2218 the colored people civil rights?” It was a tough question. I hope I can give a better answer if I meet him again tomorrow. Our failure to enact civil rights and FEPC legislation so far has branded us a Nation of hypocrites in many parts of the world. We are trying to win the confidence of the rest of the world to form a union of democracies against communism. Yet we exclude from our own democracy a large section of our people who are ready and willing to take their places in thousands of jobs now barred to them, not by their incom- petence, but by prejudice. A very large portion of the people on this earth are nonwhite. If America is the leader of the democratic nations, and America stands for race prejudice, why should they support democracy against communism? ‘Those who howl the loudest against communism and Rus- sta are driving millions into the arms of the Communists by their refusal to legislate against race discrimination. I have spent a good deal of time dis- cussing the problems and principles of discrimination against the Negro. But there are many other minorities who suf- fer unfair oppression in this land of the free because of their religion, or their national origin, or the color of their skin. In addition to the Negro, the Catholic, the Jew, the American Indian, the American-born citizen of Asiatic erl- gin, find it harder to get jobs, or to win advancement, than the white Protestant. The President’s Commission on Civil Rights found that the members of mi- nority groups were the last hired and the first fired. The National Community Re- lations Council found in a 1948 study that 80 percent of American Jews had experienced job discrimination. The United States Census Bureau figures show that in 1947 unomployment was 38 percent among white workers—but 67 percent among nonwhites. I do not propose to quote more figures to show that there is discrimination to- day. We all know that there is discrim- ination. The question before us on this fioor is, Do we approve that discrimina- tion and seek to perpetuate it? Do we not want to give people an equal oppor- tunity to work? Do we want to keep the best jobs, the advancements, the pay raises, for a certain kind of Americans? If there were job equality, it would lead to proof that there is no fundamental difference between Jew and Gentile, black and white. And the case for race preju- dice would collapse. So, think the opponents of FEPC, we must maintain race discrimination in principle and in practice, to protect the jobs which we may not be able to hold on the basis of ability. This is un-American, un-Christian, and un-Democratic. It is a policy which we. as the elected representatives of a great nation must repudiate. The time for prejudice is past—long past. As I said on this floor a few days ago, it ts now just four score and seven years since the Great Emancipator signed the proclama- tion freeing the slaves. In 87 years we have failed to give to our minority groups the full measure of that freedom which we hoped to bestow upon them at that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE time. Must we wait another 87 before true equality of opportunity becomes a reality? I want to close my remarks with the words of one of our greatest Presidents— Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his celebrated prayer for the United Nations, he con- cluded: Yet most of all, grant us brotherhood, not only for this day but for all years—a broth- erhood not of words but of acts and deeds. We are all of us children of the earth—grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed. If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom js taken away, our freedom is not secure. Grant us a common faith that man shall know bread and peace—that he shall know Justice and righteousness, freedom and _ security—an equal opportunity and an equa] chance to do his best. And in that faith, let us march torward toward the clean world our hands can make. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. All time has expired. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Be 1t enacted, ete — SHORT TITLE Srecrion 1. This act may be cited as the “Federal Fair Employment Practices Act” Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I move that we now adjourn. The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order in Committee. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. SHAFER) there were—ayes 105, noes 167. Mr. SHAFER and Mr. COLMER de- manded tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr SHarrr and Mr. POWELL. The Committce again divided, and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 107, noes 179. So the motion was rejected. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk’s desk The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The Chair has recog- nized the gentleman from Pennsylvania to offer hisamendment. The gentleman from Mississippi cannot obtain the floor by means of a prefercntial motion at this stage. The CHAIRMAN. The_ gentleman from Mississippi will be recognized after the amendment has been reported. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows. Amendment offered by Mr. McConnety: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert “That this act may be cited as the ‘Fair Employment Practice Act.’" Mr. DAVIS of Georgia (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Vue CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. FEBRUARY 22 Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Is it in order for this amendment to be read in full at this time? The CHAIRMAN. Of course it must be read in full. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. At what stage will it be open for amend- ment? The CHAIRMAN. It will be open for amendment after it has been read. The Clerk will read the amendment. Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that it be printed in the Recorp at this point. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the amendment. The Clerk continued to read the amendment as follows: FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY Szc 2. The Congress hereby finds declares— (an) That the denying of employment op- portunities to, and discrimination in employ- ment against, properly qualified persons by reason of race, creed, or color is contrary to the principlcs of freedom and cquality of opportunity upon which this Nation is built, deprives the United States of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production and defense, and burdens, hinders, and ob- structs commerce, (b) That it is the policy of the United States to bring about the elimination of dis- crimination because of race, creed, or color in employment relations. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION Ssc 3 (a) There is hereby created » com- mission to be known as the Fair Employment Practice Commission (hereinaiter reterrea to as the “Commission”), which shall be com- posed of five members who shall be Appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate One of the original members shall he appointed tor a term of 1 year, one tor a term of 2 yeurs, one for a term of 3 years, one for a term of 4 years, and one for a term of 5 years, but their cuccessors shall be appointed for terms of 5 years each, except that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed The Presi- dent shall designate one member to serve a8 Chairman of the Commission Any member of the Commission may be removed by the Precident upon notice and hearing for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cuuse (b) A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the nght of the remaining members to exercise all the powers of the Commission and three members of the Commission shall at all times constitute a quorum Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. The bill before the House has not been read. Should this amendment be adopted would it be read under the 5-minute rule? Would we have an opportunity to offer amend- ments to it? The CHAIRMAN. It is open for amendment before it is voted on. Mr. RANKIN. I understand, but the Clerk is reading rapidly, and there is so much confusion in the House we cannot hear what is going on. The Clerk 1s reading at a high speed. If we are going and
1950 to have to vote on this legislation we ought to have a copy of it. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained; the Committee is not in order. The Committee will be in order. Mr. RANKIN. We ought to have copies of it so we could at least offer amendments. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. COLMER. And I am very serious in propounding it. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is sure of that. Mr. COLMER. Do I understand that the whole bill will be read through, that is, the amendment that the Clerk is now reading, before any amendments are of- fered? Or are amendments to be of- fered at the end of sections as the Clerk concludes them? The CHAIRMAN. This is an amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania to the bill, The amend- ment will be read in its entirety and then will be open for amendment Mr MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Because of the confusion we were unable to hear. Am I correct in understanding that this amendment strikes out all of the com- mittee bill after the enacting clause? The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is it not true that the amendment at the desk is substantially the bill H. R. 6841, copies of which are available? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair so un- derstands, with the exception of section 7 which the Clerk will read. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. So that it would be possible for Members to fol- low the reading by getting a copy. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read, The Clerk read as follows: (c) The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed. (d) Each member of the Commission shall receive a salary at the rate of $12,000 a year, and shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. (e) The principal office of the Commission shall be in the District of Columbia, but It may mect and exerciso any or all of its pow- ers at any other place and may establish such regional offices as it deems necessary. The Commission may, by one or more of its members or by such agents or agencics as it may designate, conduct any investigation, proceeding, or hearing neccessary to its func- tions 1n any part of the United States. (f) The Commission shall have power— (1) to appoint such officers and employ- ecs as it deems necessary to assist it in the performance of its functions; (2) to cooperate with or utilize regional, State, local, and other agencies and to utilize voluntary and uncompensated services; (3) to pay to witnesses whose der “sitions are taken or who are summoned before the Commission or any of its agents cr agencies the same witness and mileage fees as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE (4) from time to time to make, amend, and rescind, in such manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act; (5) to serve process or other papers of the Commission, either personally, by registered mail, or by leaving a copy at the principal office or place of business of the person to be served: and (6) to make such technical studies as are appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act and to- make the results of such studies available to interested Gov- ernment and nongovernmental agencies. