1950 The bill places no restriction on the employer’s right to employ or to up- grade an employee on the basis of his own judgment of the candidate’s train- ing, experience, ability, personality, or whatever standards he may choose to set. Nor does the bill force business to hire any person or refrain from firing any specific person. On the contrary, it protects the employer in his right to choose the best candidate without re- gard to race, religion, color, or national origin. To repeat, an employer may hire or re- ject anyone he pleases, on any basis and for any reason, so long as a needed and qualified person is not rejected because of his race, religion, color, or national origin. Nor does the bill require an em- ployer to hire a particular percentage or quota of Negroes or of any other minor- ity group since such a practice is it- self discriminatory. The bill helps to eliminate unfair price cutting by competitors who pay lower wages to members of minority groups. It will promote smooth working relation- ships, reduce labor turn-over and inter- ruptions, and thereby promote efficient preduction at lower unit costs. Estab- lishing fair employment will add, in the case of Negro wage earners alone, a new domestic purchasing power and market of approximately $10,000,000,000 a year, according to estimates by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It 1s not wishful thinking on my part when I state that the bill, if enacted into law, will prove very successful in opera- tion. No better proof can be offered than the experience of my home State of New York and the experience of three other States—New Jersey, Massachusets, and Connecticut—which, since 1945, have banned discrimination in employment and labor-union membership. Two more States in the Midwest have passed anti- discrimination laws since 1945. A recent report of the Legislative Reference Serv- ice in the Library of Congress shows that 36 States and 5 cities as of May 1948 passed laws and ordinances providing for the elimination of discrimination in one or more fields of employment. Twenty- three State legislatures in all considered FEPC legislation this year. In reneral, the laws in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut make it unlawful for employers to dis- criminate in hiring, firing, or conditions of employment, or for labor unions to xclude, expel, or discriminate, because of race, color, creed, or national origin. The use cf discriminatory help-wanted ads and job applications by employers and employment egencies are prohibited. The State commissions are empowered to investigate complaints, to hold hear- ines, to attempt to conciliate, to issue cease-and-desist orders, and finally, to seek court enforcement of these orders. The progress that has been made in New York under its fair employment practice act is made very clear by the first annual report of the State commission against discrimination. In its introduction, the report states: The operation of the law has definitely re- sulted in progress in the elimination of illegal CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE discriminatory practices. The testimony of people actually engaged in job-placement activities reveals that flelds of opportunity previously closed to certain groups are now open to all, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin. Resistance to the law has lessened as demonstrated by the fact that employees of all groups are being hired and upgraded into new occupational cate- gories Preemployment discriminatory in- quiries are now the rarity, rather than the rule. Conciliation proceedings conducted by the New York State Commission Against Discrimination in the first year of its operation met with marked success. During that time the commission passed upon more than 300 complaints charging discrimination in employment. It was not necessary in any case which reached the conciliation stage to advance beyond it to the next stage—that of a formal hear‘ng. In this connection it is worth noting that a total of 1,200 cases a year are being settled under the faii employ- ment practice statutes in the States of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, but not once have they used their powers of enforcement. Not once have any of them gone as far as public administrative hearing on a com- plaint. As one observer of the operation of these fair employment practice stat- utes stated: Embarrassment, not harassment or puntsh- ment, is the chief sanction—embarrassment over being caught not living up in deeds to American principles of fairness we all acknowledge in words. One employer of hundreds of workers, who made chanees in his practice after a charge of discrimination, cxpressed satisfaction with the results in these words: Some of the new people I've hired are out- standing This is a good law. I'm glad I've hired these workers. You ought to point out to employers the benefits they get from an increased labor market when they have access to 80 many more qualified workers In a detailed report on its operations and accomplishments covering the first 3!2 years up to December 31, 1948, the New York State Commission Against D.s- crimination referred to a number of in- dustries which were opened to employ- ment for Negroes without the need for the commissicn to issue cease-and-desist orders The commission also stated that 17 unions agreed to eliminate discrimi- natory membership policies. This problem of prohibiting discrim- ination in employment cannot be handled by the States themselves. Federal ac- tion is needed to protect States having such laws against unfair competition in other States that do not have such laws. Federal action is also needed because most large employers or trade-unions have plants or locals scattered through- out the country in every State. The ad- munistration’s bill does not impair or conflict with existing State laws, nor does it invade States’ rights. In fact, the bill authorizes the Commission to turn com- plaints over to State and local authorities where there are parallel laws prohibiting discrimination. The bill does not ap- ply to State or municipal employees or to any State agency, nor does it apply to 2197 small retail stores, small farms or domes- tic servants. In applying only to those employers who are engaged in interstate commerce or in operations affecting such commerce and who employ 50 or more persons, the bill supplements and dove- tails with State laws. Furthermore, the bill does not repeal or impair veterans’ preferences. All veterans’ prefcrences are explicitly continued in effect. The administration’s bill has nothing to do with personal or social relation- ships. It is concerned only with equalhty of job opportunity. Will such a bill, if enacted into law, cause riots or blood- shed? On the contrary, it will lessen the danger of such violence because orderly governmental procedure will be sub- stituted for mob action. After the last war there were 26 major race riots. A repetition must be avoided. If enacted, this bill will do that job. As pointed out in the report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, our position in the postwar world is so vital to the future that our smallest ac- tions have far-reaching effects. We have come to know that our own sccurity in a highly interdependent world is inextri- cably tied to the security and well-being of all people and all countries. Our for- eign policy is designed to make the United States an enormous positive influence for peace and progress throughout the world. We have tried to let nothing, not even extreme political differences between ourselves and foreign nations, stand in the way of this goal. But our domestic shortcomings with respect to civil rights are a serious obstacle. In a letter to the Fair Employment Practice Committee on May 8, 1946, the Honorable Dean Ache- son, then Acting Secretary of State, stated that— The existence of discrimination against minority groups in this country has an ad- verse effect upon our relations with other countries. We are reminded over and over by some foreign newspapers and spokcsmen, that our treatment of various minorities leaves much to be desired While sometimes these pronouncements are exagerated and unjustified, they all too frequently point with accuracy to some form of discrimina- tion becnuse of race, creed, color, or national origin Frequently, we find it next to lm- possible to fo.mulate a satisfactory answer to our critics tn other countries. the gap between the things we stand for tn prin- ciple and the facts of a particular situation may be too wide to be bridged An atinos- phere of suspicion and resentment in a coun- try over the way a minority is being treuted in the United S:ates is a formidable obstacle to the development of mutual understand- ing and trust between the two countries We will have better inte:national relations when these reasons for suspicion and resentment have been removed I think it is quite obvious * * © that the existence of discriminations against mi- nority groups in the United States is a hand!- cap in our relations with other countries. The Department of State, therefore, has good reason to hope for the continued and in- creased effectiveness of public and private efforts to do away with these discrimina- tions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat here what I stated before that the right to equality of opportunity of each in- dividual to obtain useful employment without regard to race, color, creed, and
2198 national origin is essential to the well- being of the individual and to the prog- ress of our society. We abhor the to- talitarian arrogance which makes one man say that he will respect another man as his equal only if he has my race, my religion, my social position. Our American heritage teaches us that to be secure in the rights he wishes for him- self, cach man must be willing to respect the rights of other men. We have the democratic opportunity and responsibil- ity to build social institutions that will guarantee equality of opportunity to all men. Without this equality freedom be- comes an illusion. As stated by a great American, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “The strength of this Nation shall not be diluted by the failure of the Government to protect the well-being of its citizens.” It 1s for the Congress of the United States to implement this pledge with action by the speedy enact- ment of H. R. 4453 into the law of the land. Mr. ADDONIZIO. Mr. Chairman, to date the record of the Congress of the United States on civil rights matters is one of dire inaction. The American peo- ple do not want it that way, Mr. Chair- man. The American people voted for a President in 1948 who meant what he said about civil rights and for a party that had the courage to take an uncom- promising stand on this most vital issue of the twentieth century. If this Exghty-first Congress had a mandate for anything, it surely had a mandate to enact the President’s civil- rights program The platform of the Democratic Party in the 1948 elections stated clearly and specifically full sup- poit of fair employment practices legise lation. However, it would be foolish for me to overlook the opposition to FEPC within my own party. I know the objec- tions of my friends from the South. I respect their convictions, but I am equally convinced that they are dcad wrong. Even though they may be hb- eral on many issues, they are afflicted with a sense of blind opposition to all measures designed to eliminate racial discrimination. I appreciate the histor- ical background that lies at the base of their prejudices. If it were only a matter of prejudice, I would not be so concerned. As Jong as prejudice remains within the workings of a man’s mind, it is an indi- vidual problem; and we may hope that someday the blot of prejudice will be wiped from the minds of Americans. However, when prejudice becomes an overt act of unfairness in employment against any person because of his race, color, or creed, it is no longer an indi- vidual’s problem. When a citizen is denied a job only because he is a Negro, or a Jew, or a Catholic, or because he be- Jongs to any other minority, we have a social problem—a problem for all of so- ciety against which we the people can and must act. I will agree with the point that my southern colleagues have repeatedly brought out that discrimination 1s not only a problem of the South but that dis- crimination takes place in the North as well. It happens all over the country and that is ev2n more reason for a Fed- eral law to protect the individual’s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE rights everywhere in this great Nation of ours. Let us turn for a moment to look at the economic aspects of job discrimina-~ tion. This can be done in cold dollar and cents terms. The last census showed that the median annual income for the white high-school graduate was $1,454 compared to $775 for the Negro high-school graduate. Twenty-three out of every 100 white high-school] grad- uates had incomes of over $2,000. Only 4 out of 100 Negro high-school graduates had incomes that high. Here are Negro and white citizens with the same amount of education and training—but discrim- ination makes sure that the Negro citizen gets less money for this work. These are not the only fruits of discrimination; delinquency, criminality, illiteracy, so- cial tension, poor health, and racial un- rest all spring from this undemocratic process. I have heard it said by many, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot solve this problem of discrimination by legisla- tion. Many of my southern friends have said that education is the only way. Well, I am for education; it 1s easy to be for education, and many of us are too willing to make it a cure of all evils. But let us remember this: Racial and relious discrimination in employment are morally wrong. They are truly un- American. They make a mockcry of all that we have praised so highly in the Brotherhood Week just concluded. They violate the ethics of fa play and equality as we were taught as children and which we teach our children today, and I say to you, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that we must make these wrongs legal. We can make it clear that we disapprove of these prac- tices by putting them outside the law. I have never heard anyone argue that a law against robbery stops robbery or a law against murder stops murder, but it makes robbery and murder illegal; and whoever commits these crimes is hable to punishment. I do not deny the value of education. I say to you that we need more cduca- tion, particularly in the ficld of human relations, but 1 say further that progres- sive hberal FEPC legislation which gives force to our moral principles is in itself educational, We must keep faith with the American people and vote FEPC today. Mr. RODINO. Mr Chairman, it is obvious that the conscience of the Amer- ican people is aroused about the great moral and economic issue o1 FEPC— Fair Employment Practices. I know that the opinion and conscience of the citizens of my district favor enactment of FEPC. They beleve, and I am sure that the American people believe, that enactment is long overdue. More than 20,000,000 members of mi- nority groups—Negroes, Jews, Catholics, Protestants—are daily suffering the dis- crimination, the humiliation, the hard- ship, and the bitter disillusionment of discrimination in employment. The hard fact is that today unemployment is twice as great among members of minority groups as it is among the popu- lation as a whole. FEBRUARY 22 Every index of public opinion supports the conclusion that the American people want this legislation and want it now. All church groups are for it. The Amer- ican Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations are for it. Even the Gallup poll, which is not noted for overrepresenting the liberal position on any issue, has in recent weeks re- ported a majority for FEPC. There is no use in beating around the bush on this issue. Procrastination and delay play into the hands of those who fear and fight FEPC. The victory for democratic processes won on January 20 must be followed through to victory for FEPC, at least on the floor of the House and on the record by which we shall be judged in the 1950 primaries and the elections. FEPC means democracy in e.nploy- ment, democracy on the job. It means fairness 1n the hiring of qualified work- ers, in the upgrading and promotion of workers on the basis of performance and abulity. The misrepresentations that have been made about FEPC are many—too nu- merous to deal with in these brief re- marks. Let me decal here only with one. It is stated that FEPC is an attempt to Icgislate against prejudice, that preju- dice cannot be dealt with by legislation, and that any attempt to do so is as doomed to failure as was prohibition. In the first place, FEFC is not ad- dressed to prejudice; it 1s not aimed at prejudice; it does not pretend to abolish prejudice What FEPC is aimed at 1s discrimination in employment, which is the exercise of piejudice either by em- ployers or by labor on ganizavions. FEPC proposes to see to it that qualificd work- ers are not discriminated against either in employment or in promotion because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. It does not provide for the firing of individuals, or the hir- ing of individuals. The FEPC bill provides that fair prac- tices shall be observed by both employer and labor organizations It is a tribute to organized labor that the two great or- ganizations of labor, the A F, of L. and CIO, have not only accepted this bill, but have been among its most active sup- porte:s Many individual employers join with them and with all the organized religious groups in demanding enactment of this bill. It is true that prohibition was a failure, but it is not true that laws against driv- ing while drunk are a failure. They are effective. Similarly, FEPC, which docs not attempt to act against prejudice, but only against the irresponsible, socially and economically harmful expression of prejudice i: discrimination in employ- ment, will work, It will be accepted by the American people, by employers, by workers and their organizations. This is not a merc expression of faith and hope, It is based upon experience. It is based upon the experience of my home State of New Jersey, and on the experience of the States of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, even the ex- perience of the city of Minneapolis which enacted a municipal FEPC years ago. In most of these States, FEPC was not adopted and is not administered as a
1950 partisan measure. It was adopted and is applied as a nonpartisan measure. That is the way it should be dealt with here. I believe it will be. One more point before I concludc: The FEFC bill is an effective bill because it has provision for enforcement by judicial review and court order, and penalty for defiance of that order. This bill, like the model State laws from which it was adapted, prescribes preliminary steps which must be taken one at a time before the charge of discrimination can be either made the svbject of a commission hearing or come before a court. Those steps are information, education, concil- jation, and mediation. The experience in my own State and in the other States which have nearly identical laws shows that these preliminary steps are suf- ficient to reduce the work toward the complete elimination of discrimination in employment. Some say, “Well, since it has not been found necessary to resort to formal pub- lic hearings and to court trials for en- forcement, why keep them in the bill?” The unswer is that if you take out of this bill the power of subpena, the power to require attendance at the con- ciliation and mediation sessions; the power to require the production of books and papers; and the ultimate power to hold public hearings and go to the courts for enforcement of commission orders, you will have observance of FEPC only by those who will be fair anyway. Those who practice discrimination would, in the absence of the power to require ap- pearance and the power to enforce find- ines and orders, simply thumb their noses at even the most tentative sugges- tion that charges of discrimination should be discussed. It is my deep feeling that this measure is just, it is long overdue; that it will meet the needs of many millions of our people, will satisfy the opinion of the conscience of the American people, and will strengthen the confidence of the American pcople in this House and its operation. Three years ago, when hearings were being held on this bill, spokesmen for minority groups pointed out the daily injustices and hardships that were being suffered by members of those groups. They gave statistics. They gave exam- ples. They pointed out that the estab- lishment of FEPC would improve wages, would strengthen and sustain purchas- ing powcr, would morally and materially strengthen our national security in the global contest between the principles and practices of freedom and the unprin- cipled practices of totalitarianism. It was said at that time, and it is truer now than then, that “Hope de- ferred maketh the heart sick.” Let us not longer defer the hope of the American people. Let us record our votes in favor of this proposal to estab- lish justice in employment for all our peonle. Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. Chairman, I would that I had the power to make you see and realize the injustice and irrepar- able injury that will be caused by the passage of this legislation. The bill before the House, H. R. 4453 proposes to prohibit discrimination in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE employment because of race, color, reli- gion or national origin. This bill seeks to set up for the imag- inary protection of a certain class—a new supposedly civil right, and, in order to do this, its proponents ask Congress to tear down and over-ride the Consti- tution of the United States and its amendments. The act is unconstitutional, and in my opinion, no court would ever hold it con- stitutional. It takes away the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the Con- stitution, and attempts, by an act of Congress, to bestow upon other individ- uals’ rights which do not exist and never should exist. It. denies to the employer the right to employ in his business or factory whom he desires and it brazenly tells him that he must employ a member of a certain class even if it means the disruption and final destruction of his entire business. Section 5 (a): It shall be an unlawful employment prac- tice for an employer—(1) to refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employ- ment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, or (2) to utilize in the hiring or recruitment of individuals for employment any employ- ment agency, placement service, training school or center, labor organization, or any other sources which discriminates against such individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. It seeks to tell labor organizations who shall or shall not be entitled to membership and employment benefits by providing as follows— Section 5 (b): It shall be an unlawful employment prace- tice for any labor organization to discrimi- nate 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 opportunit- ties, or would limit his employment opportu- nities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employ- ment, or would affcct adversely hts wages, hours, or employment conditions, because of such individual's race, color, religion, or national origin. It is an invasion of the rights of the States to manage their own internal af- fairs. The proponents of this legislation entirely or purposely overlooked the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights which enumerate certain natural rights which Coneress shall not abridge, including, in the first amendment, freedom of reli- gion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The ninth amendment makes clear that other rights than these enumerated do exist and are retained by the people. The tenth amendment expressly limits the power of the Federal Government to those delegated to it by the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the States or to the people. The Supreme Court of the United States has held uni- formly that any power to create a civil right, unless specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, has been reserved to the separate States. In support of this position I call your attention to Hodges v. United States (203 U. S. 1); United States v, Wheeler (254 U. S. 281); National Virginia 2199 Board of Education v. Barnett (319 U.S. 638); Douglas v. City of Jeanette (319 U. S. 157). Numerous other cases can be cited. They seek to avoid and get around these barriers by use of the frayed and time-worn interstate and foreign com- merce subterfuge. But I contend the problem dealt with in this bill is one with which the in- dividual States should deal. If your State wants to set up an FEPC it has the power to enact such laws. But it is apparent the States want none of it. In a number of States where the peo- ple had an opportunity to vote on such legislation it has been defeated. This includes California and other Western States. And where it has been adopted, I am told it has been a complete failure. While this legislation is sectional in part and you may feel that it will affect the South alone, in this you are sadly mis- taken. It is of such far-reaching proportions and will have such detrimental effect upon our country as a whole, that I feel it is my duty to appeal to you gentlemen from the North, the West, and the East to join with us from the South in defeat- ing this bill. No legislation brought before this House, since the days of reconstruction and the iniquitous force bill is so vicious in character and of such a nature as to create such dissension among citizens, and set group against group and class against class, race against race, as this bill. What does the bill do? It arouses in- tolerance and prejudice in the minds of all involved. It injures those who its proponents claim to be interested in helping. It is class legislation of the extremist type. It abrogates the right of contracts. The constitutional rights of the employer are denied by this leg- islation. It is discrimination to the exe tent that constitutional rights would be denied employers in order to satisfy the demands of those claiming to have been deprived of their rights. It can be ruin- ous to the man who has spent a lifetime building up a business: First. Charges of unfair employment practices would be easy to make by an unscrupulous and irresponsible applicant and hard and costly to disprove. Second. The burden of proving that an applicant is not qualified for a job would fall upon an employer. Third. Employers would be required to comply with interpretations and deci- sions made by a partisan or a prejudicial administration. This bill provides for the appointment of a Commission composed of five mem- bers, the Chairman receiving $20,000 and the other members $17,509 each, and it further empowers this Commission to appoint such officers and as it deems necessary to assist in the performance of its functions—no limitation to the number of employees that could be re- tained, to send from one end of the country to the other to pry into the business of every free-born American citizen who happens to employ 50 persons or more, The cost to the tax- payers of this country can be tre- mendous, While its enforcement wil
2209 practically be impossible, it further pro- poses to pay witnesses whose depositions are taken, or who are summoned before the Commission, or any of its agents, the same fecs and mileage paid in the courts of the United States. Mind you, gentlemen, these fees are paid, not for the purpose of trial, when a law has been violated and an indict- ment returned as in the United States court, but also for the purpose of in- vestigating to see if this act has been violated. It does away with the right of trial by jury. It compels the alleged violators to give evidence against him- self, an unheard of procedure in Amcri- can jurisprudence, and in direct viola- tion of the sixth amendment to the Con- stitution of the United States. Section 9 (e) provides: No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from 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 of forfeiture, but no indi- vidual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concern- ing which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimina- tion, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. The immunity herein provided shall extend only to natural persons so compelled to testify. While this section docs provide that no individual shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on ac- count of any transaction or matter he is compelled to testify or produce evidence. It does provide that the individual so testifying shall not be exempt from pros- ecution and punishment for perjury in so testifying and the immunity shall cx- tend only to natural persons. Under this act a swarm of Federal In- vestigators could be employed to camp on the doorstep of every factory in America. Bear in mind, my colleagues, that this act does not apply to the South alone. It applies to the great manufacturing plants of the North, East, the Middle West, and the West. You Republicans who speak so often and so Joudly of your love for free enter- prise, stop and think before you vote for this legislation, for if you support it, you are sounding the death knell of all free enterprise in America. Some of you may be laboring under the delusion that this act will not affect your section, but I say to you frankly and in all sincerity that, in my opinion your sections will suffer just as much by its enactment as the South. There are many places in the United States where the Negro is not even per- mitted to stop, much less to seek em- ployment or a place to live and educate his family, and that is not in the South. I know of no place in Tennessee, or Geor- gia, or Alabama, or Mississippi, or Loui- siana, or any Southern State where a black man or a man of any other race or religion is not permitted to live in peace and in happiness and does not en- joy the opportunity to earn an honest and decent livelihood. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I think-I can safely say to you, that the black man has received fairer treat- ment in the South where he is known and understood than he will ever receive anywhere else on earth. Our factories, our lumber mills, and farmers have em- ployed and are employing him and have done so since he was freed. We have provided schools for him and have sought to educate him both morally and indus- trially. In the South, there exists an affection and loyalty between blacks and whites as in no other section. While the white people of the South have paid 95 percent of the taxes, the Negro has received his full share of its benefits. We of the South have no grudge against the Negro. We know his faults and his weaknesses and we over- look both, and recognize his virtues. The Negro has made great progress in the past 85 years. In my section we have Negro doctors, lawyers, merchants, farm- ers, teachers, preachers, operators of trucking and taxi lines, architects, con- tractors, and carpenters. They have entered into all kinds of professions and businesses. They have prospered and are respected in the community. Only a few days ago I read in the paper of my home that a Negro lawyer had an- nounced his candidacy subject to the Democratic primary for one of the judge- ships on the session court of our county, and in doing so, he stated: Hamilton County has heretofore honored Negroes by electing them on justice of the peace courts, and since race relations here are fine, I believe that today is no exception. I merely sight that instance to show that good fecling exists in the South between the two races, and it will con- tinue to exist if we are left alone to work out our own salvation without interfer- ence from selfish propagandists from the North who know nothing of our problems and care less. In the hope that you, my colleagues, on the left of this chamber wil] be in- fluenced by the wisdom of one of your really great statesmen of the past, I quote from Senator Borah’s speech in the United States Senate on January 7, 1938, when discussing another bill deal- ing with civil rights he said: Notwithstanding anything that has been said or that may be said, this is a sectional measure. It is an attempt upon the part of the States practically free from the race problem to sit in harsh Judgment upon their sister States where the problem is always heavy and sometimes acute. In my opinion, the southern people have met the race problem and dealt with it with greater patience, greater tolerance, greater intelligence, and greater success than any people in re- corded history dealing with a problem of similar nature. And in conclusion, the Senator from Idaho said: The progress, the development, and the advancement of the South, including the last 70 arduous years, her history from Washing- ton and Jefferson down, rich with the names of leaders, orators, statesmen, her soil, her sunshine, her brave and hospitable people, her patient and successful wrestling with the most difficult of all problems are all a part of the achievewent of our common FEBRUARY 22 country and constitutes no ignoble portion of the strength and glory of the American democracy. I will cast no vote in this Chamber that reflects upon her fidelity to our in- stitutions, or upon her ability and pur- pose to maintain the principles upon which they rest. No manufacturer, no businessman, no employer, wherever he may be situated, is willing or wants the United States Government to tell him who he may em- ploy or who he may discharge, and that is exactly what this bill undertakes to do. I urge you to defeat this bill, for it can do naught but bring trouble and dissatisfaction to a reasonably happy people. Mr. O'HARA of Wlinois. Mr. Chair- man, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina {[Mr. Sims}, whose sym- pathy with many liberal viewpoints has won him the friendship of liberals from the North, has sought in his presentment of the southern viewpoint on the pend- ing bill to male a distinction between civil rights and human rights. His op- position to this bill he bases upon his conclusion that its effects would place civil rights in priority to human rights. I am afraid I cannot agree with the distinguished gentleman, That which for convenience in reference we call a bill for civil rights stems from the hu- man right of all men and women to live. Men and women in a complex industrial society, unless born of families of means, cannot live unless they have gainful em- ployment. Shelter, food, clothing, every- thing necessary to keep body and soul together, must come from the proceeds of that employment. This bill aims at affording all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States an equal opportunity in obtain- ing and holding such employment with- out any discrimination based upon racial and religious prejudices. I fail to see where there could be any human right more fundamental than the right to live, and it is to esta>lish that right to live on the part of millions of our countrymen now discriminated against that this proposed legislation has been presented. I don’t care what you call it—civil rights, as is the easy term in the vocabulary of its proponents, or something sought to be forced upon us in priority of human rights, as the gentleman from South Carolina says. I do not think the good men and women in the galleries above us are interested in labels. No matter what you call it, this is a bill to give human beings the right to live and to enjoy equal oppor- tunities in employment when possessed of equal qualifications. I can conceive of a situation when a period of great unemployment, such as was visited upon us in the early thirties when the policies of reactionary gov- ernment brought us to a wreck, those men and women in the groups discrimi- nated against, being the first to be dis- missed, and the last to be reemployed, would be doomed as individuals and as a group to unwarranted privations and in many instances to actual starvation. No, Mr. Chairman, the right to live of all human beings, without regard to color
1950 or race or religion, can never be inferior to any of the rights of a more fortunate and numerous group. I know of noth- ing in the Constitution of the United States, ceriuinly nothing in the law of Ged, that establishes the right to dis- criminate against one’s brother in prior- ity to the brother’s right to live. Mr. Chairman, this day in tris Cham- ber, where so many great battles have been fought and won for human rights, will long be remembered. Today an old and passing order made its last stand. The galleries in this Chamber have been filled for the many hours that we have been here. Until the general de- bate began, 5 hours after we convened at noon, there was little of excitement to command the interest of those packed galleries. The monotonous calling of the hundreds of names on one roll call after another was al] that we, the Representa- tives of the people in what has been termed the greatest deliberative body in the world, had to offer. Yet, Mr. Chairman, those galleries have remained packed hour after hour, and they will be packed, I venture to say, all night and all day tomorrow if it takes that tame to bring this bill to a vote. I ask my colleagues to look upward at the faces of tne men and women looking down at us. There is nothing of idle curiosity in those faces. I have never seen reflected in the faces of any gather- ing more sincerity of feeling, more inten- sity of emotion, the greater marked be- cause restrained. With rapt attention from the galleries above they look upon everything which is transpiring. If I read aright the expression in their faces it is one reflective of their joy that on this day and in this Chamber the good fight has been made and is on its way to triumph—the good fight to end discrimi- nation in the opportunity to get and hold a job—the good fight for the human right to live if everyone, even those of other races, creeds, and color. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that in the Second District of Nlinois, which I have the honor to represent, the senti- ment for the passage of this bill is over- whelming. In Chicago we do not like any sort of discrimination. Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Chairman, in the short time allotted to me I would like to make clear why I am opposed to the FEPC bill. It has been said before but I would repeat that you do not give one person more liberty by taking liberty from another. This bill would do just that. In taking the right of an em- ployer to determine who he wants to hire, how he wants to promote them, or who he may want to fire, is in my opin- ion, destructive of his constitutionally guaranteed individual freedom. At the same time such legislation is discriminatory toward all employees in that it attempts to coerce them into working along side of or with other per- sons with whom they may not be com- patible. We know from long experience that you cannot make people like each other by passing a law saying that they should. The improvement of relations between various groups is going to come from education and not from the de- crees of Congressmen. This bill would be destructive of the harmony now exist- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ing between the races in the South. Great strides have been made in edu- cation, job opportunity and living con- ditions in recent years; this bill would stop that. It would also interfere with the operation of labor unions, Furthermore, the enforcement of the technical provisions of this bill would result in taking away from our American citizen his constitutional rights to refuse to testify against himself on the grounds of self-incrimination. This legislation would establish a giant bureaucracy where the definition of dis- crimination would vary and change in accord with opinions of those individual persons administering the law. This legislation, in my opinion, would be destructive of the powers reserved by the States in our Constitution and it is unfortunate that this impractical pro- posal should be used to make a political issue of the problem of racial relations. To impose these unwanted Federal reg- ulations on the individual States would be to act in complete disregard of the certain consequences of discord, strife, and disunity. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Myr. Chair- man, I oppose the enactment of the pro- posed FEPC bill. Regardloss of the mo- tivation for such a law, it will not ac- complish its avowed objectives. There never has been a human being or a group of human beings with sufficient insight into the minds of men to determine whether or not unfair discrimination is present in any particular instance. Such a law would be impractical. It would be merely a source of ltigation, strife, and harassment. The South favors segregation. In the North there is apparently a desire by some people to enact laws against segre- gation, not only for the North but for the entire Nation. FEPC would seek to destroy segregation of the races, at least in the employment phase of social be- havior. This would not improve the op- portunities of colored people. Segregation is a natural thing. Every- where in nature we find it. It is mani- fest that there are not even approxi- mately identical individuals, regardless of the question of race. In human na- ture segregation is natural. For ex- ample, young people who habitually at- tend Christian Endeavor meetings scel- dom find their usual companionship among young people constantly fre- quenting taverns and bars. The laws of nature cannot b2 changed by human laws. Laws not first written in the souls of men, like tracings by fin- ger tips in wet beach sands, dissolve by force of the superior laws of nature. Aside from the impracticality of the FEPC bill, the objectives of batter op- portunities for all are more readily achievable in a segregated system of so- ciety. The northern approach of abol- ishing segregation has resulted in fewer opportunities for colored people than the southern approach of preserving segregation. This we can see from even a@ casual study. Recently a colored man from the North visited the South and affirmed in widely distributed news releases that opportuni- ties for Negroes are better in the South than they are in the North. He pointed 2201 out that Negroes could be taxicab drivers in the North but could not get franchises to run taxi companies as they could in the South. The same can be said for opportunities in professional groups. For instance, out of every 1,000 Negroes in the South, 7 Negroes have professional jobs in edu- cation, while in the rest of the Nation the ratio is only 1 out of every 1,000 Negroes. The ratio—on a per capita population of Negroes basis—is 7 to 1 in favor of the segregated system of the South. In the North there are today less than 100 Negroes in medical and dental schools, while in the South in two segre- gated medical schools alone there are 1,100 Negroes enrolled. For example, there are more Negroes from Pennsyl- vania in one of these southern schools than there are Pennsylvania Negroes in all of the medical schools in Penn- sylvania. In the South, where segregation in em- ployment is practiced, Negroes tradi- tionally do certain types of work; and if they have the desire to advance them- selves they have a better chance to achieve employer status and professional types of work than they do in the North. There are Negroes in my home town who employ many other Negroes in such varied fields as construction and insure ance. In my section of the country there are substantial numbers of Negro lawyers, doctors, preachers, and edu- cators. From the observations and sta- tistics available to me, this segregated pattern of the South seems to offer more opportunities to the colored people than the system urged by some people in the North. There are many other objections to the contemplated FEPC bill. Besides deny- ing the right of an employer to select agents and employees to handle his af- fairs, if would deny the rights of em- ployees to choose their associates in busi- ness. It would deny employees the right to bargain collectively in this ficld. It would deny the employer the right to hire, promote, or discharge employees on the basis of efficiency or faithfulness, be- cause the legal prohibition of discrimi- nation could often be raised when the employer would have difficulty in ex- plaining the intangible things which en- ter into a determination of confidence between employer and employee. Under this proposed law, an employer could be compelled to pay wages to per- sons who had never been in his employ- ment. The right to contract in this’ specific field would be abridged. The right of trial by jury is also destroyed in this field, and the employcr would be required by law to give testimony against himself and to expose his private papers to public scrutiny. Employcrs would be subject to investigations, harrassment, fines, and penalties without end. FEPC has been considered in about ascore of States. Sixteen of these States have rejected the proposal. California recently turned it down by about a mil- lion votes. Clearly, intervention in this field is against the will of the vast ma- jority of those who have spoken on the subject.
