over the arid principle of States’ rights— or, to be more accurate, the principle of States’ wrongs. For what rights are in- volved in our opponents’ program—the right of States to prevent people from finding jobs because of their color? If this were not a State’s wrong—instead of a State’s right—this issue never would have arisen. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON]. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments at the desk. I wish I could have made them available to all of my colleagues sooner, but they can be seen there, and in view of the time limitation I simply want to try to explain them in the hope that they may appeal to all of you. We have an FEPC law in Massachusetts. It was enacted in 1946, and it is working, and well, and with the approval of prac- tically everyone in Massachusetts. I was Pleased to find that in subsection 7 of section 6 the committee adopted prac- tically the identical language of the Massachusetts statute, but I was dis- turbed to find that although it is only
2174 slightly different, it is still different from the Massachusetts statute when you con- sider subsection (b) of section 7. I be- lieve that goes to the heart of this legis- lation. I believe that you have a clear precedent, and I believe it will be helpful, constructive, and certainly not destruc- tive if this amendment is adopted. I placed in the Recorp on February 2 an analysis and comparison of the com- mittee bill, the bill offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania, and the Massa- chusetts law. If this amendment is adopted, it 1s my considered opinion that the committee bill will be almost iden- tical with the Massachusetts bill. May I call your attention to certain statements made by the commission in Massachusetts with reference to the working of that bill. Their first report, the commission snid in part: It has not chosen to conduct a punitive expedition in Massachusetts but has pre- ferred to steer a conservative course of edu- cating employers and workers alke as to their responsibilities and obligations under this law Their second report, filed in 1948, said: From the beginning, this commission has recoenized that the elimination of discrim- inetory employment practices based upon individual and group prejudices could be accomphshed most effectively by reason in- stecd of force. And I am pleased to state that in the last report filed in November of 1949 the commission was able to report that not a sincle complaint in Massachusctts has been taken to the courts, and they call attention once more to this significant statement of policy: Once more the commission acknowledges the wisdom of the provision of the law 1e- quiring that the first efforts to adjust com- plaints be made through conference, con- ciliation, and persuasion Those are the words in that subsec- tion, and I suggest to you Members that where you have had 3 years of experi- ence in a highly industrialized area and where a commission can make that sort of a report and add, “This process in- vites cooperation and is the antithesis of swinging a big stick,” you wil. have an cpportunity to write into this law the law that has been on the books 3 years and has been demonstrated in that fashion. I hope you will support the amend- ment. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lucas]. tir. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, first, as a southerner, I want to say I admire the good faiih of the gentleman from New York im presenting this legislation to us for consideration. I have been treated with eminent fairness by him and his subcommittee in all the considerations we have had in our committee. I dis- agree with him, of course, on the legis- lation, and I oppose it most vigorously. The question is whether or not we, act- ing as a national legislative body, can pass legislation which will change the customs and the traditions of the people of the country. That is the intention of this bill and there can be no denying it. Those who sponsor this legislation want CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to change the customs. They are de- sirous of creating social equality. They are desirous of bringing the minority races into every opportunity which ex- ists for the majority races in this coun- try. I do not criticize them for that but I do criticize them for the means which they are using in order to achieve this objective. It cannot be done by legislation. The gentleman from Massachusctts spoke in high praise of his Massachusetts law. I happen to know of my own per- sonal knowledge that the Massachusetts law is not effective in that State simply because employers up there will not ad- vertise in the newspapers for employees. They will not go to an employment agency seeking employees. The reason they do not is that they want to select thar own employees, and this FEPC there is preventing people of minor- ity races from getting the jobs they would szcure through want-ad pages or through employment services. It should bear some significance to this debate that two of the three mem- bers who have spok2n in favor of this legislation from the committee have mentioned the fact that this is not aimed at the South. “Methinks, my friend, that thou protesteth too much.” It is aimed at the South and they cannot honestly deny it. It is aimed at the South because the preponderance of col- ored people in this country live below the Mascn and Dixon's ine. You want to change our customs down there and force us to follow a Federal law which directly violates all of our traditions and our customs in the South. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Me. LUCAS I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. The proponents of this bill are merely using the Negro as a smoke screen; they are not trying to help nim. That is bunk. They arc not trying to help the Negro. They do not give a tinker’s damn about it. Mr. LUCAS. I am seriously afraid they are not helping the Negro. Actu- ally they are hurting the Negro. Mr. RANKIN. They are depriving him of a home. Mr, LUCAS. I think the gentleman from California [Mr, Jackson] has raised an excellent point in stating that this legislation should be handled at the State level. It should be. If it is not aimed at the South, then what objection would you have to letting each State determine whether or not such a law as this should be enforced within that Siate? I beheve so strongly in that that I am going to offer an amendment, for which I ask your consideration. It reads: Sec. 16. This act shall take effect In each State on the date on which the State by Jaw (1) declares that the rights of some per- sons within the jurisdiction of the State to employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin are being denied, and (2) establishes or designates an agency of the State to ac- cept jurisdiction of cases under section 7 (a) of this act. If this bill is not directed at the South, if it is not aimed at the South, will you FEBRUARY 22 support my amendment? If you believe this is not almed directly at the South, then you will permit the Southern States and every State to determine, as has the great State of California, whether or not they shall have legislation of this char- acter within the States. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown}. Mr. BROWN of Georgia. Mr. Chair- man, I hope the bill to establish a per- manent Fair Employment Practice Com- mission will never be enacted because it strikes the very vitals of all free enter- prise, without which our Nation could never have become the greatest and rich- est country in the world. It is a meas- ure which would substitute the whims and dictates of a Federal bureaucracy for the judgment and common sense of the great people who have carried our Nation through nearly two centuries of progress to the pinnacle we now enjoy. The FEPC was created during the war years by Exccutive order for the purpose, it was claimed, of obtaining full man- power strength and allegedly preventing possible discrimination in employment of any person because of his race, creed, color, or national origin. The record shows, however, that the FEPC often hindered instead of helping in war pro- duction, and caused a break-down in the race relations rather than building up better understanding. After the war emergency, this trouble-making agency dicd, but now it 1s proposed to bring it to hfe permanently with still greater jurisdiction over practically every kind of work and walk of life. It is regretLable that there appears to be so many who are unable to understand that progress 1s attained through under- standing and education—and not legis- lation. The past half century has been the most. progressive period in history. Many changes have come about in the American way of life. This applies par- ticularly to the South and my own State of Georgia. Negroes have advanced fur- ther in education, business, religion, sci- ence, and the professions in this period than in any other time in history. Ap- proximatcly 4,000,000 people who were uneducated and unskilled in any trade except farming were set free to find gain- ful employment and make their living at a time when the whole country was suffering the aftermath of the Civil War. The southern whites and their former slaves, even then, had become reconciled and had worked out an understanding between themselves and jobs and homes were given the Negro by their former masters. Thcre is a vast difference in the status of the southern Negro today from what it was at the turn of the cen- tury. Moreover, it should be noted that the South is attaining more and more a diversified and well-balanced economy— and is attracting industries from other areas because of its many advantages such as sufficient and satisfied labor, even weather, proximity to supply, and in- creased transportation facilities. The constitutionality of the proposed measure is most doubtful. No case has been made for its constitutionality—and it attempts by the mere recital of words to make a legislative finding of fact that
1950 the so-called ills it seeks to cure are now adversely affecting the interstate and foreign commerce of the United States. That is a surprising conclusion—espe- cially in a period when our interstate and foreign commerce are at the highest peak in our history. It becomes the more amazing when one stops to trace our trade and business growth during the last 30 years. If the investigations, com- pulsory testimony, compulsory produc- tion of records, compulsory attendance at hearings conducted by incompetent clerks, and the other indignities that this measure would foster upon the taxpaying American citizen is constitutional for the purposes this measure sets forth, then it certainly becomes clear that the individual rights of the Svates and the people reserved in the Constitution are in actuality surrendered under the com- merce clause. The bill does not even purport to be exercised for the citizens of this country. It flatly states as a finding of fact that “the rights of some persons within the Jurisdiction of the United States to em- ployment are being denied’’—it does not say “citizens,” merely “some persons.” That could mean that ft is intended that every alien, no matter what his country of origin, is to be given all the Federal Government help and assistance possible to secure the job of Americans who have fought and won two world wars to make their homeland safe to live in. Is this @ proposal to secure every Communist, not only a foothold in America, but gain- ful employment at the expense of the livelihood of the American veteran who is merely seeking to enjoy an economic status in which he may raise his family in the American way? The Commission proposed in the bill is not limited to functioning in the United States or areas subject to the jurisdic- tion of the United States. Section 6 (f) of the bill specifically provides that— The principal office of the Commission shall be in the District of Columbia, but it may meet or exercise any or all of its powers at any other place and may establish such regional offices as it deems necessary. Section 2 (c) states that one of the purposes of the bill is “To promote uni- versal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” Section 6 (g) (6) further em- powers the Commission “to make such technical studies as are appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act and to make the results of such studies available to interested govern- mental and nongovernmental agencies.” It would seem clear that the Commission might devote its energies to investigating the undesirables of other nations and then assure them of employment when they came to America. Although the bill purportedly is desig- nated by its proponents to eliminate dis- crimination, its very terms are discrim- inatory