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Src 4 fa) It shall be the duty of the Commission to bring about the removal of discrimination in regard to hire or tenwe, terms or conditions of employment, or union membership, because of race, crecd, or color— (1) by making comprehensive studies of such discr’nination in different metropoli- tan districts and sections of the country and of the effect of such discrimination, and of the best methods of eliminating it, (2) by formulating, in cooperation with other interested public and private agencies, comprehensive plan: for the elimination of such discrimination, as rapidly as possible, in regions or areas where such discrimina- tion is prevalent; (3) by publishing and disseminating re- ports and other information relating to such discrimination and to ways and means for eliminating it; (4) by conferring, cooperating with, and furnishing technical assistance to employ- ers, labor unions, and other private and pub- lic agencies in formulating and executing policies and programs for the elimination of such discrimination; (5) by receiving and investigating com- plaints charging any such discrimination and by investigating other cases where it has reason to believe that any such dis- crimination 1s practiced; and (6) by making specific and detailed rec- ommendations to the interested parties in any such case as to ways and means for the elimination of any such discrimination. (b) The Commission shall at the close of each fiscal year report to the Congress and to the President describing in detail the in- vestigations, proceedings, and hearings it has conducted and their outcome, the de- cisions it has rendered, and the other work performed by it, and may make such rec- ommendations for further legislation as may appear desirable. The Commission may make such othcr recommendations to the President or any Federal agency as it deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act. INVESTIGATORY POWFRS Src 5 (a) For the purpose of all investi- gations, proceedings, or hearings which the Commission deems necessary or proper for the exercise of the powers vested in it by this act, the Commission, or its authorized agents or agencies, shall at all reasonable times have the right to examine or copy any evidence of any person relating to any such investigation, proceeding, or hearing. (b) Any member of the Commission shall have power to issue subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to any investigation, pioceeding, or hearing be- fore the Commission, its member, agent, or agency conducting such investigation, pro- ceeding, or hearing. (c) Any member of the Commission, or any agent or agency designated by the Com- mission for such purposes, may administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and conduct investigations, proceedings, or hearings. 2219 (da) Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such evidence may be re- quired, from any place in the United States or any Territory or possession thereof, at any designated place of hearing. (e) In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person under this act, any district court of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory or poscession, or the District Court of the United States for the District of Co- lumbia, within the jurisdiction of which the investigation, proceeding, or hearing 1s car- ried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts busi- ness, upon application by the Commission shal] have jurisdiction to issue to such per- son an order requiring such person to ap- pear before the Commission, its member, arent, or arency, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony re- lating to the investigation, proceeding, or hearing; any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by it as a con- tempt thereof (f) No person shall be excused from at- tending and testifying or from producing documentury or other evidence In cbedience to the subpena of the Commission, on the ground that the testimony or evidence re- quired of him may tend to tncriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture: but no individual shall be prosecuted or sub- jected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege arainst celf- incrimination, to testifv or produce evidence, except that euch individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed itn 50 testifying. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Sec 6 The Commission shall make a study and investigation of discrimination in re- gard to hire, or tenure, terms, or conditions of employment, in the departments and agencies of the Federal Government because of race, creed, or color, and shall recommend to the Congress a spectfic plan to eliminate it and such legislation as it deems necessary to eliminate it. WILLFUL INTERFERENCE WITH COMMISSION AGENTS Src. 7. Any person who shall willfully re- sist, impede, or interfere with, any member of the Commission or any of its agents or agencies in the performance of duties pur- suant to this Act shal] be punished by a fine of not more than 85,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I have offcred an amendment as a substi- tute to the Powell bill. This amendment is a new bill to establish a Fair Employ- ment Practice Commission. The Com- mission would have two principal pur- poses: Furst, to study the problems and to recommend a procedure to Congress for eliminating job discrimination be- cause of race, creed, or color. Second, to begin immediately to find methods to eliminate job discrimination, and to scek to create employment opportunities for members of minority groups, without the use of compulsion. Mr. Chairman, right here I would like to digress for just a moment. There isa reasonable background, in my opinion, to the idea of an FEPC bill without the use of compulsion and in this connection I would like to read from the hearings on the Federal Fair Employment Practice
2220 Act before I proceed with the description of the amendment. During the hearings the gentleman from New York iMr. PowELu] made the statement to Senator Ives along this line: “The first actual FEPC law placed on the statute books anywhere in the United States was the Ives bill.” That is the FEPC legislation in New York A little later on Senator Ives, who was the author ef the first FEPC legisla- tion in the United States, made this statement: I happen to be one that is convinced that {f you have to enforce this kind of under- taking by punitive measures, by legal com- pulsion, it is going to fail. Unless you can convince the rank and file of people that it is inherently right, which it is, and get them to couperate in backing it up, your under- taking cannot succeed. Then he goes on to say that it is edu- cational in a broad sense, speaking of the statute of New Yok, and also the pro- posed legislation we are considering to- day. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I vield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. JOHNSON. According to the in- terpretation to be implied, 1t 1s this, that Senator Ives, who was the author of the New York bill, placed in the bill the prin- ciple the gentleman is offering here to- night. Mr. McCONNELL I would say that I could receive just such an idea from that testimony. The bill I offer declares a national policy to eliminate discrimination in em- ployment relations because of race, creed, or color. It would establish a Fair Em- ployment Practice Commission of five members appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate. In carrying out the policy of the act, the Commis- sion is authorized to make investigations, hire employees, cooperate with State agencies and accept voluntary services, subpena witnesses and pay them mileage fees, to serve process, to make and re- scind rules and to make studtes and pub- lish the results of such studies. Further, the bill imposes upon the Commission the duty of seeking to elim- inate job discrimination— First, by making comprehensive stu- dies of such discrimination in different metropolitan districts and sections of the country and of the effect of such dis- crimination, and 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; Fourth, by conferring, cooperating with, and furnishing technical assistance to employers, labor unions, and other private and public agencies in formulat- ing and executing policies and programs for the elimination of such discrimina- tion; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Fifth, by receiving and investigating complaints charging any such discrim- ination and by investigating other cases where it has reason to believe that any such discrimination {s 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. A duty is also imposed on the Commis- sion to make a report each year to Con- gress and to the President. In addition to describing in detail the investigations, proccedings, and hearings it has con- ducted and their outcome, the decisions rendered and the other work performed, the report may make such recommen- dations for further legislation as may appear desirable. The Commission is given legal power to make investigations and to examine relevant records, to subpena evidence and witnesses from anywhere in the United States, and to administer oaths. Federal courts are given jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the Com- mission’s subpenas and a complete im- munity clause is provided to give the Commission greater freedom 1n demand- ing testimony which might otherwise be unavailable from a witness. The Commission is also required to make a study of job discrimination which may be practiced by the Federal Government and to recommend a spe- cific plan to Congress for its elimination. A $500 fine is provided as a penalty for anyone who forcibly interferes with a member or agent of the Commission in the performance of his duties under the act Most of us agree that the injustices of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, or color, should be ehmi- nated Those of us who egree to this principle disagree in some respects on how It can be best accomplshed The prcblem, simply stated, is this: “Is the administrative process the proper meth- od of making and enforcing decisions where the facts in dispute are simple and the dccision rests largely on the veracity of witnesses?” There are practical objections to the admunistrative process for this purpose: First, administrative procedure can substitute the judement of a single in- dividual for that of a jury in deciding questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses. Second, administrative procedure per- mits a hearing examiner to act as judge and jury—yct he cannot be removed as a juryman by a challenge for cause—nor can he be removed as judge by an alle- gation of personal bias. Third, in an administrative proceed- ing, there are no rules for the admissi- bility and exclusion of evidence. ‘This is important because a decision can rest on any evidence that finds 1ts way into the record, whethcr or not it 1s legal evidence. Fourth, a reviewing court cannot re- verse an administrative decision unless it is apparent from the naked record that the decision is arbitrary or capri- cious. A court cannot review the facts, FEBRUARY 22 nor can the court substitute its discre- tion for that of the administrative agency. The administrative decision may rest solely on evidence which would be barred in a court of law—or evidence which a jury might have rejected be- cause it was given by a witness which was not credible—yet the court cannot reverse the agency if there is any evi- dence in the record to support the ad- ministrative decision. I do not believe the administrative procedure provided in the Powell bill in- sures justice in the enforcement of rules to eliminate job discrimination because of race, creed, or color. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. POWELL Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. Mr. POWELL In quoting further from Senator Ives’ testimony before our subcommittee, the gentleman did not read the last paragraph of the section he was reading, and that paragraph states: Naturally, you have to have compulsion here or nobody will pay any attention to it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL I yield to the gen- tleman from Mississippi Mr, WILLIAMS. I might ask the gen- tleman if there has ever been an arrest in New York S.ate under this law. Mr. McCONNELL. Well. I can answer the gentleman right there. There has been no arrest under State law. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman y:cld? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the fen- tleman from New York. Mr. JAVITS. Senator Ives is the au- thor of the FEPC bill. In Senate Report No. 951 he says very distinctly: The experience of the wartime Commit- tee on Fair Fmployment Practices and of the several Stute commissions indicates strongly that appeuls for voluntary coopera- tion are inadeauate unless supported hy enforcement powers. Mr. McCONNELL. I will quote again so that we can fct it very straight. I do not want to imply that the Senator 1s talking on both sides, but he says here: I happen to be one that 1s convinced that if you have to enforce this kind of under- taking by punitive measures, by legal com- pulsion, it is goiug to fail. That is very simple language, and I think we understand Enghsh, Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL, I yield to the gen- tleman from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. As a matter of fact, there is a very scrious penalty included in the New York law, is there not?