2202 Who then seeks such a law? There are some misled idealists who have en- dorsed such legislation. There are some people who think that backing such leg- jslation would be politically helpful to themselves. Finally, there are the Com- munists who welcome the disunity that is inherent in the agitation for this law. They also have the most to achieve by the passage of the bill. Because of the potential expansion of such a law into attempts to control thought by law and in the further regimentation of people through socialistic bureaucracy, the Communists would make the only real gains that would come out of such an enactment. I submit that the proposed FEPC leg- islation is impractical, that better means are available for helping colored people and they are now being used in the South and that the bill violates fundamental American rights and would be just an- other step toward statism and totali- tarianism. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of this FEPC bill, H. R. 4453, & new era in Government affairs will have been ushered in. It will be known as the era of regimentation and red tape. It will be the era of complete Government control and domination over every phase of business and industrial life of this country. It will, fn fact, be the era of totalitarianism. We can, in fact, bid our democracy good-by. This measure provides for the creation of a board to enforce this law which will have full power and authority to enter into any business or industry and dictate the terms of employment, of hiring and firing, and even the conditions of work. It will make the members of the board for the enforcement of FEPC czars with an interest, fortified with a legal right, to meddle in every phase of our business activity. The days of the independent businessman will be at an end. I have seen boards and bureaus op- erate here in Washington for many years. Most of the time they start out with fairly good intentions. After a while, with power and authority, the boards become aggressive and are prone to overstep even the authority which the Congress has given them. In points often distant from the seat of govern- ment, they work with the fortitude of a zealot and the misdirected energy of a crusader. The average citizen ts some- times powerless to resist them. Thomas Jefferson, a great patriot and the father of the Democratic Party, once ‘said, “The best-governed are the least governed.” I subscribe to this philoso- phy. But the Jeffersonian philosophy as stated above is not the rulc of this in- iquitous FEPC bill. The FEPC rule is one of more government, more regula- tion, and more regimentation. Such in- evitably will lead to centralization and concentration of power. This bill is a bad one. It js a bill which will result sooner or later in changing the form of our government and it should not pass. Mr. SABATH, Mr. Chairman, as everyone in this House and nearly all the people in the country knows by this time where I stand on this important CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE question, and realizing that I cannot at this late hour change the views of those determined in their opposition to this meritorious and humane legislation, I shall briefiy answer the statements of some of the gentlemen who find fault with our consideration of this bill on Washington’s birth date and at this late hour. Oh, these gentlemen know this late session today is not the fault of those of us who are in favor of this bill, but that it is due to the actions of these very men who raise these objections because they are the ones who have been delaying con- sideration of this measure, not only for hours and hours today, but for months— yes, for years. The record is very clear that I en- Geavored to secure the consideration of this legislation in the Seventy-ninth Congress—again during the first session of this Eighty-first Congress, and that I have continuously endeavored, since this present session convened, to secure action for a rule for the orderly consid- eration of this till, but due to the fili- bustering tactics that have been carried on in the Committee on Rules I have been unable to secure the approval of such a rule. I have tried and tried and tried to bring about the orderly con- sideration of this measure, providing sufficient time for each and every Mem- ber to express his views, but my efforts have becn frustrated by these very gen- tlemen who now complain, and who have, during this entir: day—for the past 6 or "7 hours—delayed its consideration by their frivolous actions and delaying mo- tions requiring so many roll calls. And though it is late in the day, and it may take until midnight or longer to secure a final vote on this measure, I shall insist that we reriain until] the final vote is recorded I shall insist on it be- cause nearly every outstanding church, labor, liberal, fraternal, social, and humanitarian organization has urged and pleaded for the enactment of this legislation. Other speakers have men- tioned these organizations by name and I shall not burden the record with repeti- tion, but I wish to insert at this point five representative telegrams received from such organizations located in my home city of Chicago: Cuicaco, Itn., February 20, 1950. ADOLPH J. SABATH, House Office Butiding, Washington, D C.: On behalf of our 200,000 CIO members we urge your support FEPC bill (H. R. 4453) February 22. Urge you to remain in close attendance floor of House all day to prevent parliamentary delays and vote passage of pill without amendments. ALBERT TOWERS, President, Chicago Industrial Union Council, CIO. Cuicaco, Iu., February 21, 1950. Congressman Apo.PH J. SABATH: Chicago Federation of Labor is interested in having the FEPC bill (H. R, 4453) passed without further delay. We urge you to stay on floor of House tomorrow and do your utmost to stop filibustering speeches and vote for passage. Wri A. Lex, President. Wim F, CLeary, Secretary. FEBRUARY 22 Curicaco, Inu., February 21, 1950. Hon. Avo.pH J. SABATH, House Office Butlding, Washington, D. C.: Local 194, PTA, with 4,000 members in Chicago urges you be present in House of Representatives on Wednesday, February 22, and vote “No” on adjournment. We fur- ther urge you use your influence and your vote for passage of Powell FEPC bill. Can think of no better way to honor memory of George Washington who led Revolutionary War to free all citizens of United States than to pass FEPC law on this date. JOHN GALLACHER, President, ELIZABETH WROTON, Legislative Director, Local 194, FTA. Cuicaco, Iuu., February 20, 1950. Congressman ApotpH J. SABATH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Urge you attend continuously House ses- sion Wednesday until FEPC is voted upon. Rakbi Morton M. BERMAN, Chicago Division, American Jewish Congress. Cuicaco, Iuu., February 21, 1950. Hon. ADOLPH J. SABATH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Understand FEPC vote scheduled Wednes- day 22d. We urge your close attendance to prevent parliamentary delays and your fa- vorable vote for H. R. 4453 without amend- ments. Bishop Bernard J. Sheil, Catholic Youth Organization; American Civil Liber- ties Union; Sidney Williams, Chicago Rabbinical Association; Catholic La- bor Alliance; Japanese-American Citi- zens; League Independent Voters of TiHnois; National Association for Ad- vancement of Colored People; Young Women's Christian Association; Na- tional Council of Jewish Women; American Jewish Congress; Church Federation of Greater Chicago; Chi- cago Council Against Racial and Re- ligious Discrimination; Bureau of Jewish Employment Problems As I stated in the letter I sent to many Members of this House yesterday, urging them to be and remain on the floor of the House until final action is taken, while suggesting that they should not fall for any of the substitutes or amendments offered “not by the fricnds but by the enemies of this Icgislation’’, I hope they will come to the conclusion that my re- quest and advice was timely and that they will not yield to any sinister influ- ences that are endeavoring to destroy the real bill endorsed by these fair-minded and well-intentioned organizations. There will be two such substitutes offered. Neither deserves the support nor vote of any friend of civil rights. This undignified—yes, this imprudent procedure witnessed here tonight should serve as a reminder to the membership of this House and to the American people that sound legislation on fundamental principles cannot be expected from such farcical procedures; and that in the fu- ture the Committee on Rules will not deny rules as it has in this case and pre- vent the orderly consideration of vital legislation. Let us unite as real Americans in giving this measure an overwhelming vote of approval, demonstrating to the American
1950 people that the oft-repeated pledge of both great political parties on this funda- mental issue is to be finally carried out. NO NEED FOR FEPC Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, we are here today, on the birthday of the Father of our Country, called on to enact legislation which would cause George Washington to turn over in his grave. If it were at all possible for this great man to be reincarnated and come today to this Chamber he would have much more to say to us than he said in his farewell message. One of the first things George Wash- ington would say to us in no uncertain terms 1f he were allowed to speak in person to us today would be to tell us that we cannot successfully legislate morals into a people and that we cannot legislate traditions from the conscious- ness cf a people. He would remind us that freedom was not Icgislated into the existence of the first American patriots who followed his lead in working out for themselves a brand of freedom and lib- erty which has come to be unique in a world peopled by human beings. He would cite for us the example of the hardy Americans of his time who gained freedom and liberty only as they pre- parcd themselves to receive it. Mr. Chairman, did the patriots under Washington at Valley Forge and scores of other battleflelds, where lhberty was bought at the price of blood, die for the kind of freedom which would allow a bureaucratic government to deny an em- ployer the basic right of choice in sclect- ing the employees who work for him? Did they die for a way of life which would deny employers the right of con- tract? Did they die for a way of life which would deny the employer the right to hire, promote, or discharge employees on the basis of their eficiency, merit, or faithfulness? Did the patriots under Washington die fighting for the estab- lishment of a way of hfe which would subject employers to endless investiga- tions, harassment, and possible fines and imprisonment as determined by a com- mission? If we have proper respect for truth we must admit that the patriots did not shed their blood in order 1o estab- lish a system of government which would deny an employer the right of trial by jury and give him no right to a review of the facts founded by a commission com- posed of bureaucrats. One of the basic things for which they fought was the right of every man to a trial by a jury composed of his peers. It is to shame the name of the glorious dead that we evon consider legislation on today, of all days, which, if enacted, would deny Americans the basic rights for which our forefathers died. Mr Chairman, the whole so-called civil-rights program of which the meas- ure we debate today is most iniquitous, has been conceived in iniquity and nur- tured with the milk of corruption. The proponents have sinned grievously in playing upon the ignorance and preju- dices of certain minority groups of our citizens. They have held out to these groups the promise of something to be bestowed upon them in the name of lib- erty which is not liberty at all but the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE most reprehensible form of slavery. They have told these groups that a form of liberty and freedom can be legislated for them which these people have not had time to earn for themselves. It would be so much better if the propo- nents of this measure would tell the Negroes and other minority groups in this country the truth and let them know that freedom does not come by legislative decree but by hard work and devotion to ideals which lead to liberty. I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, of the story of a man who was watching the chrysalis of a moth as the worning motn was undergoing the pains and pangs at- tendant to breaking away from the shell of the chrysahs. This man watched with pain in his heart the struggles of the baby moth as 1. fought to break the bonds of the enclosing chrysals As he watched the painful struggles of the in- sect which was aborning he suffered the vicarious pains of the struggle After watching the painful struggle of the baby moth for awhile he reached the place where he could not bear to witness the agony any longer In order to put an end to the pain of the struggling insect he got a pair of scissors and cut the chrysahs which confined the moth thus freeing it from the agony by bringing it prematurely into the world it sought to enter He had performed a humane and charitable deed for which he con- gratulated himself but his joy was short- lived for he found that, although he had spared the moth the final pangs of birth, the moth could not fly or even walk In helping the moth be born he had for- gotten that the blessings of this life do not come easy to those who would enjoy them He had failed to remember that strength is gained through struggle and is not something which 1s donated or granted by legislative decree. The story of the chrysalis being shorn prematurely from the body of the moth aborning simply emphasizes the fact that there are no easy short cuts to the mountain tops of human experience in the human existence of mankind. We must all go through the green-apple stage of development, as it were, before we can hope to attain the ripened stage where fruition of human ideals 1s at- tained. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday there was announced in this hallowed Hall the true purpose of the so-called FEPC by the gentleman from New York who in- troduced the original FEPC bill. In a colloquy between the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays], the gentleman from New York [Mr, Marcantonio] stated that if the poli- cies espoused by the notorious Mr. Thad- deus Stevens had been followed imme- diately subsequent to the termination of the War Between the States, there would now be no need for such legisla- tion as the FEPC. ‘The particular policy to which the gentleman referred was that which demanded that each and every freed slave be given 40 acres of land and a mule. Knowing of the gentleman’s ad- herence to the Communist Party line this statement comes as no surprise since the taking from those who have and giving to those who have not is a cardinal prin- 2203 ciple of the Communist Party. In stat- ing this communistic policy, however, the gentleman has emphasized the fact that the FEPC is inspired and sponsored by the Communists who leave no stone unturned ir sowing discord in this country. It is said by the proponents of this measure that we are playing into the hands of Russia when we fail to enact the FEPC. They say that the Russians point to discrimination in America as the Achilles’ heel in our armor of democracy. In answer to this argument I am made to wonder if we have grown so weak and spineless as to be driven to do those things which we know to be wrong sim- ply because our arch enemy, the Com- munists, suggest that we do them. Are we called on here today to do those things which will be pleasing to Russia or are we concerned with the things which have to do with the life and liberty of Ameri- can citizens who have made the system of free enterprise work in such a way as to astound the entire world? When the Russians have allowed to their citizens one small fraction of the freedcm and liberty which is automati- cally allowcd even the least deserving American citizen in this country then they can have earned the right to criti- cize any tacet of the picture which makes up cur American society. I am made to wonder if the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Marcantonio], would have the Ne- groes 1n this country trade their present lot for the lot of the average Russian living today under Stalin's form of so- called democracy. It may be that some of his constituents who live in the ghettos of New York City where there is not sup- posed to be any such thing as discrimina- tion would trade their lot for that of the Russians but I am sure that there are no Negroes living in my district down in south Georgia who would trade with them. The fact of the matter is that the thinking Negroes of my district would not trade lots with those who sleep in the gutters in the ghettoes of Harlem. We are not hypocritical in the South with reference to the problems attendant to the living side by side of two different races. We realize that social barriers must be maintained if the integrity of the races is to be kept inviolate. We recognize the fact that a half-breed born by cohabitation of the two races will not be recognized by either race. We know that this cohabitation will be encouraged by destruction of the social barriers and we are not willing to be accessories before and after the fact in doing that which will help lead innocent children to be born into a society where they are not recognized either by the race of the father or the race of the mother. We do not hate the Negroes in the South. We accept them on the basis of the worth they have earned as individ- uals. The best story I have heard to illustrate this point has to do with the elderly Negro man who had come North at tle instance of his son and who did not tarry long in Yankeeland. Upon his return to Georgia he was asked why he had returned from the land of_ his dreams. His answer was to this effect, “Boss, de Yankee Joves us Negroes as & race but hates us as individuals. You
2204 white folks in the South hates us Negroes as @ race but loves us as individuals. As far as I am concerned I prefcrs to stay here where I am accepted as an indi- vidual instead of as a member of a de- spised race ” This story aoes graphically illustrate the feeling between the south- ern white man and the southern Negro. Mr Chairman, we southerners are not proud of the lack of educational facilities afforded our people. We re- alize that there is a grievous lack of educational opportunity afforded our people. This lack is not confined to the Negro race. We would like very much to be able to furnish all of our southern children with more adequate educa- tional facilities, for we are convinced that many of the pressing problems at- tendant to the living side by side of two different races could be solved by educa- tion and the raising of living standards. We are doing our very best to provide these facilities but are falling short of our goal simply because we are not finan- cially able to do the job. If the proponents of the pending FEPC legislation really and sincerely want to help us solve our racial prob- lems in the South they can best do the job, in the true spirit of brotherhood, by sharing with us their wealth sufficiently as to make it possible for us to raise our educational standards in the South. We will accept this financial aid and do our very best to be worthy stewards of it in doing the very best job possible in rais- ing the level of educational accomplish- ment in our section of the country. I believe it worthy of note that the South would not need financial aid for our educational system if we had no Negro population. The truth of the matter is that the average Negro pays little or no taxes in spite of the fact that his children must be educated along with the white children. Due to this fact a double burden is placed on the white tax- payer. The truth of the matter is that the average Negro in Georgia has had made available to him by the white tax- payers educational facilities for his chil- dren totally out of all proportion to the amount of taxes the Negro pays. It will be said that more taxes would be paid by the Negroes if they were afforded more economic opportunity. This leads to the old question as to which came first, the chicken or the egg. The Negro cannot avail himself of additional economic op- portunity until he has been given the educational opportunity to prepare him- self fur it. If we can get aid in giving him thir educational opportunity I sin- cerely believe that the economic oppor- tunity will be forthcoming. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to propiti- ate the gods of petty politics by appealing to the vanity of certain sniveling pressure groups composed of people who suffer from © monumental inferiority complex, we are asked here today to pass into law legislation which would deny American businessmen the right to hire employees of their choice. Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would not vote for a measure which would require an employee to work for an employer against his will. There- fore, by the same token, you should not vote for a measure which would require an employer to hire an employee against CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE his will, Do you not think that the American businessman is already har- assed almost to the point of distraction by bureaucratic rules and regulations coming out of Washington? Will you not at least leave to him the right to hire and fire employees at his own discretion instead of at the direction of some bureau in Washington? It is a distressing spectacle and a strange commentary on contemporary America to listen one day to certain Members of Congress condemn the police state methods of government employed by Russia and other communistic coun- tries and then on the next day Hsten to these same people advocate the adoption of the same type of measures in this country. If police state methods are bad for other countries they are even worse for this country where we have a heri- tage of freedom behind us. It is more than distressing, it is disgusting to hear certain Members of this House whc are publicly most vociferous in their de- mands that FEPC be passed, admit pri- vately that the legislation will not work and that they are really not fer it but must give the appearance of being so in order to be elected. Ethics will not al- low me to divulge the names of these Members who have been heard to express such sentiments, but the truth is that some of those who have been vieing for credit on this measure have been heard to make such statement. Can we won- der that our fair land is beset on every hand by vexing trouble when we have in this Congress men who resort to such arrant demagogery? Have we so com- pletely lost faith in God and man as to allow politics to completely dictate our every action? A man who will espouse a cause publicly which he denies in private does not merit a seat in this great body and should be repudiated by an aroused constituency. I pray for the day when only legislation will be passed on the record which would have been passed if the vote had not been a matter of rec- ord. If that day ever comes you will not see such legislation as we have before us today passed, for I sincerely believe that if every Member here today were to vote his honest convictions FEPC would not Pass. Mr. Chairman, the mere fact that the proposed legislation would make it pos- sible for an employer to be brought be- fore the Commission, tried, convicted, and sentenced without trial by jury should be prima facie evidence of the unconstitutionality of the act. One does not have to be an astute student of the Constitution of the United States of America to know that one of the basic concepts upon which it is founded is trial of all Americans by a jury composed of their peers. The so-called Powell FEPC bill would, if enacted into law, establish in this country a veritable gestapo cloaked with the power of the judiciary and with the further power to issue rules and regula- tions having the full weight and force of law without the prior approval of the Congress. This legislation is one more step the Congress will have taken in the direction of delegating legislative powers to the executive branch of our Govern- ment. We need not take many more FEBRUARY 22 steps in this direction before we will have reached the place where the Congress might as well dissolve itself and let the President run the affairs of the country through his executive department. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we have not reached the place where we are willing to leave the destiny of this country in the hands of one man no matter who that man might be. Surely it is time that the Congress began to look to the recapturing of some of the power it has already relegated to the executive de- partment instead of giving it more power as the proponents of this bill propose to do here today. Mr. Chairman, have we reached the place in this country where a law-abid- ing free American citizen can no longer call his soul his own without the fear of being investigated and haled before some quasi-judicial body to answer to some specious charge cloaked with the gen- eral term “discrimination.” Mr. Speaker, if the proponents of this bill are honestly exercised over alleged discrimination in the field of employment in this country they might well add an amendment to this bi]l which would make it an unlaw- ful practice to refuse employment to a person because of age or sex We all know that it is extremely difficult for people over 45 years of age to get em- ployment in this country and we also know that women are discriminated against in certain fields of employment. If discrimination can be abolished by legislative decree then the discrimina- tion because of age and sex just as easily as that which attends race, color, creed, and so forth can be abolished. If the people of the State of New York or any other State want the kind of law which is proposed here today then it 1s their right to pass such a law in any State. We do not want it in Georgia. The people of the great State of Cali- fornia do not want any such law as they so clearly testified when they defeated just such a proposal by a resounding ma- jority. It has been said here today that the people of the State of California did not know what they were doing when they voted down FEPC in their State. This statement is an insult to the intelli- gence of the people of California and gives Members from that State just ground to arise in the well of this House and address themselves to the point of personal privilege in the behalf of their insulted constituency. Mr. Chairman, to further show that the proposed bill would be a travesty on justice it will be noted that there is not a single thing in this bill which would require that an applicant for a job be required to possess any degree of qualifi- cation for the job sought. In other words, the bill simply says that an appli- cant must be hired regardless of qualifi- cation or else the employer will be sub- ject to the police powers of a bureau- cratic commission exercising gestapo powers. This is too much to ask the people of America to take. It will not be taken without untold amount of at- tendant trouble and dissension. It will cause racia] tensions to be accentuated instead of lessened and will cause bitter- ness to supplant a growing understand- ing between the races. The South is