themselves. It provides that where the Commission finds an alleged “unlawful employment practice” it may “petition any United States court of ap- peals or, if the court of appeals to which application might be made is in vaca- tion, any district court or other United States court for the enforcement of such’—the Commission’s—‘order and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE for appropriate temporary relief or re- straining order.” But if a person is aggrieved by the Commission's order he can only obtain a review of the order in a United States court of appeals. The aggrieved party does not have jurisdic- tional access to a United States district court or other United States court, if the court of appeals is on vacation. He just has to wait until their vacation has ended—and in the meantime he must obey the Commission's order which could be to hire someone he does not want or need, or would not want because the per- son is incompetent even if he did need someone, and would have to pay that person back wages even though the per- son never worked during the period. It is impossible to conceive of a meas- ure which would so completely deter, burden, confuse, befuddle, add untold costs to, and even destroy American business and the American way of life as the proposed Fair Employment Prac- tice Act would In place of individual judgment based upon years of knowledge and experience, a Fcderal bureaucracy would be set up in every community in the Nation with every legal weapon con- ceivable available to it—including ren- dering its own binding orders—-to tell every businessman whom he could hire, whom he could fire, what the terms of this one’s employment should be, what the terms of that one’s employ- ment should be, and anything else they could think of. If an employ- er should find a few years later he hired someone when the Commission thought he should have hired some- one else, he would have to pay the back wages to the one he did not hire, then hire him, probably have to fire the first man and lose his experience and skill, and wind up with an incompetent whom he had to continue to employ, contribute to his social security, pro- vide medical services and the many other benefits that most employees receive. If this would not adversely affect the interstate and foreign commerce of the United States, it is difficult to conceive of anything that would. And all this so an alien could put an American vet- eran on the relief rolls. Our American system of free enter- prise has succeeded because it is flexible and provides rewards and promotions to those with skills and ability. People with talents and skills move to the higher Places and the lazy and inept remain where they are until they decide to go to work. Under this proposed new sys- tem of regulating the employee and the employer by the FEPC a person's abil- ity and competence would be incidental. There would be an endless chain of grudges and grievances and spying, and @ man would be unable to operate his own business. There would always lurk in the shadows the fear of unlawful em- ployment practices and every employer would hesitate to use his own judgment in the selection of those he thought could best fit in his business and successfully carry on the work. In addition to the incalculable costs the measure would add to the price of goods and services to the consumer, there would be added to the already back- breaking tax load the average American 2175 is shouldering, the cost of a new Fed- eral bureaucracy with agents in every part of the country, and possibly the world, their cost of travel, the immense costs of conducting hearings, trials, and lawsuits, and every other cost that a Federal Bureau incurs. We in the Southland realize our prob- lems; we have seen the progress that has been made; we feel that in time the South will work out its salvation through education and the increased spirituality of our people. We have a background of experience, knowledge, and understand. ing with which to deal with them for which legislation is not merely a poor substitute. but no substitute at all. Senator Borah, a brilliant statesman from Idaho, said many years ago that the southern people had met the race problem and dealt with it with greater patience, greater intelligence, and great- er success than any people in recorded history dealing with a problem of similar nature. This FEPC proposal if enacted on a Federal level would result in greater confusion in all areas, and in the South particularly its effect would be complete demoralization and utter devastation. The progress the South has made would be overturned and in place of the South’s understanding and experienced approach to these matters would be substituted a coercive, threatening, blundering stat- utory program impossible to enforce and capable of only one net result—chaos. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Georgia. & question. Mr. HARRISON. Is this bill, as re- ported by the committee, based on the findings and report of the President's Commission on Civil Rights? Mr. BROWN of Georgia. understanding that it is. Mr, POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Norton}, former chairman of the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor. Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, of course you Know I am in favor of this bill. I have asked for this time to dis- cuss a bill dear to my heart and to the heart of every American who believes in human rights and fair play—the bill to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission. I have long been inter- ested in legislation which would create through statute a permanent FEPC, and as many Members know, I have intro- duced in the past three Congresses bills which could create such an agency. Al- though one was reported to the floor of the House by the Labor Committee fin the Seventy-ninth Congress, ft was pre- vented from ever coming to the floor by the determined action of the House Rules Committee to pigeonhole it. Unfortu- nately, the House has never had an op- portunity to vote on any FEPC bills and what has happened today is merely a repetition of the tactics which have been used in other Congresses to keep FEPC legislation from being considered by all Members of the House. There is before us today not only the question of whether FEPC should become law—although I hope that it does—but also the question I yield for It is my