1950 Mr. McCONNELL. I understand so. I call your attention to one change I have made in my bill before offering it as a substitute as compared with the bill I originally put in the hopper. I refer to page 8, section 7, of H. R. 6841. Origi- nally it read: Any person who shall willfully resist, im- pede, or interfere with, any member of the Commission or any of its agents or agencies in the performance of duties pursuant to this act shall be punished by a fine of not more than ¢6,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. I feel that that fine is too heavy. I have changed the word “willfully” to “forcibly,” which is the same as in the Powell bill. I have changed the fine from $5,000 to $500, which seems to be more in reason. I have also dropped out the penalty of “imprisonment for 1 year.” Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this McConnell amend- ment is the whole heart of the fight to pass an FEPC bill. If this amendment succeeds, then we will have nothing but a statement of policy. Inscribed on the wall over our Press Gallery are the words of an immortal statesman who once walked these aisles, Daniel Webster. I would like to read a further quotation from Daniel Webster, and that is this: A law without the penalty is simply good advice. If we accept the McConnell amend- ment we are merely accepting good advice. Now, let us get back to Senator Ives, whom I admire and know personally, who came before our subcommittee and gave us possibly the most enlightened testimony of all May I read from the official report of the FEFC subcommittce at page 63, middle of the page: I desire, however, most heartily to endorse this type of legislation. Moreover, I en- dorse specifically H R 4453 us being based on the principles I have cited. Then I will go to another point where the Senator and your humble servant were having a discussion. Iread the two paragraphs which the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not read following the sentence which he did read: Firet, I think, Mr. Chairman, that your bill provides for mandatory mediation, concilla- tion, conferences, and persuasion. That is very essential, that part of it. And you also provide for these conciliation councils to be set up in the various communities, big and little, in the whole area of the United States, by which through the voluntary approach you enlist the support of citizens in those communities. That is the way it is done. Naturally, you have to have compulsion here or nobody will pay uny attention to it. But let mo point out this, that if any under- taking of this kind 1s ever made and the emphasis is placed on that aspect of it, the rest of it will be ignored obviously and the whole business will crash in defeat. Following that quotation, may I say at this point that we do not place the em- phasis in this bill on compulsion. We place it on conciliation, mediation, con- ferences, persuasion, and local councils set up in the var:ous communities of our XCVI—— 140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE country whether they are small or large communities. Mr.McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. I recognize the value of community action by local agcncies. That is provided in the sub- stitute bill which I have offered. I would like to ask the gentleman this one ques- tion: How many cases have come before the FEPC Commission itn New York State? Mr. POWELL. I think 1,047 as of January this year. Mr. McCONNELL. How many were settled? Mr. POWELL. The actual statistics are here in my committee’s report. I can find them in a minute. Mr. McCCNNELL. I thought the gentleman had them at hand, and will not ask him to go to that trouble. Does the gentleman know how many cases were dismissed? Mr FOWEFLL. I think, roughly, about one-third were dismissed. Mr. McCONNELL. One-third of ap- proximately a thousand cases? Mr. POWELL. 1,047. Mr. McCONNELL. Is that for the city of New York? Mr POWELL. No, for the State of New York. Mr. McCONNELL. Out of millions and millions of people, then, they have only found those few cases of discrimi- nation? Mr. POWELI.. That is right. Mr.McCCNNELL. It seems rather re- markable. I wonder where the wide- spread discrimination is, then, under a methecd where compulsion generally has not. been uscd. Mr. FOWELL Some of these cases involve thousands of workers. Some of them involve plants which may employ 10 or 15 thousand people, such as the telephone company, for — instance, which is a State-wide company. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- sent to proceed for five additional minutes The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr POWELL. Further, our own Leg- islative Reference Service of the Library of Congress last year made an impartial report on antidiscrimination Icgislation, Listen to this quotation: In company after company, in spite of theoretical willingness to employ Negroes, it took the law to get the employers past the hump of dreading what customers and other employees might ray So the mere passage of a law with teeth In it, before any actual attempt to enforce It, brings some chanfcs in employment practices in order to con- form, In other woids, as the commissioners of New York State, Massachusetts, and other States which have FEPC, testified before our committee, we have not had to use the power, but because we had the power, we have been able to pzrsuade and concillate and mediate a little bit betccr. 2221 Further, may I also give you an ex- ample from the city of Chicago. The city of Chicago has an FEPC with no enforce- ment powcr. This is the report of the Illinois Inter-Racial Commission last year, reporting on the FEPC: With few exceptions, the 91 firms analyzed, which supplied goods and services to the city of Chicago on a contract basis, violate their signed pledge to adhere to fair-employment practice The State of Oregon passed an FEPC law with no compulsion. After it was in effect for some time they found out it did not work. Last year the Oregon Legis- lature revised the ¢tate FEPC law which had no compulsion and put sanctions in that law. Mr McCONNELL. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. If such a position was found to be necessary in the future, the way would be open for such amend- ment. Mr POWELL. Certainly. Very nicely said. You halfway agree with us. I appreciate that fact, because in the Sev- enty-ninth Congress the gentleman from Pennsylvania was one of those who helped us write the present law that we now have. He was in favor of it then. Mr. McCONNELL. Will the gentle- man yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. I did not help write the present bill. I agreed that some type of compulsion was necessary at that time Mr. POWELL. That js correct. Mr. McCONNELL. But I have become more wise as I have become older. Therefore, I realized that compulsion was not necessary. Mr. FOWELL. Some people grow old two ways’ I have grown older also. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Is not the crux of the issue defined by the alinement on the gentleman's substitute? J think it is obvious to everyone that the over- whelming majority who oppose any kind of FEPC will support the gentleman’s substitute—that is, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania. Mr. POWELL. That remains to be seen. But if it is true that those who are against any kind of FEFC will sup- port the gentleman's amendment, then it 1s obvious that it is nothing but a subterfuge to kill FEPC. I can assure you that the people of this Nation who are in favor of FEPC are not in favor of the McConnell substitute about which they know nothing. They are in favor of H. R. 4453 which has been before them for 6 years, since the Seventy-ninth Congress, Mr. MASON) Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. MASON. When the gentleman says that this halfway amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania | Mr. McConne.u! 15 offering 1s a subterfuge Chairman,
2222 and that anyone who supports It is sup- porting it as a subterfuge, I disagree. Mr. POWELL. May I correct that. I said the majority of the people in this Chamber who are against any form of FEPC will probably support the McCon- nel) substitute. Mr. MASON. I am one of those who is opposed to FEPC. The logic is, if I have to take it I would rather take it in a mild form than in the full form. Mr. POWELL. Yes, that is the truth, you want FEPC when it means nothing; when it is weak; when it is sugar-coat- ed; when it is, as Daniel Webster said, nothing but “good advice.” Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield. Mr. O'TOOLE. The gentleman means he would rather take Castoria than cas- tor oil. Mr. POWELL. That is it. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL, I yield. Mr. MORTON. By the same token, if you can accept half a loaf it is better than no loaf at all. Mr. POWELL. I have never sub- scribed to that opinion. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. PowEL.] has expired. Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. STEED as a sub- stitute for the McConnell amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “DECLARATION OF POLICY “Sec. 2. It is hereby declared to be the Policy of the United States— (1) to eliminate discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry in regard to (A) opportunity for employment, (B) tenure, terms, or condi- tions of employment, or (C) membership in labor organizations; and “(2) to encourage to the fullest possible extent a policy of nondiscrimination throughout industry. “FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR “Src. 8. (a) The Secretary of Labor (re- ferred to in this act as the “Secretary”) shall— “(1) receive and investigate complaints charging any discrimination of the nature described in clause (1) of section 2 (referred to in this act as “discrimination”), and in- vestigate other cases where he has reason to believe discrimination is practiced; “(2) endeavor, by methods of mediation and conciliation, to eliminate any discrimi- nation disclosed by any such investigation; “(8) investigate and study the character, causes, and extent of discrimination in general; “(4) formulate plans for eliminating dis- crimination, after studying the best methods to accomplish that end; “(5) publish and disseminate (without re- tard to section 306 of the Penalty Mail Act of 1948) reports of the results of such studies and investigations in such form as may be most useful in accomplishing the policy de- clared in section 2; and “(6) cooperate with employers and labor organizations, and other private and public agencies, in formulating programs, educa- tional and otherwise, to eliminate discrimi- nation. “(b) In the performance of his functions under this act the Secretary may utilize the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE services of voluntary and uncompensated personnel, “(c) The United States Employment Serv- ice shall cooperate fully with the Secretary in effectuating the poiicy declared in sec- tion 2. “MINORITIES EMPLOYMENT BUREAU “Src. 4. There ts hereby created in the De- partment of Labor a Minorities Employment Bureau, to be headed by a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall be paid a salary of # ayear. The Director shall perform, under the direction and supervision of the Secretary, such of the Secretary's functions under this act as the Secretary may delegate to him. “LOCAL ADVISORY COUNCILS “Sec. 