1950 progressing in the fleld of racial rela- tions, but the passage of this bill will do much to undo the great good that has been done in recent years. Mr. Chairman, you will find recorded in the Holy Bible the story of how the Master asked a question in the form of @ parable which has been ringing down through the ages since the time of its enunciation as the very best defense of the system of free enterprise which has made America great. The Master, in Matthew 20: 15, quoted the employer as saying: “Is it not right that I do what I will with my own?” Mr. Chairman, need more be said as to the religious im- plications of this legislation? The pending legislation is said to be a bill which will wipe out ali discrimina- tion caused by prejudice. In order to remove an effect you must remove the cause, and you can no more legislate prejudice out of existence than you can effectively pass a law requiring all men to become Christians. The bill purports to give to employees rights which they do not now enjoy. The truth of the matter is that it only gives to employees what- ever rights some governmental bureau- crat determines they are to have. It is this bureaucratic police-state agent who has the right to determine where preju- dice exists. The question surely, then, must rise as to whether any agent of government is better qualified to deter- mine the existence of prejudice than is the employer himself? The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. KELuiexy] has said here on the floor today, in effect, that Russia does not like the way we do things here in America and, therefore, we should mend our ways in such way as to please Mr, Stalin. The gentleman from Pennsyl- vania {[Mr. FuLTON] has said that the greatest argument Russia has in the world today is that she guarantees all people first-class citizenship. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many people in Amcrica want first-class citizenship in a prison camp. If that is the kind of citizenship which the gentleman holds up to the American people as the ideal existence then I am made to wonder how the gentleman’s constituency would like to have this kind of first-class citizen- ship imposed on them. Mr. Chairman, if this bill becomes law thousands of Negroes will suffer because of it. Many of them will lose their lives as a result of the violence engendered by this legislation. This blood will surely be on the hands of those who support this iniquitous bill, They will not be able to absolve themselves of guilt before God by claiming that they were trying to help those who will have paid for this stupid mistake with their lives. In God’s name and for the sake of thousands who will suffer because of it, let us not com- mit the utter folly of passing this ter- rible legislation. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fitting that the Farewell Address of George Washington should be read annually to the House on the anniversary of his birth. His message is neither out- dated nor is it merely a pleasing collec- tion of meaningless platitudes. XCVI——139 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Those who listened discernedly to the reading of this great document a few hours ago heard these words of Wash- ington, which, perhaps, more than any other, are applicable to the circumstances under which this crime against America is being committed today: Real patriots, who resist the intrigues of the favorite, are Mable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. It is desecration to the extent of sacri- lege that this iniquitous legislative mon- strosity should be presented to this body on the anniversary of the birth of the Father of our Country. Apparently, the gods of politics must be served, though, even if it means legis- lative repudiation of everything this great country stands for, and the aboli- tion of the individual liberty which made it great. We, who cherish the governmental perfectionism embodied in our Constitu- tion; we, who embrace still the faith of freemen in the great vehicle through which our freedom has been preserved, are appalled at the subtle but deadly attacks to which constitutional govern- ment is being subjected tonight. As the Pied Piper lured the children of Hamelin to their destruction, so are the selfish minorities seducing American democracy into the pitfalls of atheistic commu- nism. When will America awaken to the real dangers of this communistic maneuver? Will she wait until it has destroyed every vestige of freedom guar- anteed to us under our Constitution, and has smothered individual initiative and dignity under a blanket of dictatorial bureaucracy? Will she wait until she has been subjected through this legisla- tion to the tyranny of a Federal police state, not unlike the evil gestapo of Nazi Germany? Amcrica must awaken now before it is too late. Can anyone deny that the success of our democratic form of government came about through our constitutional divisions of power between the Union and the States, and through the intricate system of checks and balances, limiting and double checking the powers of our Federal Government among the three great branches: the executive, legisla- tive, and judiciary? Can anyone deny that it is this sys- tem that has guaranteed freedom and liberty to all who are so fortunate as to be Americans? Are we to allow the sac- rifices of ourselves and our forefathers, since the birth of our Nation, to have been made in vain? Are we to hold for naught the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, George Washing- ton, and those other patriots through whose courage and ability the founda- tions of the world’s greatest nation were laid? Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of the dangers of overcentralization; he might well be on our side in this fight today. More than a hundred | and fifty years ago, he warned us t Were we directed tow Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon 2205 want bread. © * * The support of ths State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our do- mestic concerns are the surest bulwarks against anti-Republican tendencies. By the same token, George Washing-~ tion said in the message read to this House but a few hours ago: It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution to those entrusted with its admin- istration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional sphere, avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of one depart= ment to encroach upon another. And Washington also stated the case against interference into State affairs, when he said, in that same Farewell Ad- dress, these words: The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing it into different depositories * * * has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our own country, and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necossary as to institute them. It is a sad commentary on American politics when the Democratic Party— saved from oblivion more than once by the people of the South, and led by a man who owes his position to the action of white people of the South in the 1944 convention—places its best friends on the altar of political expediency. We of the South have been betrayed in the house of our fathers; we have been driven from our political home by those willing to substitute alien philosophies for the time-honored principles of our party. Those who would throttle the South and the Nation into economic and po- liticai suffocation through this vicious legislation have resorted to trickery, de- ceit, and misrepresentations in their ef- forts to destroy the meaning and force of our Constitution. They have so colored the barbs that they would thrust into the flesh of constitutional government that we, who oppose their vicarious argu- ments are subjected to being called bigots and race baiters. Are they not conscious of the fact that the people of the South are civilized; that we are a God-fcaring people, and that, despite their facetious arguments to the contrary, that our Ne- groes are happier and better satisfied than in any other part of the country? Might we not well reply by saying: ‘Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thine own eyes, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote from thy broth- er’s eye?” There is no doubt but that this is sec- tional] legislation, almed at the social and economic processes of the democratic South. Are we, the South, really the tail that is trying to wag the dog? Or is it the other way around? We have 13,- 000,000 Negroes as against the rest of the Nation’s three million. Should we not be best qualified to speak on the subject of harmonious race relations; as our sec- tion, alone, can boast of freedom from race riots and like racial disturbances? There is no agitation from the southern Negro to have this iniquitous legislation inflicted upon the people of the United States.
2206 Does anyone honestly believe that such legislation can accomplish the ends allegedly desired? Our Nation is dedi- cated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but what you are try- ing to do here is to keep all men equal. You profess to fight communism; yet you further its interests through acts such as this today. Is it not, as Lincoln said, true that— You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. And— You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and inde- pendence. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. There is no real desire on the part of most of the proponents of this type of regimentation to elevate the position of the Negro. What is the crux of the re- port of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights labeled “To secure these rights”? There is a deadly conspiracy behind this report and this legislation, to carry out its stated purposes Here is the philosophy of those who drafted this ridiculous report—and I quote from page 6 of the report: It is the purpose of government in a& de- mocracy to regulate the activity of each man in the interest of all men. What better definition could be given of the aims and purposes of communism, if that principle is not applicable? Surely there is no man here, willing to be honest with himself, who would sub- scribe to such an alien philosophy of government. By what stretch of the imagination might that be considered to be the Amer- ican way, the purpose of government in @ democracy to regulate the activity of each man? I say it reeks with the putrid odor of communism. Such regimentation is not a function of government in a democracy. It is in complete and abject violation of article IX of the American Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Can anyone deny that through this legislation you would deny the employer his constitutional right of free choice in the selection of his employees? Can anyone deny that? And the next article of the Constitu- tion, article X, states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States Tespectively, or to the people. These two statutes, fundamental in any construction of our Constitution, specifically forbid the enactment and en- forcement of such discriminatory laws as the one proposed here, There is no doubt about the uncon- stitutionality of this legislative outrage. Is the Congress to stultify itself by en- acting into law that which it knows to be a violation of the American Consti- tution? Let me remind my Republican friends, who spent several hours the other night nibbling yellow-legsged chickens at a dollar a plate in the guise CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of paying homage to Abraham Lincoln, that he held: No man who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitu- tional measure, no matter how expedient he may think it. You will not be doing yourself, your constituency, or your Nation any good by the enactment of this legislation. To direct punitive measures at the South may be politically popular back home. It may get you votes you need when you need them. Do not forget—however— that this law will be applicable to your section as well as the South. Your peo- ple will also be subjected to the tyranny of a police state and made subservient to the whims of an appointed bureaucracy should this bill become law. You will be forced to share with the southern people the miseries and humiliations in- flicted by a totalitarian bureaucracy, and your freedom will also be reduced to a florious memory. Do not be deceived. Those in America who realize the implications of this type legislation do not want it. It has been defeated in every State that had the courage to put it to a vote of the people. A Nation-wide poll, conducted by psy- chologists Link and Feinberg, shows only about 11 percent of the people, North and South, endorsing the idea of legislation as a cure for our racial ills. On the other hand, 77 percent of northern and west- ern opinion and 89 percent of southern opinion favors a program of education asacure. Yet the same crowd of agita- tors who wail the loudest about the plight of the Negro 1s the same crowd that has blocked every effort of the Southern States to provide educational opportuni- ties for our Negroes. This was evidenced last year by the refusal of Congress to ratify the pact of the Southern States in setting up regional schools for the Negroes. The very man—who represents the so- called ADA in the other body and who was responsible for the resolution in the Democratic Convention that ejected the South from its own party—the same man who 1s loudest in his demands for this very legislation, has also imtroduced legislation in the other body to deny Government employment to persons har- boring certain religious beliefs, includ- ing anticatholicism and anti-Semitism. Where is the real sincerity among propo- nents of this legislation? ‘Consistency, thou art a jewel” Let us all heed the words of Booker T. Washington, real leader—not only of his own race, but of America as well—surely he had the interests of his people at heart. Listen to this, spoken by the greatest Negro of all time: Brains, property, and character for the Negro will settle the question of civil rights. The best course to pursue in regard to * * © elvilrights * * * inthe South is to let it alone. Let it alone, and it will settle itself Mr. Speaker, not only is this bill unen- forceable per se, and discriminatory in concept; but its inevitable result is chaos, confusion, tension, animosity, and hatred. We of the South do not fear FEBRUARY 22 its immediate effects. We have always been a suffering people—the victims of a total war, and 12 years of unprecedented persecution in its wake. We know what it fs to sacrifice, and we are not afraid of adversity. But our fears, Mr. Speaker, lie in the ultimate goals of this legislation, which we interpret as the weapon by which our Government and liberty will be assassi- nated. No representative government since the birth of civilization has existed suc- cessfully for so long a time as has the democratic constitutional Government of the United States, though we are still young in the sisterhood of nations. The system under which we live—the division of powers under our Constitution be- tween the States and Federal Govern- ment—has been the chief contributor to the continuation of our democratic form of government, and our Constitution is the pillar on which that system rests. If our Nation is to endure as one na- tion, we must recognize certain truths. We must, in each section, respect the rights and sympathize with the problems, of other sections. As one who was born and reared in the South, and as one who holds the southern way dear to his heart; as one who knows what it means to sacrifice for America, I ask, in conclusion that you heed these immortal words, spoken by Henry W. Grady: The future holds a problem, in solving which the South must stand alone, in deal- ing with which she must come closcr to- gether than ambition and despair have driven her, and on the outcome of which her very existence depends. This problem 1s to carry within her body politic two sep- arate races, and nearly equal in number. This burden no other people bears today— on none has iv ever rested Without prece- dent or companionship, the South must bear this problem, the awful responsibility of which should win the sympathy of all mankind and the protecting watchfulness of God alone, even unto the end. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, my first objection to the proposed FEPC legisla- tion is that it violates the Constitution of the United States and as a corollary in- vades the province of the States and the personal freedom of individual em- ployers. Subsection B of section 2 of the pro- posed act provides, and I quoic: The Congress therefore declares that the right to employment without discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin, is the right of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States and that it is the national policy to protect the right of the individual to be free from such discrimination. It is to be noted that this declaration of principle and policy is not based upon the provisions of the Constitution of the United States or of any amendment thereto. Section 1 of the fourtcenth amend- ment provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
1950 zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal pro- tection of the laws. Obviously the proposed FEPC fs not justifled under this section of the Con- stitution. The only other possible justification under the Constitution is what is known as the commerce clause, which delegates to the Federal Government the right to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations. In subparagraph I, section 2, the act in question attempts to justify itself under this section of the Constitution in these words, and I quote: To remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce among the States and with foreign nations. I maintain that present employment practices in no way obstruct the free flow of commerce. On the other hand, I am surc the converse of this proposition is true and that the enactment of the FEPC would disrupt industry throughout the country and would bring to a trickle the flow of commerce between the States. This legislation is certainly unneces- sary to protect the rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States under the Constitution. Every citizen at pres- ent has equal protection under the laws in that he can now appeal to the courts if he thinks one or more of these rights have been violated. Not only is the present legislation not authorized under any provision of the Federal Constitution, but its enactment would be a violation of the property rights of every individual employer in America. I maintain that this proposi- tion is true because it is obvious that an employer’s business could be totally de- stroyed and the employer, whether in- dividual, partnership, or corporation, brought bankruptcy because of the pro- visions of this act. By what possible means could an employer prevent one group of employees from quitting their jobs if they did not choose to work with employees imposed upon the employer by a decision of the Fair Employment Practice Commission proposed to be established by the FEPC Act? In the second place, I maintain that the proposed legislation would violate the fundamental principle of freedom of choice as to persons to be employed by an employer. In the next place, it would make the employer subject to the harassment by a horde of investigators snooping through the plant and the books and records of the company. Already they are sub- jected to enough and too much of this sort of thing from bureaucratic Wash- ington. This could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and could very well result in a depression such as we have never known before. Moreover, in the South, at least, and I am sure on the west coast where the yel- low race is involved, enactment of the FEPC proposal would stir into flame, latent passions and antagonisms that are generally being smothered and over- come by the process of education and the forces of social evolution and change, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE maintain that whatever unfair hiring or employment practices may now exist, cannot be eliminated by legislation. They must be gradually eliminated as I have suggested, by education, by the raising of the economic level of minority races and groups and by the sometimes slow process of social force. These forces already are bringing about great changes in the South. Of course, fundamentally the opposition of the people of the South to the entire so- called civil-rights program is based upon the fear of our people that the segrega- tion of the races will be broken down, which in turn will lead to the intermar- riage of persons of different races. The inevitable result will be a mongrel race of half-breeds While discrimination in employment is not so closely related to this ingrained social feeling, nevertheless, it is in the background of the thinking and feeling of the people constantly. As far as mixed employment of the two races is concerned, progress is being made in the South. I can illustrate what I mean by telling you of a small but pop- ular restaurant in my home city of Rome, Ga. When I was there last I was struck by the fact that in this restaurant, which is patronized by the white business peo- ple of the city, Negro girls and white girls and at least one Negro man were eme- ployed in the establishment. I asked the employer if there had been any question raised about the fact that the white girls and the colored girls were working side by side. He replied that no patron and no employee had ever raised the question. To enact this FEPC legislation would reverse this trend and leave the minority race in our midst in far worse condition as a result. Finally, Iam opposed to the enactment of FEPC legislation because it would set up a new commission with a horde of employees to swarm over the land like a plague of locusts at great expense to the taxpayers. And this at a time when the administration is at last awakening to the necessity for making partners of pri- vate enterprise in the most necessary effort to maintain an expanding econ- omy in America. Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, at the Yalta Conference of the Big Three, Russia, whose armies had taken over Poland, agreed and declared and guar- anteed to the Poles free and democratic government and the holding of free and unfettered elections. But the whole world knows that, notwithstanding those glittering phrases and promises, the iron curtain was rung down and now the Poles are slaves. The same promises were made to the people of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ru- mania, Bulgaria, and other countries now behind the iron curtain. Their lib- erty is gone. Their citizens are puppets of the state. They, too, are slaves. And so it has always been with those who seek to destroy democratic govern- ment. Those who seek to destroy always employ sugar-coated phrases to lull to sleep their intended victims, Now we have before us another high- sounding attractive phrase. You are 2207 going to bring on the kingdom of utopia by the creation of a Fair Employment Practice Commission. Nobody objects to those words. No one could fail to ad- mit that, honestly spoken, the objectives contained therein should be sought after by all governments and all people. These words are just as attractive as the free and democratic government and unfet- _ tered elections that the Russians have been promising the gullible all over the world. The results will be the same— destruction of the rights of man, the wrecking of democratic government, the paving of a highway to dictatorship. Under the sugar-coated words ‘fair em- ployment practices,” we are by this de- vious phrase, playing into the hands of those who expect some day to erect a supercommunistic state in America. There are possibly some here who honestly believe that the passage of this act will do the things claimed for it. If so, they should read the history of the last 30 years. However, the majority of those supporting this measure are do- ing so with their tongues in their cheeks for passing political benefit. They have their eyes and ears cocked to the mi- norities who will vote in a block at the next election. I would say to them that it is more than coincidence that every Communist in our country, every fellow traveler, every “pink,” is in favor of this damnable bill. They are the only downright, wholehearted supporters of this measure. They know what they want to do to our democratic government. They know that this bill will help them do it. Do they want to see our free-enter- prise system continue? Do they want to see democracy work? The answer is obvious. No; what they want to do is destroy the sovereign States of the Un- ion, make man a puppet of government, concentrate all power in Washington, and, when they undermine the Consti- tution by placing it here, they will pluck the ripe fruit wher the time for revolu- tion comes. This bill is primarily intended to de- stroy the free-enterprise system. There is no Member of this House who docs not give lip service to the free-enterprise system. It is the bone and sinew of our democratic way of life. Through pri- vate enterprise, which like all other sys- tems has not operated perfectly, this country has, during the last three dec- ades, won two great World Wars and produced enough not only to make our people prosperous but also enough to prevent starvation of the people: of a good part of the world. Through this system, our country has progressed from a wilderness to the greatest Nation the world has ever seen. Under it, the in- dividual with ability, initiative, and in- dustry has only the sky as a limit to his accomplishments. Under it, the laborer has the best wages and the highest standard of living known in the world. The great labor leaders of our country have time after time announced their belief and faith in the free-enterprise system. Through all the striving of the common man for better opportunity and greater returns for his labors, never has
2208 it been suggested that he might better reach his goal by surrendering his in- dividual liberty to the superstate. I assert again that there is no one here who would dare say that he does not be- lieve in the free-enterprise system. Yet you would destroy this system by the enactment of this FEPC proposal—by giving the American people this wolf in sheep's attire. What incentive will there be for big business or little business to put shoulder and mind to the wheel of greater and better production when the Government agent comes down from Washington and tells him whom he must employ and whom he must fire? Free enterprise just simply cannot be run that way. Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that this bill, while blanketing the Nation, is primarily aimed at the South, where two great races live side by side in growing understanding and respect for each other. No situation just like it has ever been seen in the world before. No prob- lem of such gravity and magnitude has been handled with so little bloodshed and misunderstanding. While there can be no perfect written formula for solving all the interrelations problems of the white and Negro races, we are, with the help of God, working it out, and all we necd is to be let alone by those who understand little and care less. To you, both Democrats and Repub- licans, and fellow travelers too, who seek to ram this thing down our throat, I say, read the history of the reconstruction days in the South, when Thaddeus Stevens, the tyrant of this House, backed by a great army, in his hate placed over my people the scum of humanity, both white and colored, in an effort to exter- minate our southern civilization. Re- member, though, that when the South was disarmed and prostrate, without a single battalion of troops at her com- mand, she rose up and drove the carpet- baggers and scalawags out. I say to the little Thaddeus Stevenses of this House today, and there are some here, the South will do the same thing again if necessity requires. Please take warning. Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Chair- man, there is little doubt in the minds of the realistic that the present breast thumping in behalf of FEPC by many of its most vociferous advocates is the cheapest sort of demagoguery. Those who are truly interested in protecting civil rights of minorities would do well to disasscciate themselves, as much as pos- sible, from the agitators who are princi- pally concerned in winning votes for themselves rather than bettering working conditions for anyone. There is also a tendency to imagine or exaggerate con- ditions for the purpose of having some- thing to denounce and for which to de- mand corrective action. The sincere friends of civil rights would do well to remember the words of the great Negro leader, Frederick Douglass, who was born in my home county of Talbot in Mary- land, 133 years ago this month. Speaking in 1880, he said: ‘When we shall possess in the colored peo- ple of the United States a class of men noted for enterprise, industry, economy, and suc- cess, we shall no longer have any trouble in the matter of civil and political rights, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Fred Douglass realized that an indus- trious and skilled workman needs no le- gal compulsion to assist him is securing employment. Free American enterprise in the long run gives opportunities to those who are ready and able to give fair value either as an employer or employee. No amount of laws on the statute books will do as much for the colored people or other minorities as their own energy and skill have accomplished and will con- tinue to accomplish. Levi Jackson became captain of the Yale football team, not because of any doctrine of recognizing minorities, but because of his ability and character. He has been the only Negro ever to play on the football teams of my own alma mater, yet he was elected captain by his teammates withcut any coercion. If there had been an intercollegiate FEFC, I wonder if the result would have been the same. In any case, it would have tended to detract from any honors done him. Joe Louis and other champions have won their honors without legal aid. It has been well and often said that morals cannot be legislated. On February 17, the Sun, of Baltimore, in an editorial en- titled “Mr. Truman and FEFC” said of the proposed admunistration-backed measure: Mr Truman’s position is so remarkable that we venture to quote a part of it The reader should be 1eminded that, by custom, the President is rarely quoted directly and that his wolds are therefore paraphiased: “The President would not support * * * any Icgislation which deprived a citizen of the right to run his own business * * © as he thought best. The President does not agree that the adminuistration’s FEPC bill would huve any such result * * * Under him it would not be so administered ” So much ior one aspect of the President's position. Now for the rest of it: “But opportunities to get Jobs for which applicants are fitted * * * must not be denled n this country on grounds of race, color, or any similar discrimination The value of the FEPC blll will be to give this position the dignity, strength, and clarity of a national policy * * * For that reason he wants the bill passed, even if it were only to serve as a c.ub in the closet ” It may be possible to make these two con- tiguous parts of a single statement jibe, but it would take a special kind of rationalization to do it. For our part we do not see how a man can be free to run his own business and at the same time bec forced to employ people he does not want to employ. Perhaps the revealing part of Mr Tru- man’s declaration of policy on FEPC 1s to be found in the phrase “a club !n the closet ” The editorial closes with these para- graphs: Thus the whole proposal reeks with the most unpleasant and debilitating kind of politics. But that is perhaps not its worst feature. The bill contains a direct invitation to any person who believes that he is being discriminated against to lay information against the employer. This invitation 1s ex- tended not to Negroes alone but to any per- son who imagines that he is being discrimi- nated against because of “ancestry.” The bill contains that very word and the report which supports it makes the allegation that em- ployers do in fact discriminate against those whose parents came from other lands. Thus, a second or third generation German or Pole or Italian or Irishman or Englishman can, on his own initiative, charge that his failure to secure a job or his discharge from FEBRUARY 22 that Job is in fact racial discrimination. The opportunity thus provided for disgruntled would-be or former employces to harass de- cent businessmen ts greater than that in any legislation, existing or proposed, that we have evcr heard of. The bill as it stands is therefore a disgrace- ful measure. It cannot possibly be enforced in any real sense. But it can be used by evil- minded persons in and out of Government to Play havoc with ordinary business practices. For the people it is supposed to benefit, the FEPC bill is a palpable fraud, concocted for the cheapest of political purposes. For the employers it is supposed to coerce, it is a malevolent threat out of which they can ex- pect only harassment by competitors, politi- cal enemies, or disgruntled employees. Mr. Chairman, the Baltimore Sun tra- ditionally has championed the causes of minorities. It is a great democratic newspaper that even now is throwing its full weight—as it has for many years— in favor of repeal of Maryland’s Jim Crow laws. Its views are worthy of serious consideration. Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Chairman, the Members of this Congress are faced to- day with one of the most dangerous pieces of Icgislation to the entire Nation that has come before this body in years. IT refer to H. R. 4453, which is chiefly the product of Representative POWELL and Representative MarcanTONIo, of New York. If this bill is passed, it will set up a great bureaucracy here in Washington, and smallcr bureaucracies working under the direction of the Washington bureauc- racy, in every county, city, and town in the Nation. It will regiment, annoy, harass, investigate, and coerce any and every little businessman it seeks to dis- turb throughout the Nation. It can subpena and compel him to bring all of his business records thou- sands of miles into any court they desig- nate at his own expense to defend him- self against any charge of discrimina- tion alleged against him from any appli- cant for a job who he does not employ if he selects another applicant when he needs to hire a man or woman in his store, shop, or factory. This bill takes away from any em- ployer the right to freely hire or dis- charge employces needed in his busi- ness. It will discourage the businessman from expanding his business and giving more jobs and employment to more peo- ple. It will deprive men and women of a chance to work and earn their living. It will defeat the very purpose set out in the act. It will add to the unemploy- ment rolls that now stand at 4,000,000 people in the Nation. It will lower the national income and the productivity of the Nation. It will mean less jobs for good men and women who need them the most. It is my conviction that this legislation is unsound in principle, impractical in application, and certainly should not be enacted into law. The ideas embodied in this proposed legislation were conceived and born in Russia. The first government job ever held by Joseph Stalin, the present Russian dicta- tor, was in 1917 when he conceived an FEPC undcr a different name in Russia,
1950 Surely the membership of this House will not intentionally follow the leader- ship in enacting legislation first con- ceived and applied in Russia by Joseph Stalin. His ideas finally crossed the Atlantic and have been embodied in this iniqui- tous bill whose chief sponsor and sup- porter is Mr. Marcantonio of New York, The first supporters and agitators for this type of legislation was the Commu- nist Daily Worker newspaper of New York, and was endorsed by all Commu- nists in our Jand who seized upon this op- portunity to further stir up class hatred throughout the Nation in the hope of destroying this Republic. Later the offi- cers of the CIO, which organization was permeated with hundreds of Commu- nists in its ranks, scized upon it and en- dorsed it in the hope by the deception of its promises to add to its dues-paying membership in an attempt to largely organize the colored working men and women in our Nation. Most of the supporters of this bill now seck to exploit it for political purposes, Were it not for the political advantage most of the supporters of this bill hope to gain it would not be before this Congress today. Politics has brought it before this body. If a secret vote could be had without a written record being made, it is my judgment that less of the member- ship present would vote to tasten this dangerous bill on the people of our Na- tion. Mr. Chairman, the main purpose of this bill is to secure the votes of the great majority of the Negro voters in the Na- tion. It will hurt their opportunities for jobs, their opportunity for advancement in the future. It is a cruel deception of which I will have no part. It is grossly unfair to them and against their every in- terest. Mr. Chairman, I have always had a keen interest in the personal advance- ment and welfare of the colored people of this country. They are among our best American citizens. Coming from slavery into freedom about 75 years ago, by their own efforts, they have justified my con- fidence and the confidence of the people in the Nation by making the greatest advancement in education, business, the arts and sciences of any people placed in a like situation in the civilized world. I want to see their lot improved. I want to see them continue their proud record of advancement in the future, and I am confident that the passage of this bill will make it more difficult for them to continue to advance, succeed, and continue their great contribution as good American citizens to this Republic. I am and always have been, and al- ways will be opposed to any discrimina- tion against their welfare. Mr, Chairman, if any legislation is to be enacted, it should approach the prob- lem through mediation, conciliation, and investigation, seeking to bring about better race conditions and better op- portunities for all minority groups. You cannot bring about better rela- tions by passing another law. You can- not change the thinking and the hearts of any people by legislation. This prob- Jem must be worked out by a developing of a greater tolerance toward all people, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE beginning at the grass roots of every small community in the land. Instead of passing a Jaw that will increase preju- dice, we must approach it through Chris- tian principles by leading men away from the hates and prejudices of this world. That can be done. That must be done. That is the fundamental, moral concept underlying this entire problem. If we approach this matter on any other basis except a voluntary basis, the basis of education, the basis of taking men by the hands and leading them into the right path, we make the problem worse, and will do great harm to the principal minority race—the colored men and women of this Nation. Mr. PETERSON. Mr, Chairman, in their anxiety to pass legislation, I fear that the proponents have not closely studied the bill. Section 7 (a) delegates power to delegate to even a municipality or a possession the dangerous powers in this bill, It overrules other laws and contracts. It violates the Constitution, It invades the rights of the sovereign States. Section 9 requires unconstitu- tional self-incrimination. The provi- sions, instead of granting civil rights, infringes basic constitutional rights, Records and persons may be dragged to Washington to appear before subordinate employees. Delcgation of congressional powers should always be guarded. We will rue the day when we delegate powers to delegate powers. We are doing it here. Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, I have noted with considerable interest the vigorous way in which the two gen- tlemen from New York (Mr. Marcan- TONIO and Mr. PowELx] are working for FEPC. The result of their efforts can be of little concern to the people of their own districts, because New York already has an FEPC law. Now, they want everybody else to have one. In connec- tion with this, no truer expression was ever uttered than “misery loves com- pany.” The alleged purpose of this legislation is to prohibit discrimination in employ- ment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Just what is discrimi- nation? And who is supposed to be practicing it against whom? Have any of the proponents of this legislation ever taken the trouble to look in the diction- ary and see what discrimination means? It is defined as “unfair or injurious dis- tinction.” I tell you that any distinc- tions that have been made in the South have been and are operating to help the Negro; and if twentieth-century carpct- baggers would Ict us alone, the Negro in the South would make more and more progress. You can lead some people with a silk thread where wild horses will not drive them. This fs particularly true of southerners, but to a certain ex- tent it is true of Americans generally, We have never relished having some- thing rammed down our throats. Whenever the word “discrimination” is used, many people outside the South gang up and point their fingers at the South. I wonder how many of those finger pointers have made a sincere ef- fort to find out what goes on in the South, or have they chosen to get their 2209 misinformation from communistically inspired sources. It is logical to be- lieve that these troublemakers are dis- turbed because things are going so well in the South and they have inspired this means to stir up trouble. Since the War Between the States, the Negro has made great progress in the Southland. I believe they have come further during this comparatively short period of the world’s history than has any other race—and this with the leader- ship and assistance of the friendly white people of the South. Does this progress indicate that the Negro has been wrong- fully treated? These outsiders who say that t 1ey want to help the Negro have, by the r very propoSal of this type of leg- islation, sct back the cause for the people they say they want to help by another 25 years, and if this type of legislation should pass it will further set their cause back by another 25 years. They have opened all the wounds of the past 85 years and have put the spotlight on isolated instances, refusing to look in fairness at the over-a}l picture of ac- complNshment. They have, in many in- stances, aroused a feeling of racial in- tolerance in both races where none had existed before, or where it had all but died down. The principal objective of most people in life is to acquire happiness. May I remind you that happiness is not so much a matter of position as it is of disposition. People who know will tell you that the southern Negro is the hap- piest person in the world. He is happy because he is secure in the knowledge that regardless of any bad luck that may befall him, his white friends will look out for him. In those States that have FEPC laws, how many people would, in the event of illness of one of these Ne- groes, provide and pay for medical care and treatment for him without any hope or expectation of return or reward? How many businesses operating in these States would permit a Negro employee in seasonal work to continue to get money on which to live when he was not working and when there was no work for him? How many people in these States would spend any time trying to help a Negro get out of trouble which he had gotten into as a result of a riotous Saturday night? This type of helpful- ness is the rule in the Southland, rather than the exception. The proponents of this legislation do not know this, and should not be ex- pected to know it because they do not know anything about the real situation. All they know is to stand back and point a finger at someone else. It is up to those of Us who do have reason to know and do actually know the real facts to do everything we can to prevent the passage of legislation de- signed only for political purposes and legislation which will result only in in- jury to all the people of our srcat country. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, when the original bill to establish a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission was introduced in the Seventy-ninth Congress I found myself, after careful study of the text of the bill, unable to approve some of its provisions, despite