5. The Secretary may create such local, regional, and State advisory councils as in his judgment will aid in carrying out the policy declared in section 2. Any council so created shall, at the request of the Sec- retary, (1) study the general problem, and investigate specific instances, of discrimina- tion in the area for which it is created; (2) foster, through community effort or other- wise, good will, cooperation, and conciliation among the various groups and elements of the population of such area; and (3) make recommendations to the Secretary with re- spect to his functions under this act. Each member of a local advisory council shail be appointed by the Secretary from among resi- Gent citizens of the area for which the coun- cil is created, and shall serve without pay, but shall be reimbursed under Government travel regulations for expenses incurred while performing duties under this section away from his place of residence. The Sec- retary may, without regard to the civil-serv- ice laws or the Classification Act of 1923, employ and fix the compensation of such technical and clerical employees as may be necessary to assist advisory councils under this section. “NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ‘Sec. 6. The Secretary may create a Na- tional Advisory Council on Minority Prob- lems to consult with him and make recom- mendations to him tn regard to his functions under this act. The Council shall be com- posed of not more than seven members to be appointed by the Secretary, representing employers, employees, and the public. The number of members representing employers shall equal the number representing em- ployees. Each member of the Council shall be paid compensation at the rate of $25 per Gay while engaged in the performance of duties under this section and shall be reim- bursed under Government travel regulations for expenses incurred while so engaged away from his place of residence. The Council shall have access to all files and records of the Minorities Employment Bureau. “ANNUAL REPORT “Src. 7. As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year the Secretary shall submit to Congress and to the President a report covering his activities under this act for such year, together with such further information and recommendations for fur- ther legislation with respect to the policy declared in section 2 as he deems advisable.” Mr. KEEFE (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. My. KEEFE. Would it be proper to offer a pro forma amendment during the reading of this amendment by sections? Or must we wait until the entire amend- ment is read? The CHAIRMAN. This amendment will have to be read in full. FEBRUARY 22 (The Clerk concluded reading the amendment.) The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Steep] is recog- nized. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, a pref- erential motion. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The_ gentleman will state it. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether amendments pending at the desk to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will still be in order after the amendment to the substitute is voted upon? Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, a pref- erential motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and re- turn the legislation to the committee with the enacting clause stricken out. The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order at this time. The gentleman may move that the Committee do now rise. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. SHAFER) there were—ayes 113, noes 180. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chalir- man appointed as tellers Mr. POWELL and Mr. SHAFER. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 118, noes 161. So the motion was rejected. Mr. WILSON of Okiahoma. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous coiisent that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Stgrp] be permitted to proceed for five additional minutes in order to explain his amendment. Mr. CORBETT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to object at this time, I feel that further talk on this subject is of no avail, They have already taken polls as to how they are going to vote, so I am serving notice that from here on I shall object to requests for additional time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? There was no objection. Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing quite a bit of talk here this afternoon about where this FEPC bill came from. Unfortunately, we have had to listen to more beautiful speeches on the theory and philosophy of FEPC and we have heard very little about what is actually in the bill behind that label. As to the original bill, H. R. 4453, that is now before us, if you will turn to page 70 of the printed hearings I think you will find the answer to where this bill came from. I should like to read a few lines from that page for you. It starts at the top of the page with Senator Ives saying this: Senator Ives. May I ask a question of you, Mr Chairman? Are you going to have Charles Tuttle down here?
1950 Mr. PowErL. Charles Tuttle will be the next witness on Tuesday for the State com- missions. Senator Ives. With all due respect to everybody else, he is the most valuable wit- ness that you will be able to get before you, because he has had direct experience for many years in this fleld; he is an eminent lawyer. He largely drafted—in fact, he com- pletely drafted—the New York statute—and he is the one who has done more in drafting the bill you have and the bill I have than any such other person. Mr. Powe... Including ourselves. Senator Ives. That is right. So if you want to know who wrote this monstrosity, you can give the credit to Charles Tuttle, whoever he may be. Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING rose. Mr. STEED. I cannot yield. Mr. JAVITS. I would like to explain to the gentleman who Charles Tuttle is. Mr. STEED, The amendment I have offered is better known to the Members of this House as the Hays bill. All I did was to take that bill, H. R. 6668, and change the title the gentleman from Arkansas had, of “Minorities Employ- ment Act,” to a title I liked better, the “Fair Employment Practices Act.” Actually the basic philosophy behind my amendment is the same as that be- hind the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania |Mr. Mc- CONNELL]. I think in all the main fea- tures involved here he and I ave in abso- lute agreement. The major difference between our bills is largely in the mechanics of how a program would oper- ate Isaid a while ago that I did not have much time under general debate and had hoped that some of the Members who did have some time would actually go into some the language that is in the bill H. R, 4453. It is a sad and tragic thing that the Members of the House and the people of the country have not had an opportunity to have this whole thing explained to them and find out actually what we are trying to do here behind this label called FEPC. I have tried every way I know to ect the atten- tion of the Members of the House and the people of the country diverted from that label and directed to this proposed law. Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEED. I yleld. Mr. REDDEN. Is there anything in the platform of either the Democratic or Republican Party advocating FEPC legis- lation from which we can infer that either of those parties intended to pro- mote this type of legislation and to pro- vide its enforcement by penalty of law? Mr. STEED. I will answer the gentle- man in this way: Anywhere that you see anything stated about this in the party platforms, they state their belief in a principle, and not a law to carry out that principle. The most sincere people in the world would not want to do what is being done and what will be done if this bill passes, because this bill is not going to do for the minorities of this country what I give all you gentlemen who are fighting their battle credit for wanting done. I think it is time that we stopped and gave some consideration to that. That is why I cffered this substitute amendment be- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cause I could not find any way to amend this bill. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEED. I yield. Mr. SUTTON. Is it not a matter of fact that the President of the United States said no 5. 0. b. can tell him whom to hire or fire? Mr. STEED. The gentleman knows as much about that as I do. The proposition that I am trying to impress upon you is when you are asked to vote for the substitute for this bill, we are not trying to kill off the FEPC. We are trying to kill off this bill that calls itself an FEPC bill. For instance, I called your attention to two or three things in the bill a while ago. I ama member of the Committee on Education and Labor and so far as I know, if any member of that committee knows any- thing at all about what is in this bill he found it out outside of the committee be- cause he had no opportunity to find out what was in it in the committee; because it was jammed through, and very little consideration was given to it, and only one little amendment was considered. Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman refers to a particular bill. There are three bills before us. Mr. STEED. Iam talking about H. R. 4453. Iam talking about the Powell bill. For instance, I would want to call your attention to some of the things in this bill. Section (a) of section 7 at page 11 of the Powell bill, in part, reads as follows: The Commission is empowered as herein- after provided to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment prac- tice as set forth in section 5 Now, get this. I have not found any- body 1n the Congress, and = have talked to all those old-timers, who have said that they ever heard or saw anything lke this in a bill before. It says: This power shall be exclusive and shall not be affected by any other means of ad- justment or prevention that has been o1 muy be established by agreement, code, law or otherwise If my interpretation of that is correct, and it is borne out by numerous people that I have discussed it with, we are in fact saying here that we can ncver even amend thislaw. What is an act of Con- gress but aluw? A State code or a col- lective bargaining agreement could be thrown aside if it conflicted with the ideas that any of these Commissioners had under the vast power that they are given here. Some labor leaders have en- dorsed this bill. I think after they know what is in it, and if it ever becomes a law, they will have some hard explaining to do to their unions when they find out in effect that they have sold the labor unions down the river, and have fixed it so that the Commission could take a col- lective bargaining agreement and rip it to picces. There is a little about section 14 that I want to talk about. You have to read these hearings over and over to find out what they mean. I finally found in the testimony of Professor Davis, a professor of Lincoln University, who was in the FEPC during wartimes. He complained 2223 about that section because he said it left it open so that a man might get a jury trial. He said he did not think a man ought to have a jury trial; that he ought to be completely at the mercy of the Commission. What I interpret that to be—and I have found no one to dispute it—it means