2210 my wholehearted support of its objective of eliminating or reducing to the mini- mum discrimination in employment on the basis of racial or religious prejudices. For example, the bill authorized the FEFC, a Commission appointed by the President, to issue complaints; to hold hearings and require attendance of wit- nesses at any place in the United States that it designated; to carry on investiga- tions; to examine or copy any evidence of any person being investigated; to make findings of facts; to make judgments on its own findings of facts; and then to en- force its own judgments. Whenever it is proposed that any agency of government be given such great powers, it is imperative that there be adequate assurance that its decisions will be fair; that is, that they will be sub- ject to proper judicial review. But the bill provided that the Commission's find- ings of facts were to be final, if supported by evidence. No matter how flimsy the evidence might be, no court of appeals could examine or review it. Thus the bill in seeking to insure the right of a citizen to secure employment for which he is qualified, without regard to his race, creed, or color, abridged another of the fundamental rights of every American citizen: namely, the right to go into a regular court of justice and ask for a full review of any action against himself which the citizen believes to be unfair Surely, to correct one admutted and shameful discrimination, it 1s not neces- sary or wise to commit another discrimi- nation. To give some of our citizens long overdue justice, 1t 18S not necessary or wise to deprive other citizens of justice. What we should have is equal justice under law for all, equal oppoitunity both to get Jobs and to go into court. So in the Eishtieth Congress I intro- duced a bill, H. R. 3273, to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission, with changes to correct the above and other defects. I have continued to sup- port proposals for such legislation. I think a food case can be made for the passage of such a bill, especially in those States where a substantial majority of public opinion supports the legislation and thereby makes it enforceable. I must state frankly, however, that the more I have studied this whole problem, the more coubts have aiisen as to the wisdom or the practicability of a Federal law for the whole country which would require the Federal Government to um- pose practices which, while quite accept- able in some States and areas, sunply are not acceptable to a majority in others and in those States might well injure rather than aid the cause it is desired to advance. To try by compulsion or governmental sanctions to enforce in an area measures which public opinion in that area will not support, usually leads to cynical disregard or violation of the law in question, and tends toward the same attitude with regard to other laws, too. It could halt or cven reverse the genuine progress that has been made in recent G@ccades in reducing discrimi- nation based on race or creed. Sol have come to view the McConnell substitute bill with more favor, or at least with less hostility, than have some of the sup- porters of FEPC legislation. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE A further factor in favor of the McConnell amzndment is that there is a real chance it can be passed by both Houses and become law, whercas the prospects of H. R. 4453, the Powell bill, being passed by the Senate during this session are slim, indeed. It can be argued that it is better to get something than nothing, and that this McConnell amendment is the only way that we can get anything in this session that repre- sents real gain. Might it not, therefore, be better for those who are in greatest need of the services of a Fair Employ- ment Practice Commussion, to recognize the practical realities, unite on the Mc- Connell substitute and give it a fair trial, rather than hold cut adamantly for “all or nothing’—and probably ect novhing? I have real sympathy with those who take the above position, end with their further contention that if ex- perience demonstrates that good results cannot be achieved by the processes of conference, conciliation, persuasion, in- vestigation of facts, and developing pub- lic opinion based on such facts—then the Congress can amend the act at any time to add enforcement procedures. We would thus take the first bite now, the only bite we can probably ect, and hope that it may prove adequate. If not, then take a second bite, if and when experl- ence demonstrates that it is necessary. I have come to a recognition that when one considers our country as a whole, the McConnell substitute may be the best way to gct the greatest amount of genu- ine progress, In summery, I shall support the Pow- ell bill, H R 4453, which 1s substantially the same as I introduced in 1947. There are some questions about at least one of the enforcement powcrs which, in the hands of a Commission so inclined, could lead to abuses of power which might defeat the purpose intended. But the author of the bill is aware of the am- biguity and has given assurance that he is willing to accept clarifying amend- ments to prevent any such developments. However, if the McCennell bill should be adopted by a majority of the House as a substitute for the Powell bill, I shall then vote for it on final passage It will at least get something started through the legislative mill, and break the road- block which has stalled all bills of this sort for so many years To vote against the McConnell bill, if it is the only thing before us on final passare, would be to vote for no lIcgisja- tion at all during the present Congress, and I cannot believe that would be in the best intcrests of all concerned. Mr HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, al- though the debate on this proposcd leg- islation has been on the usual high plane, the demonstration and activitacs we have observed all during the after- noon and night and up until this late hour in the morning clearly shows the real objective In my opinion which moti- vates the determination of the propo- nents to force such a far-reaching and dangerous legislation on the people of this country. The proponents would have you believe that it is the sound thinking American public insisting on this tightly FEBRUARY 22 controlled and binding legislation, that would strangle the lives and the actions and the freedom of our business econ- omy and political life. I am opposed to this kind of legisla- tion. Not only am I opposed to the Powell bill, which is the committee bill, but I am opposed to any such legislation which in my opinion is in complete con- flict and obnoxious to our American way of life It is well known that I believe such legislation to be contrary to the American way. However, at this point and reahzing the circumstances, I will support the McConnell) substitute in the Committee and vote for it as a substitute when we return to the House. I believe it to be the best procedure at this point. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no need of anyone trying to sugarcont or Icave the impression thes this Icgislation has any justification whatsoever. The debate in this House Tuesday on this issue was a most outstanding example of the most ardent proponent of this legislation. The gentleman trom New York |Mr,. Marcantonio] frankly admitted that 1ts real purpose was to do away with segregation and what he called Jim Crowism To be sure the gentleman from New York [Mr. PoweE.Lt], the author of this bill, said it was not directed at the South, it was not directed at segregation, it was not directed at any- thing except fair practices in employ- ment. He came on the scene only 2 or 3 years ago but the gentleman from New York (Mr Marcantonio], the most consistent sponsor of this Iegislation, has been trying for years and years to im- pose it, upon the free peoples of this coun- try He should know the real purposes and intent. Ah, yes, its aim is to establish a com- mission, a Government agency, with un- limited authority, the most far-reaching rowers of the business and cconomic life of this country ever given throughout our entire history. It has becn appropriately designated as a monstrosity. I believe firmly it to be a most danrerous control with far more implications than the OPA Ad- ministrator durin® the war or any other agency in the war emergency. Is it not easy to understand that if there are five men with unlimited powers who can say to any business throughout the United States, who they must hire, who they must fire, thereby determining the policies and largely the success of that business, that those five men actu- ally control the economy of our people. What business will dare or can afford to do anything other than comply with the bidding of these five men. Isn't it casy to see then that when five men all powerful over business and the economy of the country can with their manipulations from Washington draw a political noose around the necks of the peonle of this country. What business or group would fail to abide by the wishes in a political sense? Don't for one moment let us kid ourselves about what this will do. It cannot possibly work to strengthen democracy, the right of people to govern themselves, but on
1950 the other hand, it will inevitably lead to dictatorship and totalitarian policies. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Brown] was so right in my opinion when he said that he hoped he would never see the day when our Government would tell us who we must employ and what doctor we must bring into our homes. For me I had enough Government regimentation by order and regulation during OPA days, and I want to say to my own colleagues, my Democratic friends, there is no doubt whatsoever in my opinion that we lost control of the Coneress in 1946 because of such regula- tion and regimentation of a people that will not be bound and tied by executive fiat. And I want to say further, Mr. Chair- man, in my opinion, if the great leaders of our party persist on such an all- powerful Government agency of five men, it will not only destroy our party but it will so divide our groups that we cannot hope to continue to win elections. We have done pretty well in this coun- try. It has been because of the rugged free individualism, the opportunity that no other people has ever had in all the history of the world. Yes, we have become a strong, power- ful, and leading nation. Our influence is felt throughout the world. We are in this position because our people had an opportunity to make us strong. We have had the determination, the fortitude, the courage, the determination to give us the stability of a strong nation. It is the freedom, the civil freedom, the rights and privileges under our form of govern- ment that is responsible for it. Yet with all this progress, the oppor- tunities that are offered our people, some would wipe it out with one stroke by such legislation as we have before us. Let us not go the way of some of the other countries. I am encouraged by the interest in this dcbate. It is heartening to see so many rise up and express their fears and say publicly that this is not American. Certainly I do not believe in rank dis- crimination because of race, color, or creed. No one has a kinder feeling for those that need help or should have help than I do and this applies not only to the colored people but a lot of white people. You cannot direct the social life of the people of this country and force social fe among all people by leg- islation, but evidently that is the ulti- mate objective. What alternative is there? Destroy business, then where are your jobs com- ing from? Where are you going to get your employment? Sure the Govern- ment will do it, but what do you have? You have a completely social form of Government which has never worked to the best interest of the people. Not only is it revealed by history but we have con- tinually experienced it in other coun- tries, some of which we arc trying to help this very day. I join my other colleagues, Mr. Chair- man, in saying this just must not prevail. MAKING A LIVING SERIOUS BUSINESS Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, there are some basic facts in tre economic and po- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE litical Hfe of America which are not very pretty. There is a glaring gap between our ideals of equality and our practices, not only in the serious business of Amer- ican citizenship and its rights, duties, immunities, and privileges, but in the even more serious business of making a living. I have already said much of this to the members of the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor—to those with whom I once served on the committee, and whom I esteem as my friends and my colleagues. It is a fact, a deplorable fact but a real one, that in many parts of the United States Americar. citizens who happen to be Negroes have a harder time making a living than anybody else. It is a fact that in some parts of the United States employers wall not knowingly hire Jews, or will hire them only for subor- dinate or unpleasant tasks, in a pattern of discrimination which is similar to that practiced against Negroes. There are other localities in which Roman Catholics, and especially Roman Catholics of Italian, Spanish, or Mexi- can descent, feel the sharp lash of dis- crimination, and have difficulty in ob- taining jobs in preferred occupations; or if they can get a job they cannot gain promotion. Discrimination in employ- ment against orientals, or citizens of oriental descent, is very widespread; and in some States the very first Ameri- cans, our own American Indians, have the same trouble. AMERICAN CITIZTNSHIP IS ABSOLUTE AND INDIVISIBLE Mr. Chairman, American citizenship is absolute and indivisible, except by due process of law; and economic freedom and equality are even more important to the Nation’s and the individual’s ma- terial welfare than pohtical and intellec- tual freedom. A man with an empty stomach is not a particularly good citi- zen. The interests of all Americans are so tightly bound together that you can- not take away any part of the rights of one without chipping off a little bit of the rights of all. Now, there are some people with so little faith in what America stands for that they think discrimination against groups of people, and against individuals of that group, is somehow imposed by Heaven and not by the Devil. By and large, these are the kind of people who say that to bring to light abuses or lapses in our American way of life is somehow communistic, and that it is most com- munistic of all to try to do something about those lapses or defects, as we are trying to do in fair-employment legisla- tion. Curiously enough, the people who are most vociferous in their correspond- ence to me about this legislation, which simply spells out the right of evcry Amcrican to get a job on his own merits, are very likely to be the same ones who demand antiunion legislation in the name of giving workmen the right to get a job. Calling this kind of legislation com- munistic is sheer nonsense. We don’t know if strong and enforce- able legislation can be passed; and if it is passed we who advocate strong and enforceable legislation do not know with 2211 certainty that it will work the way we hope it will; but we also know that legis- lation of this kind will strengthen Amer- ican democracy and will make America stronger against its enemies. We know that if FEPC legislation is communistic, then Thomas Jefferson was a Commu- nist, George Washington was a Commu- nist, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt were Communists, and Harry 8. Truman is of the same breed. The argument falls of its own weight. We who plead for strong fair employ- ment practices legislation know that we would be faithless to our commitments, faithless to our party, faithless to our principles, and faithless to our country if we did not do everything in our powcr to stop discrimination, in employment or elsewhere. AMERICA FOUNDED ON INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY This Nation is firmly founded on the high ethical concept—an ethical concept inherent in every great modern religion, in Judaism, in Christianity, in Bud- dhism—of the essential and divine dig- nity of the individual man. When any man or woman js judged as to employ- ability on any other standard than his own worth as an employee, that concept is outraged and flouted. The individual is degraded, and so is the employer who commits this crime against democracy. I am always dubious of experiments in legislating public morality. I wish that I could be so optimistic as to be- Neve that this Jaw could be made un- necessary by public education and gen- eral acceptance of the principles on which it rests. That would be wishful thinking. As a realist, I know that edu- cation is too slow. Discriminatory prac- tices, especially in times of economic stress, grow and crystallize faster than they can be combated. New York State has proved that it is possible to legislate successfully in this field. We have not stopped economic discrimination in New York; but we have certainly discouraged it. Let us make our kind of democratic living work right here in America before we try to reform the rest of the world. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. O'Hara}. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my grate- fulness to the ranking Republican Mem- ber, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McConneEL] for granting me a few minutes to express my sincere opposi- tion to the Powell bill. Someone has well said: “That the right to live is certainly a fundamental civil right. The ability to gct food and drink is essential to life. You might argue, and I might agree with you, that you ought to have a civil right to have the Government feed you, if necessary. But I hope that you will not argue that you should have a civil right to compel any private citizen to whom you apply to supply you indefinitely with food and drink. For the same reason no one should contend that the moral right to earn a living provides a basis for creat- ing in anyone a Civil right to compel a private citizen to employ an individual in private business. I hope that it will be admitted that making it unlawful for
2212 an employer to refuse to hire a man is simply a way of compelling that em- ployer to hire such a man.” Mr. Chairman, it is tragically unfor- tunate, and perhaps it may be a moral wrong, for people to be bigoted or preju- diced against a person because of race, religion, or creed, or their racial origin, but we are no more able by legislation to remove that prejudice or that bigotry than we are to legislate that the sun shall not rise tomorrow morning. That, Mr. Chairman, is aamatter of education and time, and all of the things that must go to remove racial and religious prejudice, and in no other way. It does seem to me that the proponents of this bill, with all their sincerity—and I know they are sincere—are attempting to say, and do say by this bill, that an employer shall associate himself with an employee whether he is personally prejudiced against him or not. Tome that is wrong. I think one of the fundamental rights is the right of an employee to select an employer, as it is the right of the em- ployer to select his employee. I cannot imagine wanting to work for anyone who had a prejudice against me and did not want to employ me. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I yield. Mr. RANKIN. One or two gentlemen have taken the floor and harped on the fact that this was written into the Demo- cratic and Republican platforms I call attention to the fact that Rabbi Wise stated before either one of those conven- tions even met that it was written into the Communist platform. I saw his statement today. Mr. O'HARA cf Minnesota. Of course it is unfortunate, and it is an example to me of tawdry politics, in the face of our American way of life; I think it is un- fortunate for both parties. If you will pardon a persona] reference, let me say that I served with a colored battalion and had command of a colored battalion for some time in World War I. I was honored by my association with them and enjoyed it tremendously and had the highest respect for those colored men. In only one instance did I have the slightest trouble in the matter of discipline. Yet, when I think of my own associa- tions I realize that I come from a dis- trict that is overwhelmingly Protestant; they sent me, a Catholic, to this Con- gress to represent them. I am thinking in terms of the hundreds of little-busi- ness men in my district who would be subject to a bunch of official snoopers coming out to investigate them if some- body filed a complaint that he was being prejudiced because he was not employed or was discharged. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield one additional minute to the gentle- man from Minnesota. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for one additional minute Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. JONAS. I wish to call the gentle- man's attention to the language in the report on page 2, I presume the gentle- man is familiar with it. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. have read the bill carefully. Mr. JONAS. I refer to the lower part of page 2, where the statement is made: The fear of discriminatory discharges welghs heavily upon all who have ever known the frustration and bitterness of job discrim- ination, notably upon the approximately 26,000,000 Catholics, 15,000,000 Negroes, 5,000,000 Jews Docs the gentleman infer from that that all these people are discriminated against? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Why, of course not; the gentleman knows that. Certainly there is prejudice and discrim- ination, but there will always be. You can pass all the laws in Christendom and not be able to remove it. Mr. JONAS. I agree with the gentle- man, but 11 would appear that those who wrote this report wish the reader to draw the inference from this statement that these people would not discriminate against each other, but that those not of these races would discriminate against them. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has again expired. . Mr. POWELL. Mr Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York {Mr. RoosEvE.rI. Mr ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is no stranger to this House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I wish to touch briefly on the major sources of support for this legislation. We have heard it called Communist; we have heard it said that it was Communist-inspired; we have heard it referred to as being part of the Communist platform before it was 1n- corporated into the Democratic and Re- publican platforms. I ask the gentleman from Mississippi if simply because the dictator of Russia, Mr. Stalin, in 1944, I believe, announced that he was in favor of freedom of re- ligion 1n Russia the gentleman from Mis- sissippi would automatically oppose it here 1n the House of Representatives and in the United States of America? Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am asking the gentleman a question; yes. Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman asked me my attitude. I just want to say that I would not believe Joe Stalin or any Communist on oath, or off cf it. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Then, I assume that because this Communist platform carried FEPC before the Democratic and Republican conventions the gentleman feels that they should not have carried it. Mr. RANKIN. Iam opposed to it as a matter of principle. Mr. ROOSEVELT. This bill has its moral basis in the very essence of the Catholic, the Protestant, and the Jewish faiths; and the clergy and lay leaders of every major religion have emphasized this with all the earnestness and hope- Iam; I FEBRUARY 22 fulness at their command before the committees of the House and the Senate. I have here a very brief list of some of these religious leaders. The first is Bishop Sherrill, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not yield. Mr. RIVERS. I just want to say that Sherrill does not speak for me. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not saying that he speaks for the gentleman; I am just saying that in his position as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church he did favor this FEPC legisla- tion. Other religious organizations and leaders in favor of this act are: Rev. Samuel Cavert, of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ; Bishops Haas and Sheil: the National Catholic Welfare Council; the Catholic Interracial Coun- cil; Rabbi Willam S. Rosenbloom; and, yes, the late, and in my opinion very great, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, are in fa- vor of this legislation. The Synagogue Council of America and others are in favor of this legislation. The spokesmen of almost every labor union are for it, and they represent mil- lions of Americans who know that the future of our country, in fact the fu- ture of a free world, depends upon the fulfillment of the American dream that every man has a fair chance for eco- nomic advancement regardless of his race, of his creed, or of his religion. There are several businessmen, repre- senting business over this land, who are in favor of it. The bill which we have before us is, unfortunately, no stranger to the House of Representatives, FEPC bills were introduced in the Seventy-eighth, the Seventy-ninth, and the Eightieth Congresses. This is, more- over, the third time that our Committee an Education and Labor has favorably reported on FEPC. A majority of us, as legislators, have a past-due obligation to vote for it because our parties are pledged for it, and because our conscience dic- tates it. If we failtoenact H R. 4453 this time, then we shall have to answer to the people of the United States—indecd to the people of the world—for our failure to match promise with deed. The extensive hearings which have been held by the two Houses of the Con- gress—with testimony and messages from representatives of every significant group in America—are not devoid of meaning. For this bill has its moral basis in the very essence of the Catholic, the Protestant, and the Jewish faiths— and the clergy and lay leaders of every major religion have emphasized this with all the earnestness and hopefulness at their command. It is, in short, clear reflection of this first statement in our own Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Spokesmen of almost every major labor union have urged it on behalf of the mil- lions of the organized workers of Amer- ica, who know that the future of our country depends upon the fulfillment of
1950 the American dream—that every man has a fair chance for economic advance- ment, regardless of his race, his creed, or his religion. It is, therefore, no accident, Mr, Chair- man, that representatives of every re- gion of the United States have pleaded for this bill and that American states- men of every political persuasion, of every race, color, and creed, are on rec- ord and actively in favor of it. Every responsible student of interna- tional affairs has declared that this bill will strengthen America’s political posi- tion on the world scene. I have heard no one deny this. The Secretary of State has clearly said how urgently our United Nations and diplomatic repre- sentatives need this bill. The Secretary of Defense has indicated that making democracy work so that racial and re- Hgious discrimination will cease is “a basic ingredient of the national security.” The Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are proving their agreement by their actions to forward democracy in all of the services. As a Democrat, I am proud that Presi- dent Truman has missed no opportunity to reaffirm his conviction that we need an FEPC. Like most Americans, the President realizes that this bill merely advances what all of us say we believe in, the dignity of man and equality of economic opportunity. I was honored to serve as vice chair- man of President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights, and to gain personal knowledge of the depth of the President’s profound conviction on this great issue. Both parties, Republicans and Demo- crats alike, said they were in favor of FEPC in their convention platforms of 1948. And over and above this, a mass of research evidence based on the experi- ence of 10 States with various forms of anti-job discrimination laws, is eloquent proof of the effectiveness of the approach proposed in H. R. 4453. I am sure that every liberal Member of this Chamber, regardless of his party, will vote for this bill. I believe that every conservative Member must also vote for it—or else stand convicted of hypocrisy. Why? Because the conservative Mem- bers of this House have talked so much about economy, about the need for bal- ancing the budget, about the need for preserving free enterprise and individual initiative, about the need for an effective answer to communism at home and abroad. If they mean what they say on these issues, they will vote for FEPC. If they vote against it, the country will know that they are self-seeking vote chasers. Let me call these facts to the atten- tion of those conservatives who have in- veighed so strongly against the size of the national debt. ‘They speak elo- quently about the need for meeting the deficit in our national budget. But how much does discrimination in employ- ment cost us? Three estimates were made to the congressional committee. One, by a businessman, Eric Johnston, conservatively put the figure at $2,000,- 000,000 a year. Another, by a labor econ- omist, put the figure at eight to ten CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE billion dollars a year. A third, by an economist who is adviser to hundreds of business enterprises, set the cost at up- wards of $15,000,000,000. Since then, Elmo Roper has finished a survey which established the cost of job discrimina- tion as at least $4,000,000,000. We have often been told by leading Government and private economists that the seven to ten billion dollars in goods which we export represents the critical margin between American prosperity and depression. Here we have an equally critical margin of anywhere between two and fifteen billion dollars, and I rather think the true figure lies midway between those two estimates. Can any reasonable person doubt that adding this much purchasing power would help us to achieve a stable American prosperity? Perhaps that is why businessmen of the stature of Charles E. Wilson, Charles Luckman, William Batt, Beardsley Rum], Allen Dulles, Henry Luce, Paul Hoffman, and Nelson Rockefeller are all unquali- fiedly on record in favor of FEPC. These men know whereof they speak. They know what is good for this country’s business. They know that FEPC will add to that reservoir of skilled labor which is one of our greatest resources in America. They know that FEPC will help free the initiative and the enter- prise of millions of Americans whose energies and potentialities for construc- tive work are now crippled by discrimi- nation. They know that as job discrim- ination goes down, purchasing power goes up. And they know full well that that purchasing power will mean more seed capital for small business, more revenue for Government, more wealth for the entire country. Mr. Chairman, has there ever been a measure of such tremendous and forceful significance which has been so univer- sally sanctioned, so universally wanted, and so universally needed as this. There has been more than enough talk, more than enough study, more than enough deliberation. It is, Mr. Chairman, time for action. It is time to prove that we believe in the American promise of free- dom, the American promise of equality, the American promise-of opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HOWELL], a member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I think I can speak with some understanding of this legislation now before us and with some experience in this field. When I was a member of the State Legislature of New Jersey, I was the first one to sponsor such a bill in the House of Assembly. Later during that session the bill was picked up by the Republican majority and passed. It has been work- ing in very fine shape ever since then. It has not solved all of our problems in the field of discrimination but it has im- mensely reduced the onus, and has given employment in many lines of endeavor, to the people who were not employed before that act went into effect. The working of the act has proven that many of the fears, that many, some sincerely 2213 and some otherwise, had as to the dire effects and results of such legislation were unfounded. It has demonstrated that most of those things just have not happened. The legitimate and orderly functioning of business has not been in- terfered with. Many organizations and individuals who were skeptical and fear- ful of such a law have come beck and said that the law has not interfered with business. It has produced results and it has had a fine effect on the guaranty of civil rights in New Jersey. One of the main reasons why we need 9 Federal law at this point is the fact this is a national problem and despite the fact that many exhaustive studies have been made and many attempts have been made in a general way to prohibit discrimination in employment, through education, the fact still remaims much discrimination exists in that field. Im- provement has been very slight. This type of legislation is needed if we are going to make the democracy that we talk so much about and proclaim to the world, really work and function for all groups in our various communities. It has been suggested that many of the supporters of this legislation are not sincere in their support but that they support this legislaiton for political and for vote-getting reasons. For one, I can say, I do sincerely believe this legislation is worthy and needed and I feel that many other Members of the House are sincerely convinced this type of legisla- tion is needed. There may be a few in- stances here and there of persons who will vote for it for political expediency; there may be also a few who will vote against it for political expediency, even though the dictates of their own hearts tell them it is fair legislation. I think that this type of law, with the proper administration and proper han- dling, and with emphasis at the con- ciliation level is the type of a law modeled after the State laws of various States where it has been shown that it can work, if wisely administered, and fairly and honestly prosecuted, and that we will not have the trouble even in some of our southern States that so many of our Members have predicted will cause all kinds of havoc not only in some northern States, but in the South. I sincerely be- lieve that this type of thing will not happen, and with proper administration a lot of fears that many of you have expressed will not materialize, and that we can go on and make some real prog- ress in this field which means so much to many people in many minority groups. There is very little that we can do in thts field unless we pass this kind of a law. I urge your support of this bill as pre- sented, and hope a real effort will be made to obtain its passage in the other body. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has eyvired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hlinois [Mr. Dawson]. Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues in the Congress, the decision you are going to make here this afternoon is an important one; important not only to the 16,000,000 citizens of which I am u
2214 member, but important to many other minority groups, and important to every man and woman in these United States of America. The question of fair employment is not alone a question of the South; it is a question relating to every section of this country. It is a question whether or not this great country of ours will afford to its citizens an opportunity to work and live on an equal basis. I repeat, it is not a question of the South alone. It is a question for all America. It is a ques- tion for all America, because the thing we do here, and the attitudes we take to- ward this question of the right of every citizen to work, and similar questions, based upon the identity of some of the citizens of these United States, will affect the relations of the United States with other nations of the world at a time when the very life of the Nation is at stake. Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in what is within the four corners of that document? Then, what gives any citizen the right to deny to any other citizen the basic rights that every citizen is guaranteed therein; the right to live, the right to exercise the Hberty to go to the polls and have something to say about those who make the laws; those who interpret the laws and those who execute the laws? This is the question today, gentlemen, whether or not you will tell 16,000,000 that “You are not first-rate citizens of this country, the Constitution notwithstanding.” I am from the South. I was born in the South, and I will say this to the South. Do not make this question a race question. I will say to you that there are 12 Southern States but there are also 36 other States that are interested in the welfare of the citizens of the United States. I stand before you here today in a dual capacity. The Constitution says that every person born or naturalized within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State in which he resides. So every citi- zen in the United States does have a stake in what happens to me and mine in these United States. The South can no more isolate itself in the matter of treatment of citizens where the right to work is concerned from the rest of the Nation than can this Nation isolate itself from the rest of the nations of the world on questions affecting them all. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to pass this Fair Employment Practice Act and thereby outlaw conditions which con- stitute a disgrace on our country. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may need, and ask unanimous consent to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I seem to have been destined by fate to be closely involved with some of the most volatile and emotionally difficult bills coming before the Eighty-first Congress. I hope most sincerely and humbly that providence will give me the wisdom and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the emotional balance to deal justly and fairly with the problems, and with my fellow man, I realize also, that the moral code of the universe inexorably dooms to failure any law that is deliber- ately fashioned to trick or harm an indi- vidual. Today, we are considering the prob- lem of alleviating discrimination in em- ployment because of race, creed, or color. Jobs are being denied to many Americans because of social background, or religious faith, or because of the color of their skins, Our duty is to devise a workable and just method to bring about a correc- tion of this practice. There is a real problem and a challenge to allofus. Ig- noring it will not suffice—we must come to grips with it. I will do my best to mect it. In attempting to work out a solution, we must recognize that the type of dis- crimination we are considering is deeply rooted in the beliefs and feelings of human beings. Even though he is not personally prejudiced, an employer may feel it necessary to be discriminatory be- cause of the prejudice of his employees, or his customers—the public. A busi- ness enterprise is fundamentally a team of individuals who work together as a unit to efficiently produce goods. One discordant note can break down that necessary smooth-functioning group to the detriment of all. Furthermore, we must recognize that ingrained prejudices, which have been developed over the centuries, might eas- ily be turned into hatreds. An improper and ill-considered solution could tear our country asunder, as the subversive ele- ments would have it. I believe this problem can be worked out without playing into the hands of those who would see us disunited for their own se'fish reasons. Chairman LEsINsKr of the Education and Labor Committee has brought up H R 4453 This bill was reported favor- ably by the committee by a vote of 14-11. I voted against it and am opposed to 1ts enactment. My principal objection is to the enforcement and penalty sections of the bill. I believe our major controversy will occur over those provisions. They will point up certain definite questions Should civil suits be permitted in Fed- eral courts by a party claiming job dis- crimination because of race, creed, or color? Should it be made a criminal act to discriminate for those reasons? Should an administrative agency, with powers usually given only to courts, be established—as provided in H. R. 4453? Even making it a crime to discriminate in employment because of race, creed, or color, would give the accused a faircr hearing than is provided in this bill. The Constitution reqvires criminal statutes to specifically define the acts which are criminal. The accused is pro- tected by the Constitution from illegal search and seizure of his records. Only legal evidence is admissible against him, and his guilt must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no such protections in the bill H. R. 4453. If job discrimination were made grounds for a civil action, it would have FEBRUARY 22 to be proven by legal evidence. Damagcs would also have to be proven. The de- fendant would be entitled under the Constitution to a jury trial, and the ver- dict would have to be based on a pre- ponderance of the evidence. Where are such protections in H. R. 4453? If a commission were established to hear complaints of job discrimination, should legal evidence be required? Should the constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure apply? How much evidence would be required for conviction—a mere scintilla, a pre- ponderance, or would guilt have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Should the offense be carefully defined so that each employer knows exactly what is required of him? In addition to the problem of proce- dure in hearing complaints of discrim- ination, there are other questions which must be answered before an equitable law can be written. For example, should everybody who has been denied a job be permitted to bring an action by alleging some motive of discrimination? We are all members of some minority group. Should employers be harassed by such charges of discrimination whether or not they are well founded? Should not an employer be permitted to sue to re- cover costs of defending an action which was brought maliciously? These are only a few of the many matteis which should be considered if we are going to be fair. If we enact a law which does not cover these points—it may cause present prejudices to grow into hatreds Racial and religious groups may become more antagonistic—the Nation may be divided against itself. Many cf us who favor the principle of a Fair Employment Practice Commis- sion are compelled to oppose H. R. 4453. The provisions of that bill are inadequate and incomplete. None of the problems I have mentioned are properly met in the bill. The end result could be injurious to the very groups we are trying to aid and protect. If discrimination in employment is to be eliminated, some attempt must be made to remove its cause—prejudice, I have introduced a bill which provides what I believe is the best approach to eliminating job discrimination and its causes. This bill would establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission. It would be the duty of the Commission to bring about the removal of discrimina- tion in regard to hire or tenure, terms or conditions of employment, or union membership, because of race, creed, or color— First, by making comprehensive stud- jes of such discrimination in different metropolitan districts and sections of the country and of the affect of such dis- crimination end of the best methods of eliminating it; Second, by formulating, in cooperation with other interested public and private agencies, comprehensive plans for the elimination of such discrimination, as rapidly as possible, in regions or areas where such discrimination is prevalent; Third, by publishing and disseminat- ing reports and other information relat- ing to such discrimination and to ways and means for eliminating it;