that if an employee becomes dissatisfied when his employer tries to follow this law and hires somebody to work with him that he does not like, he says, “All right, thank God this is a free country, I am going to quit.” Under section 14 he would be subject to a fine of $500 and imprisonment. I am talking about the workingman now; not the employer. There are a lot of things in this bill that ought to be discussed at length. I am one man in this House who went to the Rules Committee and asked for a rule to try to get us enough time to discuss it. I am sorry we could not get it that way. The mere fact that I am talking about this bill does not mean I do not have any interest in the minorities of this country. I will check my vote on civil rights with anybody in this House, I have done everything I could to get it up here. This is a real problem in my district. As editor of a newspaper I have been criticized when I tried to do something for the undercog. I probably have as many minority groups in my district as anybody here. Between the colored people and the Indians, I have a large minority vote. But I talked to them about this bill, and, with few ex- ceptions, they told me that they pre- ferred a voluntary program. We are making progress in my State in a volun- tary way. If we ever had the misfortune of having this bill become the law of this land, every liberal man in the South who is trying to bring about better rela- tions will be made to look silly. He will have no defense I want to explain to you what the amendment I have offered does. It simply does this: It sets up in the De- partment of Labor an agency that has the light to take cognizance of com- plaints of discrimination. It gives it the power to investigate the merits of those complaints. It gives it the power to make those complaints known. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Srerp] has expired. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer @ preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr RANKIN moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time may be extended 5 minutes. Mr. LESINSKI, Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr. RANKIN. I was afraid of that. The gentleman does not seem to want Congress to have all the facts concern- ing this vicious measure. Mr. Chairman, this FEPC bill is the most dsngerous piece of communistic legislation with which this country has ever been threatened,
2224 That demonstration of protest you heard just then came from the Reds, or fellow travelers, in the gallery, who are down here pushing this measure. They seem to have a mandate. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinsk1], who objected to my having an additional 5 minutes, said before the Rules Committee that this bill was not directed at the people of the South, but was directed at the people of the North- ern States. That is where your trouble is going to come from. If it became a law, it will do more to demoralize indus- try, it will do more to discourage men who are trying to carry on the business enterprises of this Nation than anything that has ever occurred. Oh, I know some of these gentlemen who are behind the iron curtain—that is, in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey— who have this FEPC bill on their statute books, hanging hke a sword of Damocles over the head of every businessman, want to force it on you people in other sections of the country. They tried it in Ohio twice. We sent the members of the Legislature of Ohio the information and beat it both times, even though the Governor had a major- ity of his own party in the legislature the Jast time and was leading the fight for it. In Pennsylvania, with the Governor and the majority of his own party in con- trol when they tried to put it over on the people of Pennsylvania, we sent them the information and they defeated it in two legislatures. In Michigan, where they are trying now to demoralize the industries of Michigan with this kind of stuff, they tried to pass it there, and the Legislature of Michigan killed it; they voted it down or voted for a referendum that they knew the court would not uphold. In the State of Illinois they did the some thing. In the State of Minnesota they recent- ly tried to pass it, with all the help they could get from both these Members of the House and the other body, and the legislature killed it as dead as Hector. They tried the same thing in Colorado last year and they killed it in the Legis- lature of Colorado. They put it on the ballot in California and it lost by a clear majority in every single individual county in California. You could not pass it in a single county in a single State of this Union if you gave the people the right to vote on it and in- formed them what it means, and every one of you know it. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, RANKIN. from Georgia. Mr. COX. I wish to suggest to the gentleman that he not overlook the fact that the gentleman from New York | Mr. Marcantonio} let the cat out of the bag when he truthfully said the purpose of this bill was to overthrow white su- premacy everywhere. Mr. RANKIN. I inserted in the Rrec- orp yesterday some of the regulations under the New York law. I do not have time to read them—but I sent to New York and got them. Thcy have a gang of sacopers going around tantalizing the I yield to my colleague CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE business people of New York. I do not care what they tell you. I sent and got those regulations, and I read 18 of them into the Recorp, things that you could not ask an applicant for employment; I read them into the Recorp; and those facts, when brought to the attention of the legislators in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and other States were largely re- sponsible for killing it. You had one here in Washington. What are you gentlemen talking about? They had one right here in the city of Washington. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I cannot yield. They had one set up here in Wash- ington by Executive order. It was a hideous monstrosity. You Republicans helped us Democrats kill it by defeating the appropriation, because it was set up by Executive order and stacked with racial minorities. Youknowthat. Why do you not come across now and help us bury this thing while you have a chance, and not wreck the business interests of America? If this thing passes, and becomes law, it is going to result in driving business enterprise out of the United States; they will move into Canada; they will move into Mexico; they will move into Eng- land, they will move into Europe If you pass this crazy measure, you will be doing the business interests of Amer- ica the greatest harm you could possibly visit upon them, Another thing, you people are always talking about the Negroes. You do not give a tinker’s dam about the Neero, or you would not be baiting them this way, using the Negro as a smoke screen. The Negroes have never been treated better in all the history of mankind than they are treated in the southern States to- day. You are doing them infinite harm with this agitation. The truth is that this lcgislation is not even intended to benefit the Negroes, and everyone of you know it. This measure 1s being sponsored by a communustic element that has flooded into this country from Russia and what are now Soviet satcllite states. Many of them are outright Commu- nists and are using this Measure as one of them methods of undermining this Government and destroying the Ameri- can way of life. I pointed out a moment ago that the people in certain States in the North- east, such as New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, had this vicious measure imposed upon them without having an opportunity to be heard or to vote upon it. The indica- tions are that if the supreme courts of those States ever get a chance to pass on them, these vicious laws will be declared unconstitutional. Some time ago I read into the Recorp 18 of the regulations under the New York Jaw, showing what you cannot ask an applicant for work under the FEPC Act in that State. I am reinserting those remarks at this point, and I defy any Member of Con- gress to submit those 18 questions to the people of his district, and then get their approval for a measure of this kind, FEBRUARY 22 If we were taking a secret ballot on this bill, I daresay it would not get 50 votes in this House. Members who are supporting it are praying that it will either be defeated in the House or that it will be buried in the Senate. It is use~ less to try to water it down with amend- ments, All the perfumes of Arabia would not sweeten it sufficiently to make it palatable to patriotic Americans, who know what this vicious measure means, In order that everyone who reads this ReEcorp may have the full picture before him of what this communistic monstros- ity would do to the American people as a whole, and how the people feel where they have had an opportunity to vote on it, or where their legislators have had an opportunity to vote on it, after being fully informed, I am inserting as a part of these remarks my specch in the House on Tuesday, February 21, including my remarks of February 13, 1947, and of July 12, 1945. I hope every Member of this body will read them before he votes, and every Member of the other body will study them carefully, if this monstrosity ever reaches the floor at the other end of the Capitol. In addition to reciting the regulations under the FEPC in New York, I am also showing what white Americans had to endure under the FEPC which was set up here in Washington by Executive or- der—until the Congress killed it by re- fusing to appropriate money for its maintenance. The speech referred to reads as fol- lows: Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, if George Wash- ington could come back tomorrow and see the communistic FEPC program that js being proposed on his birthday, and especially if he could look up and sce that hideous dis- tortion of the United States seal, and the American eagle, right over our heads, he would be shocked beyond measure. The FEPC bill which is to come before the House tomorrow is the most dangerous piece of communistic legislation with which this country has ever been threatened. If it should become a law, it would do more to drive industry out of this country than anything else that has ever been done by the Congress of the Unlted Btates. CALIFORNIA Remember that it was referred to the peo- ple of California for a popular vote, and was defeated by a clear majority in every single individual county in the State. Are you Members from California now go- ing to vote to impose this hideous mon- strosity on your people who have said by their votes, by more than a million majority, and by a clear majority in every single individual county in the State, that they do not want it? PENNSYLVANIA Are you Members from Pennsylvania go- ing to vote to impose this monstrosity on your people after the legislature of your great State has killed it twicc? Do you want to drive industries out of Pennsylvania by harassing them with a pro- gram of this kind that could not pass the Legislature of Pennsylvania? OHIO Do you Members from Ohio want to force this monstrosity on your people after the legislature of your State has killed it twice? Do you want to drive your industries to Canada, or to some other foreign country by harassing them with this monstrosity?