1950 Fourth, by conferring, cooperating with, and furnishing technical assist- ance to employers, labor unions, and other private and public agencies in for- mulating and executing policies and pro- grams for the elimination of such dis- crimination; Fifth, by receiving and investigating complaints charging any such discrimi- nation and by investigating other cases where it has reason to believe that any such discrimination is practiced; and Sixth, by making specific and detailed recommendations to the interested par- ties, in any such case as to ways and means for elimination of any such dis- crimination. The bill also authorized the Commis- sion to make such recommendations for further legislation as may appear desir- able. By concentrating on the problem, I believe the Commission could devise fair methods and procedures to eliminate Job discrimination. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield. Mr. KEEFE. Before the gentleman goes into a description of his bill, I would like to get one thing settled 1n my own mind. Is there anything in the pending legislation that would in any way prevent discriminatory practices among fellow employees in a plant covered by this bill, one which employs 50 or more, and in which plant you compel the manage- ment, perhaps, to employ some certain individual whom it is alleged discrimina- tion has been practiced against. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent the employees in that plant from practicing discrimination, and making it so unpleasant for such employee that he would have to leave of his own volition? Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to the distinguished gentleman that the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. Powst.] wishes to answer that. I will let him answer, and then I will conclude. Mr. POWELL. The bill clearly spells out the prevention of any form of dis- crimination: First, in the offices of trade unions; second, in plants in which there are unions. It is just as rigidly spelled out against the unions as it is against the employers. The gentleman from Massa- chusetts (Mr. Herrzr] asked the same question before the Rules Committee. Mr. KEEFE. That does not answer the question. I think the gentleman well knows there are many plants in this country, employing 50 or more, that are not unionized. They have certain types of people in those plants. Somebody makes an application for employment and it is turned down, and it is finally decided that discrimination was prac- ticed by the employer against that individual. What I want to know is, If that indi- vidual is put into the plant is there any- thing in the bill to prevent the employees in that plant from discriminating against this new man that is brought in under those circumstances? Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to say to my colleague I do not believe there is real protection in the bill against the discrimination he speaks of, Mr. Chairman, I am not going into the details of my own bill, because I will be CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mentioning it under the 5-minute rule when I offer it as a substitute amend- ment. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to proceed, if I may. There is another aspect of my bill which is important to those of you who sincerely want an FEPC law on the books this year. I believe that tt would not be suffocated in a Senate filibuster while H. R. 4453 would face almost certain death. I will offer my bill as a substitute amendment to H. R. 4453. I believe my bill is a practical approach to the prob- lem and it has a practical chance of en- actment in this session. It should have the support of those who sincerely want a Fair Employment Practice Commission as a reality. Mr. JACKSON of California. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield. Mr. JACKSON of California. I should like to clear up one matter for the bene- fit of the House. Some statements have been made that the people of California did not know what they were voting on when they voted on FEPC. I should like to say, for the benefit of the House, that the people of California are as thor- oughly cognizant of things which per- tain to the welfare of this country as the people of any other State. They knew very well what they were voting on. It was not a Communist plot. It was not painted to them to be a Communist plot. They voted it down for what it was— a restriction upon fundamental Amer- ican rights. I think that should be in the record. The people of California knew exactly what they were doing when they voted down FEPC. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vouisiana (Mr. PassMAN] such time as he may desire. Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, this {is a sad day for those of us who are thinking of the next generation rather than the next election. In my considered judgment if the bill before us now, the FEPC bill, is ever enacted into law, it will cause more bloodshed than did the Civil War. Today is the birthday of George Wash- ington, the Father of Our Country. What would he think if he were here to observe first-hand what the pressure groups are endeavoring to legislate down the throats of the American people? This is a sad day in my life, in that I realize that if the so-called FEPC bill ever becomes law, we will enter upon a new phase of life—a life we have not been accustomed to here in America. It simply means that those of us who oper- ate businesses will be deprived of our right under the Constitution to exer- cise our own considered judgment in em- ploying our personnel. The bill before us is utterly without merit and is purely political. It will only cause heartaches, bloodshed, and general turmoil throughout our beloved land. I repeat, the bill before us for con- sideration is purely political. A great Mr. 2215 number of my colleagues from the East, North, and West have told me they are opposed to this unworkable, unjustifi- able, and damaging legislation, but they further stated that on account of their geographical sections and the type of constituencies they represented, that they had to demagog and vote for something they knew to be wrong and without merit in order to preserve their political future. I wish every Member of this honor- able body would retire to some secret chamber so that he, too, could meditate and realize what a great injustice he is doing to his children and his children’s children. It is not important that I be returned to the Congress, but it is im- portant that I vote and act so as not to penalize the generations that are to fol- low. Certainly for the benefit of those who are to follow us, it would be well and wise for us to think of the next gen- eration rather than just the next elec- tion. Mr. Chairman, my colleague the fen- tileman from Louisiana (Mr. ALLEN] was ordered to the naval hospital on Mon- day, February 20. Mr. ALLEN was suffer- ing from a very severe attack of influ- enza which has now developed into Pneumonia. Even uncer these circum- stances he tried to prevail upon Dr, Cal- ver to let him leave the hospital long enough to be here for a vote on the FEPC bill, but Dr. Calver informed the gentleman that he did not propose to add to his list of deaths among Members of Congress. He absolutely refused to permit Mr. ALLEN to leave the hospital which, of course, was the proper thing for Dr. Calver to do. Mr. ALLEN has manifested his opposi- tion to the bill under consideration from its inception. Being unable to be pres- ent, he dictated a statement from his sick bed and asked that it be placed in an appropriate spot in the body of the Recorp. For him I ask unanimous con- sent to insert his statement at this point of the RrEcorp. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. Mr. ALLEN of Louisiana. Mr. Chair- man, the terrible day which we of the South have fought against for years has reached us. Today the legislative ma- chinery is greased to put over the FEPC bill, which, in my opinion, is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever pro- posed in the United States Congress. We of the South have known all along that on a showdown, record vote the cause would go overwhelmingly against us because we Know that nearly all of the Republicans and all of the northern Democrats will vote to put this legisla- tion over the American people. We are making the fight right down to the very last and I for one will never surrender my convictions on the matter. Everybody knows that this legislation is aimed at the South. I fully appreciate the fact that probably not one thing that is said here today on this bill will change a single vote because the lines are drawn, but I think that it is well to remind those gentlemen who intend to push this legis- lation down the throats of the American
2216 people that the bill will hurt all over the United States. The damage it does will certainly not be confined to the South. I want you who are voting for this legis- lation to be assured that this will come back to plague you many days hence. Everybody knows that this bill is purely political. If the bill could be voted on by a secret vote it would never pass, but the minority groups in this country have been prodding most of you for years to pass this bill and the political threat has been constantly dangled be- fore the eyes of the American Congress. The bill is utterly without merits and it is difficult for me to see how any fair- minded person could undertake to argue for it. I do not see how anyone can escape the fact that this proposed legislation strikes at the very fundamental principle of Americanism. If there is any one thing in this world that sent our fore- fathers westward to found this American Nation more than all other reasons, that was the freedom of choice. They came to escape oppression and to assert their right to choose their friends, choose their churches, choose their politics, and choose their associates. And yet here a comparatively few short years later we find this House proposing to put over an issue which, if enacted, would strike at this very foundation principle of free- dom of choice. Mr. Chairman, the thing sounds so absurd and so ridiculous that the descendants of those hardy pioneers would now take this step—yet that is what is facing us. We have been waging a fight in this Congress against communism. This Government has been spending billions of dollars, it has claimed, to prevent the spread of communism. In the face of ali of that, the leadership in the Demo- cratic Party and the leadership in the Republican Party are championing this FEPC bill which, in my opinion, will be the greatest help to Communists in this country in further infiltrating them- selves into government and every other walk of life. This is so, Mr. Chairman, because if this bill becomes a law, it will be impossible, yea even unlawful, for any employer and even for the Government itself especially In some agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission to as much as inquire into whether one Is a Communist before he is employed. If this bill becomes a law every employer and certain Federal agencies will find themselves hogtied in trying to keep out Communist infiltration. You will not be permitted to ask where an applicant was born, what his race is, what his re- ligion is, or anything else which may directly or indirectly touch upon the question of race, religion, or national origin. We hear it said now every day that our Federal agencies are infiltrated with Communist and Communist sym- pathizers. Well, if this bill is passed, the Sommunists in Federal Government em- sloyment will increase manyfold. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this whole proposition is so dangerous for the well-being of Amer- Ca it does look like sensible and reason- ible men would not be swayed by minor- ty pressure groups but would stop, look, and listen before they become a party to yhis nefarious proposition. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE We who are opposing this legislation are not actuated by malice. We do so because we love Americanism more and we are persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that in- stead of lessening malice and racial in- tolerance, the effect of this legislation would be to increase it. Anybody who thinks that the American people are going to take this supinely Just does not know the heart and soul of America. I think it can be said with absolute cer- tainty that there is less prejudice in the South than there is in any other section of the country. Our people in the South do not hate the Negro. We want to help him and we are helping him. There is a very fine spirit in the South today. The right-thinking southern Negro knows that the passage of FEPC would hurt him and would create such turmoil that it would set his own cause back for a long time. Just a few days ago, Mr. Chairman, a Negro minister from the South came to my office and said that he had something to say to southern Mem- bers of Congress on this subject. I did not have the slightest idea what he was going to say. He then informed me briefly, and as a result of his own broad experience as a minister of the gospel, that, in his opinion, the passage of the FEPC bill at this time would be disas- trous to the cause of the Negro. More- over, he proceeded to say that he felt that some of those who were leading the parade for the passage of this bill were actuated by politics and were not sincere and he called the names of some Persons in very high places in America. I relate this because I want you gentlemen to know that some of the fine Negro lead- ers in the South are trying to think this thing through and desire that whatever is done may be of lasting benefit to the entire country and these Negro leaders know that it is certainly not to their in- terest to continue to have pushed before the American people the proposal con- tained in this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a tragic hour. This means that the Congress of the United States is yielding to minority pressure groups. I would to God that this House not make this fatal mistake and thrust upon the American people the turmoil which is bound to come from the passage of this bill. It may well] be that the historian of the future will mark the beginning of the final disintegration of our glorious Government from this point, It may well be that the Commu- nists will accept this as the greatest op- portunity ever handed to them to subju- gate the American people. Make no mis- take about it that when you rejoice over the passage of this act, there will be great rejoicing in Moscow also. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio]. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised objection to the committee bill and distinguishes it from his own bill on the basis of the fact that the committee bill provides for the obtaining of a cease- and-desist order. The gentleman con- tends that such an order may be obtained without evidence that would be neces- sary to convict a person of acrime. Cer- tainly, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, FEBRUARY 22 who supported the Taft-Hartley bill, must bear in mind that under that act injunctions are obtained against mem- bers of organized labor precisely by more extreme means, an ex parte application to the court supported merely by an allegation on the part of the Department of Justice or the attorney for the Na- tional Labor Relations Board. The difference between myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania is that he prefers that system in enforcing em- ployers’ interests against labor; I prefer the system provided in the committee bill to protect people against discrimina- tion. I therefore oppose the bill offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I do so also because his bill completely frustrates the very objective of FEPC. Every real enemy of FEPC supports his bill. Now, as to the fundamentals of the committee bill, we find its roots all the way back in the struggle against slavery, and in the Emancipation Proclamation. Today this legislation is aimed at what? It is intended to protect the Negro peo- ple and other minorities against dis- crimination in employment. In pro- tecting the Negro people against dis- crimination this legislation deals a real blow at that which is the main prop of exploitation of all working people, in- cluding even descendants of the May- flower who work for a living. This legislation is a tremendous step toward the establishment of equality, and let me say, and I use the word ad- visedly toward the overthrow of white supremacy. Let us recognize that. Let us recog- nize that that fact is what really has caused the opposition we have had, the violent opposition, the filibustering tac- tics and the bitterness which has just been engendered into this debate. To- day the false concept of white supremacy has been extended from the South up into the North. So we find not only the last vestige of feudalism in the South us- ing the racist doctrine of white suprem- acy for the exploitation of people there, not only do we find the new ruthless in- dustrialism of the South using it for ex- ploitation there, but we find monopo- lists in the North as well, using it as a weapon for exploitation, as a weapon for dividing and ruling the working people in the North. That explains to a great extent some of the lukewarm support and some of the avowed opposition to this legislation from the industrial sec- tions of the North. So that what is involved here is not the freedom of anyone to employ whom he pleases. What is involved here is the tyranny of anyone to refuse to give em- ployment to any person because of race, color, or creed. If discrimination is free- dom, then, certainly, we are perverting the definition of freedom, indeed we are subverting the very concepts of freedom as we have known them in these United States since our country was founded. FEPC is a blow for equality, equality which will help overthrow white suprem- acy which is the main prop of the ex- ploitation of all working people every- where in these United States. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
1950 Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one-half minute to answer a question propounded by the gentleman from Wisconsin: Does this hjll, H. R. 4453, protect employers who act in good faith whose employees discriminate? The gentleman will find the answer on Page 9, subsection (5) of section (g) reading: Upon the request of any employer acting in good faith, whose employees or some of them refuse or threaten to refuse to coop- erate in effectuating the provisions of this act, to assist in such effectuation by concilia- tion or other remedial action. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wis- consin (Mr. BIEMILLER]. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr, Chairman, I am proud to have the honor to conclude the general debate on the FEPC Dill. The issue before us is a matter of simple right and wrong, of fundamental justice, of human decency. It challenges us to live up to the religious ideals we profess, to take a firm stand in favor of the patriotic ideals on which our country was founded. It is a very strange thing to see that the Members of this House who quote the Bible most frequently, who wave the flag most conspicuously on every occasion, are now the most anxious to repudiate the fundamental principles behind this legislation. They are all in favor of the Declaration of Independence—but they want to forget the part about “all men are created equal.” They can recite the preamble to the Constitution, but they want to forget the amendments, espe- cially the ones which freed the slaves and gave them equal rights. We freed the slaves from involuntary servitude. And now it is up to us to free their descendants from involuntary unemployment. The right to earn a liv- ing is at the basis of every other right in our country. The chance to take his place on an equal footing with other citizens in the struggle for existence ought to be the most elementary night of every citizen of this Republic. When @ man is denied a job for which he is qualified in every other respect, because of the color of his skin, or his religion, we are condemning him to involuntary unemployment which is as unjust as in- voluntary servitude. The FEPC bill is a new Emancipation Proclamation against job discrimination. Who is behind this legislation? Both national parties declared themselves in favor of it at their national conventions in 1948. I am proud to be one of those who helped prepare and put through the plank at the Democratic Convention held last June in Philadelphia. That plank read: We again state ovr belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full und equal protection of the laws on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution. We highly commend President Tryman for his coura- geous stand on the issue of civil rights. We call upon the Congress to support our Presi- dent in guaranteeing these basic and funda- mcntal rights: (1) The right of full and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE equal political representation, (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment, (3) the right of security of person, (4) the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our Nation. The Republican Party also adopted a plank favoring civil rights, though in slightly less specific terms. The 1948 election showed that the people of all but three States accepted the principle, and counted on their elected Representatives to do something about the practice of civil rights. The churches of Amcrica favor the enactment of FEPC legislation. Reli- gious organizations who have passed res- olutions endorsing it include the Catholic Interracial Council, Catholic War Vet- erans, the Presbyterian General As- sembly, the United Council of Church Women, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Boards of the YMCA and YWCA and the National Council of Student Christian Associa- tions. the General Conference of the Methodist Church and the Methodist Ministers’ Union, the Council for Social Action of the Cong egational-Christian Churches, the General Synod of the Evangclical and Reformed Church, the American Friends’ Service Committee, the American Unitarian Association, and the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America. The last-named organization states its position clearly, so clearly that I want to read you their statement on this issue. The right to work— Says the Federal Churches— is a divine right. So just and so in harmony with Christian ethics that all Christians and chureh agencies have a deep responsibility to stand for that clear Christian and demo- cratic principle. We believe that Govern- ment should take such necessary legislative and administrative action as will protect the right to work from any such discrimination. An equally clear moral statement was issued by the National Catholic Welfare Conference urging not only that Catho- lics should support FEPC legislation but that they were obligated to practice non- discrimination, with or without a law. They state: Christian moral teaching requires every employer to maintain and enforce nondis- criminatory policies in hiring, upgrading, and discharge. In addition, it requires each employer not only to cense opposition to the enactment of Federal and Stute FEPC laws, but to use his influence in his association and with his fellow employers to secure the passuge and assist in the enforcement of such statutes Perhaps the finest statement on the question from a religious point of view came from Bishop Bernard J. Sheil, of Chicago, auxiliary bishop of the largest Roman Catholic archdiocese in the World: A fair employment practice law— Said Bishop Sheil— would give legal recognition to that God- given dignity which every human being possesses. If we are truly Christian, we can- not preach one thing and practice another. Economic discrimination is immoral, It is clearly sinful. How long are we expected to Council of 2217 sit by while children of God find their paths blocked at every point by the forces of bigeury and discrimination? This is National Brotherhood Week. What better way can we find to show our belief in the principles of Christian brotherhood than to extend the right to work, free of discrimination, to our citi- zens of every race, creed, and color? To- day, on Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the period of penance and sacrifice ob- served by the Christian church, we can and should take a stand in support of a law to permit our brothers to advance through their own efforts, without dis- crimination, as far as their ability will take them. The idea behind Brotherhood Week, and behind the whole Christian ethic, is that we are all children of God. There was no Special provision made in the Bible for an inferior place in the world for God’s stepchildren, and we discarded that idea in America when we passed the constitutional amendments to set the slaves free and give them a vote At least most of us discarded it. There are still some people who honestly belicve that slavery was a good idea and that we should not have abolished it. I think there are many more people who believe that, than are willing to say so. I received a few days ago a copy of a newspaper called the Southern Conserv- ative, which made it pretty clear where the editor stood on this question. She says: Southern people know how to get along with members of the colored race. They have been doing it successfully for more than a hundred years, and if Communist sym- pathizers from the North will stop meddling they will do it for a hundred years more. Do you remember what the racial issue was 100 years ago, in the year 1850? The issue was not, Has the Negro a right to a job, or has he a right to a vote? It was simply, Is he a human being? That was the point at issue in the fugitive- slave law. And the answer was given in the Dred Scott decision, “No, he is not a human being—he is a form of per- sonal property.” Most Americans look back with horror on that era, and the ideas it sought to perpetuate. Most Americans think that it was a disgrace that this Nation, con- ceived in liberty, ~hould have suffered the degradation of human slavery for more than 70 years—many years after it ceased to be tolerated by any other civ- ilized nation in the world. And today most Americans believe that job discrim- ination based on race prejudice is a hant- over from slavery which must and should be abolished by law, if we are to live up to our pretensions to be a free country. Not long ago I was talking to a Hindu, who asked me questions about America which I could not answer to his satisfac- tion or mine. He wanted to know why, when we voted to free the slaves nearly 80 years ago, we still did not assure them a vote and a job. I could give historical explanations of the persistence of preju- dice, but he still shook his head in be- wilderment. “How can it be possible,” he asked me “that after two generations of freedom and education, you still do not give to