1950 Remember that this is going to be an issue in every congressional district in the United States in the primaries this year. - MICHIGAN Do you Members from Michigan want to drive your industries out of the country by imposing this monstrosity on your people, after your legislature refused to pass it? If you were to place it on the ballot in the State of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or any other State in the Union, and let the people vote on it, they would kill it in every county just as they did in California. ILLINOIS Do you Members from Illinois want to impose it on your people after your legisla- ture has killed it as dead as Hector? Do you want to run industries out of Tilinois and across the border into Canada, or to some other foreign country? You know, and I know, that it would not carry in a single county in Illinois, if left to a popular vote and explained to the people who would do the voting on it. MINNESOTA They tried to pass it through the Legisla- ture of Minnesota last year, but when the members of the legislature of that State found out what it meant they refused to pass it. Are you Members from Minnesota now going to impose it on your people and drive your industries acrogs the line into a foreign country? It would not pass in a single county in Minnesota if left to a populur vote. COLORADO Take the State of Colorado They tricd to pass it through the Legislature of Colorado last year and failed. Are you Members from Colorado now going to vote to impose it on your people, when the legislature has said they do not want it, and when you know it would not pass in a single county in Colorado by a popular vote? The same thing applies to every other State from Iowa to Maine, from North Da- kota to Florida. You cannot pass this thing in a single county in a single State in this country if left to a popular vote of the people if they are told what it means. NEW YORK They rammed this measure through the Legislature of New York und appointed a commission to enforce it, with the result that they have tantalized and annoyed the business people of New York beyond measure. The best thing the Legislature of New York could do would be to repeal it. If they had left it to a vote of the people of New York, it would have been buried worse than it was in Calitornia. And the same thing would have happened in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. I am inserting at this point excerpts from a speech which I made on this FEPC in New York in 1947, and am setting out 18 difierent questions that you cannot ask a person seek- ing employment in that State. I want every Member to read them and see whether or not he would like to have these restrictions, these paralyzing restrictions, imnosed upon the people of his own State Here are some of the things you cannot do under the law of New York: “Unlawful employment practices before hiring anybody.” Those words are written in capitals, and here is the first unlawful practice’ “First: “Inquire into the original name of the applicant for employment, whose name has been changed by court proceedings or other- wise.’ “If you inquire as to his name or what his name used to be you violate the law. You CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE commit an unlawful practice. For instance, take this man who writes for PM, who calls himself I. F. Stone. His name was Isadore Feinstein, as Cordell Hull once pointed out. Suppose he comes to you asking for employ- ment and you ask him that question. Then you will have committed an unlawful act. “Second. Here is the next one; “It would be unlawful practice to make ‘inquiry into the birthplace of the applicant for employment, the birthplace of his par- ents, spouse, or other close relative.’ “How would you like that in Iowa, Illinois, Texas, or Nebraska? In California I know you do not like it, because you have just voted on it. “Third. Here is the next unlawful practice: “Requirement that the applicant for em- ployment produce a birth certificate or bap- tismal certificate.’ “That would be an unlawful practice under this FEPC Act in New York. “I was surprised to see Governor Dewey get his mustache in the wringer on this proposi- tion. Ido not see how he is ever going to get loose from it “Mr. Mason. Mr. Speaker, will the gentle- man yield? “Mr. RANKIN I yield. “Mr. Mason. What about this requirement during the war that every person employed in certain industries had to prove that he was born here before he could get a job? “Mr. Ranwin Certainly. If we had had this law all over the country then, the Japs would have had a spy at the elbow of every man ina key position; so would the Germans, and so would every other enemy country. “TI thank the gentleman from Illinois for his timely suggestion. “Fourth. It is an unlawful practice in New York, under this law, to make ‘inquiry into the religious denomination of an applicant for employment, his religious affiliations, his church, parish pastor, or religious holidays observed Inquiry into whether an applicant for employment is an atheist’ “Inquiry into whether an applicant for em- ployment is an atheist 1s forbidden, although you may be publishing literature for the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, or any other denomination. “Fifth Another thing, an applicant for employment—und I am reading from the rules laid down by this commission: “‘An applicant for employment may not be told that this is a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish organization ’ “In other words, if you are in the business of publishing religious literature, you cannot even give him that information under this law which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] now proposes for the whole coun- try, including Illinois, “Sixth Here ts another unlawful practice: “‘An applicant for employment may not be told that the following holidays will be observed by the firm and no others, naming the holidays; e. g, Decoration Day and July the Fourth, etc’ “You cannot tell them under the laws, rulings, and regulations of the State of New York that they may observe the Fourth of July. “Seventh. Here is another unlawful prac- tice: “An applicant for employment may not be told that employees are required to work Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.’ “Frankly, I did not know there were any such days until the last few years. “Eighth. Another thing, it 1s an unlawful practice under this New York law to make ‘tnquiry into the complexion of an applicant for employment.’ “Inquire into his complexion and you are likely to get yourself tangled up with the law of the State of New York. “Ninth. Here is another unlawful practice: “Requirement that an applicant for em- ployment annex a photograph.’ 2225 “That would be an unlawful employment practice. You are not supposed to know how he looks. “Remember, this is not in Russia, but in New York. “Mr. Mason. Mr. Speaker, will the gentle- man yield? “Mr. RANKIN I yleld. “Mr. Mason. And yet the State Depart- ment, in order to grant a visa, requires a photograph of the person to be presented with his application. “Mr. RANKIN Certainly, and they ought to do so. Much as I respect the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mason], I cer- tainly would not want to employ him unless I knew how he looked. If I had never seen him, I would certainly want to see his picture. “Tenth. Here is another unlawful practice: “Inquiry whether an applicant for em- ployment its a naturalized or native-born citizen; the date when the applicant acquired citizenship, whether the applicant's parents or spouse are naturalized or native-born citi- zens of the United States; the date when such parents or spouse acquired citizenship.’ “You cannot inquire into those questions under this FEPC law in New York, “Eleventh. Here is another unlawful prac- tice’ “‘Requirement that an applicant for em- ployment produce his naturalization papers or first papers.’ “He may le to you and tell you that he is @ naturalized citizen, but you cannot ask to see his papers. “Twelfth. Another unlawful practice in New York ts to ‘inquire into the Nneage of an applicant for employment, his ancestry, or national origin.’ “You remember a few years ago the Dallas News inserted an advertisement for a col- ored janitor, and this FEPC outfit down the street ordered them to take it out; said it was an unlawful practice. “One member of this FEPC outfit here in Washington went into the office of Swift & Co.in Chicago. This FEPC man asked them: ‘How many Negroes do you have on your board of directors?’ “The answer was ‘None.’ “Then the FEPC man asked him: ‘Why haven't you?’ “That was the FEPC down here in Wash- ington a few years ago before it died be- cause a few radicals could not browbeat Congress into perpetuating it “But it is now in force in the State of New York. “Thirteenth. Here is another unlawful practice under the New York law: “Inquiry into the location of places of business of relatives of an applicant for employment.’ “Fourteenth. It is an unlawful practice to make ‘inquiry into the place of residence of the parents, spouse, or other close rela- tives of an applicant for employment.’ “Iam reading from the records at Albany. “Fifteenth. Here is another unlawful prac- tice: “Inquiry into the maiden name of the wife of a male applicant for employment and/cr inquiry into the maiden name of the mother of a male or female applicant for employment.’ “The other day we had the Eislers down here. One of them has been shown to be representing the Comintern, according to his sister's testimony. He has a brother out in California who seems to be poisoning the public mind through the moving-picture industry. He tries to defend his brother and refers to this woman as ‘my former sister. If you wanted to employ any of them and check the name of at least one of them as given here, you could not inquire into those names at all—if you are trying to do business in the State of New York—even though one of them has a half dozen aliases. You could not even ask where they came
2226 from or when they got here or when they changed their names "Sixteenth, Here is another unlawful prace tice in New York: “ ‘Inquiry into the general military experi- ence of an applicant for employment.’ “Seventecnth. I wish every ex-serviceman could read that, and the next one. “Here it is‘ It is an unlawful practice to make ‘inquiry into the whereabouts of an applicant for employment during the First VTorld War, 1, €., during the period from 1914 to 1919° “In other words, inquiry as to his where- abouts in the period from 1914 to 1919 is forbidden as an unlawful practice in the State of New York. “Ts that what you want in Colorado? Is that what you want in Massachusetts? “Mr, Girroap, We have itt. “Mr. RANKIN. Get rid of it, and we will help you. “Ig that what you want in Kansas, in Ohio, and in other States? “Let your States vote on it. Michigan Is going to vote on it right away. If you will tell the people of Michigan the whole truth, let them know the whole truth about this monstrosity, I will guarantee you they will beat it worse than they did in California. “Bighteenth. Here is another unlawful practice: “ ‘Inquiry into the organizations of which an applicant for employment is a member, including organizations the name or char- acter of which indicates the religion, race, or national origin of {ts members.’ “I presume, if they should ask me if I am a member of the Masonic Lodge, I could have them jerked up and brought before this inquisition board or probably prosecuted at various places throughout the country. “Mr Speaker, I am not criticizing the peo- ple of New York. I have long since learned in going from one State to another that real Americans are about the same everywhere. I believe if they had a vote on it the people of New York would beat it, just as they did in California. “They are having a vote on it in Michigan because a little minority group has been attempting to browbeat the Legislature of Michigan into passing it. I dare say when it goes on the ballot in Michigan and the people of Michigan understand what it means they will defeat it more thoroughly than they did in California. The same thing would happen in probably every other State in the Union. “Mr. AuGUsT H. ANDRESEN Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield. “Mr. Ranxin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. “Mr AvuGuUsT H. ANDRESEN. Will the gen- tleman tell us what the penalties are in New York? “Mr. RANKIN. In addition to being harassed to death with orders and directives to cease, desist, rehire, and so forth, there is a pun- ishment provided of ‘imprisonment in a penitentiary or county jail for not more than 1 year or by fine of not more than 6500, or by both.’ “Mr. Girrorp. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? “Mr. RANKIN. I yleld to the gentleman from Massachusetts. “Mr. Gurrorp. I want to remind the gen- tleman that we have that law in Massachu- setts. “Mr. RANKIN. I was afraid of that. “Mr. Grrrorp. I was thoroughly amazed when I looked into it; I had not learned what the rules were. But, perhaps we car- ried it too far. I am so sorry, and I have been, and I am not in favor of this, I can assure the gentleman. “Mr. Rankin. I know the gentleman 1s not, and I am sure the people of Massa- chusetts would not favor it if they had a vote on It. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE “Mr. Grrrorp. Employers always inquire and must know whether you come from a respectable family or not. They are so care- ful. Perhaps they overdid it. But I think a man ought to be able to find out whether he came from a respectable family. “Mr. RANKIN. There are a great many ques- tions that should be asked, which are for- bidden under this law. “FEPC IN WASHINGTON, D. C, “Mr. Speaker, in order to give the new Members an idea of what a mess this FEPC was here in Washington during its existence under Executive order, I insert a speech I made on this subject in 1945. “It reads as follows: “‘PEPC a BeTRAYAL OF WHITE AMERICANS «(Speech of Hon. JoHN E, RANKIN, of Mis- sissippi, in the House of Representatives, Thursdey, July 12, 1945) “‘Mr. Ranxin. Mr. Chairman, the passage of a law at this time legalizing this so-called FEPC would be a betrayal of the white peo- ple of the country. If every individual in the United States could understand just what it means, there would be such a roar of protest coming from every State in this Union that it would never see the light of day. “If every Member of Congress would “screw his courage to the sticking place” and vote his convictions on this so-called FEPC, it would not get 60 votes out of the entire membership of 435. “‘It is a8 most dangerous and brazen at- tempt to fasten upon the white people of America the worst system of control by alien or minority racial groups that has been known since the Crucifixion. “when I read the names of the personnel of this outfit you will understand what I mean. “To sanctify this organization by law would give the lie to everything we have told our American boys they were fighting for. Instead of coming back to liberty, freedom, and democracy, they would find themselves sold into this bondage, herded, humiliated, and regimented by allen influences directed by a foreign comintern representing the deadly doctrine of Karl Marx that 1s based upon hatred for Christianity and for every- thing that 1s based on Christian principles. “Tt is a manifestation in legislative form of that infidelity that has closed thousands of Christian churches in Europe and been re- sponsible for the murder of untold millions of Christian human beings. “«This measure is not directed altogether at the white people of the South. If it were, you folks in the North would not have s0 much ground for alarm. We in the South know how to combat subversive elements. As Henry Grady once said, “we wrested the South from such domination ‘when Federal drumbeats rolled nearer and Federal bayo- nets hedged closer to the ballot box of the South than it ever will again in this Re- public.’” “But you people in the North have not had that training, and this FEPC is likely to bring grief, strife, hatred, race riots, and chaos in your northern cities if this vicious agency is perpetuated and sanctioned by your votes. “Do not forget that the returning service- men know what this thing means, and they are going to call you to account next year— beginning with the primary. They are not going to wait until the general election. “Do not forget that every businessman, every farmer, every professional man, and every other independent individual whose blood glows with the instinct of American liberty, is going to join these men, and those other patriotic forces that are fighting to save Amcrican institutions for which these boys have been fighting and dying upon every battlefield in the world, FEBRUARY 22 “Tf every man and every woman in the United States could just read the list of in- dividuals that compose the personnel of this crazy FEPC, and its subdivisions throughout the country, I dare say there would not be enough of you left who vote for it, even if nominated in the primaries next year, to form a corporal’s guard. “‘For your information, and for the infor- mation of the American people generally, I am going to read you the official personnel as it exists today. Remember, this list is taken from the official record. This is the group that wants to nose into and control every business in the United States. Remember, they can search the files and records of every business establishment in America where some disgruntled individual is willing to trump up a charge of discrimination. They can drag them all over the country and try them, and in that way destroy any ordinary business concern, “The next thing they are going to try to do is get control of your schools and force their communistic henchmen into the schools and teach your children their subversive doc- trines. “Read these Msts carefully, which, as I said, are taken from the official records here in Washington, and you will see that not 1 out of 10 on these rolls is a white gentile American “ ‘Here is the official list: “Committee on Fair Employment Practice, Washington, D. C., office of the chairman Sal- Incumbent Title Race ary Ross, Maleolm __ Chairman _____-- White _/$, 000 Jotinson, George M.} Deputy Chair- | Colored_| &, 000 man, Hubbard, Maceo_..| Hearings exam- |..-da--_.-} 5,600 Bloch, Emanuel. .- White__.} 5,600 Copper, Evelyn -. .do ---40....} 5,600 Berking, Max._....| Assistant ---do.._.}| 3, 800 Chairman. Alexander, Dorothy.| Sceretnary to | Colored_| 2.600 Chairman Cilifton, J. Jeanno...| Secretury to |...do..../ 2,000 Deputy. Brooks, Mary....-- Clerk-stenog- |...do_...| 1, 800 rapher, Banting, Myra....-}_.._- do._-------- White._.} 1, 800 “*You will note that in this office of the chairman, consisting of 10 people, there are 5 Negroes and 6 white people, most of whom have foreign names. One of the whites is a stenographer who receives the smaliest sal- ary of anyone on the list. “‘Remember that the members of this group preside over the destiny of every busi- ness enterprise in America, and are using their assumed powers to harass white Ameri- cans out of business. “This is the organization Members of Congress are being asked to perpetuate by the passage of this bill. ‘“SIELD OPERATIONS “ ‘Here is the Division of Field Operations: “ “Field operations : - Sal- Incumbent Title Race ary Maslow, Will. _...- Chief_......--.- White...|$6, 500 Mitchel, Clarence..| Principal fair- | Colored.| 5, 600 practice ex- aminor. Davidson, Eugene..|-.--- do_-_-...-..].-- do..-.| 5, 600 Beall, W. Hayes._..| Senior fair-prac- | White...] 4, 60) tice examiner, Mercer, Inez-.....- Fair-practiceex- |-.-do....]| 3, 800 . aminer. Rogers, Eleanor....} Clerk -stenog- | Colorod.| 1, 800 rapher. Saito, Otome. -.-...-]----. dO... --nanee- Japa-| 1,800 nese Amer- fean. Thompson, Mildred.|_.._. do_._.-.---- Colored] 1, 800 Cornick, Emma....|_.._- do_..-------}--- do..--{ 1,620
1950 “You will note that {t consists of nine people—five Negroes, one Japanese, and three others—two of whom have records of af- fillations with Communist-front organiza- tions, according to the reports of the Dies committee. “Imagine this group going about over the country riding herd on the white American businessmen of the Nation, telling them whom they shall employ, whom they shall promote, and with whom they may associate, “It would be interesting, and probably en- Nghtening, to check up on these people and see how many of them are native-born Americans. “*Members of Congress hed better do this now, before they get caught in this trap, because this question of un-American ac- tivities is golng to be an issue in every cone gressional district next year, beginning with the primarics. “The people are not going to wait until the gencral election for someone who holds a colnmission as a result of the pernicious ac- tivities of Sidney Hillman and his gang to wrap the party cloak about him and shout to the people of his district that “I am a Republican” or ‘I um a Democrat.” “*More than 2,000,000 young men have al- ready been discharged in this war, and they are organizing now to try to save America for Americans. They are going to read your reccrds, and they are likely to ask you sume very embarrassing questions when you gct home. 6 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS DIVISION “ ‘Now look at this Hist and see who reviews all these records of racial discrimination when they come to Washington, and you will understand how the editor of the Dallas News felt and how other white gentiles feel, in- cluding Cecil B, DeMille, the great American movie producer, when they are harassed out of business. “Here is the list: “Review and Analysis Division Incumbent Title Race a - \ Davis, John A... Chief oe. Colored _ $5, 600 Lawson, Marjone._} Research anna- |..-do..__| 3, S00 lyst Colightly, Cores | Compliance an- |...do... | 3, 200 Jus, alyst Hemphill, India._.].--- do... 22222.-]-. do ---| 2,600 Coan, Curol 2 2222 |e2--- do. ----| White 2, 600 Davis, Jov Poo... _.d0_--2- 2 22-} Colored. | 2,600 Hotfman, Ceha.... | Clerk-stenog- | White 1,800 rapher, Spaulding, Joan... _}-.-- do... 22. Colored _| 1, 800 “You will note that it consists of six Ne- groes and two white people, one of whom is named Carol Coan and the other Celia Hoff- man, a white stenographer receiving the low- est salary on the list. “Now, if you sign the petition to bring out this bill or vote for this monstrosity, do not forget that when you get home those white American businessmen who holp to sustain this Nation in time of peace and whose sons are fighting its battles in time of war are going to want to ask you some questions that you may not be able to answer. “ “LEGAL DIVISION “But if you want a real laugh, look at this Legal Division. “ ‘Legal Division Sal- ary a pees Colored _|$4, 600 White__.} 4, 600 Colored .| 1,800 Title Incumbent Race Reeves, Frank 1). -- Suckgold, Simon. . Gordon, Jernevive_. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE “You will note that this so-called Legel Division consists of two Negroes and a Simon Stickgold. “INFORMATION DIVISION “‘Now we come to the Information Divi- sion. outfit, write to this Division: “Information Division If you want information about this Incumbent Bourne, St, Clair... Whiting, Margaret. Title Information s} ¢- ciihist, Race Colored |$3, 00 Clerk-stenog- |.-.do 22. “apt er, Sal- ary 1,00 “You will note that it consists of two Ne- groes, one registered as an information spe- clalist and the other as a clerk-stenographer. “BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION “*Now we come to the Budget and Admin- istration Division. This Division not only makes up the budget but administers the regulations. Here is the list “Budget and administration & Incumbent ‘Title Race my Jones, Vheodore 2 | Chief oe Colored $5, 600 Jeter, simelam.... Assistant ade [odo 2221 J, 200 ministrative ofiteer Baker, Vivinn Dlo.] Clerk-stenoprae | ..do.... 2, OOO pher Jackson, Bosales AL] Cleth-ty pilot... we OL 1, 620 Paynter, Minme Aloo. dol. Leal} dowel! 1, 020 Hollomon, Irving | Clerk. 222---2-. 0.222. 1, 440 Selby, Ralph Ro...| Chief, theeale.2. 12 do loi] 2, 600 Ross, Sylvia Bo. Voucher auditor.|...do 2.22] 2,000 Nelson, Ofelia oo... Accounting clerk }-. do 2222] 1, 620 Carpenter, ke lizas | 22. doe. 22222222}. doe... 1, 020 beth Brent, Pearl Pl.222)0 22 dol... do o.._] 1, 620 “«This outfit, which is composed of 11 Negroes, and no whites at all, not only makes up the budget for financing this aggrega- tion, but it seems to have the power of ad- ministration I hope you will read this list to your white businessmen, farmers, and ex- servicemen at home when you get back and ask for renomination in the primaries next year, ““MAIL AND FILES DIVISION “Now, here are the ones that have control of the mails and filing system: “‘Maiu and Files Sal N a Title wy Incumbent Race Chief, Mailaund | Colored. lew, 000 Files Douglas, Lela Welch, Selena 2... Docket clerk... | 2 doll. 1, 800 Gamble, Jessie. . Vile clerk..2222-]-- do. 1, 620 Phillips, Rose_ is en (tn do 1, 440 Reed, Charles....-.| Messenger. ...do.. 1, 380) Mitchell, Regima_._} Mile clerk....2--]-. do... 1, 440 “*You will note that this division is com- posed entirely of Negroes—six Negroos, and no whites at all. I wonder why they dis- criminated against the white race in set- ting up these two powerful branches of this most dangerous agency? “ REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW YORK “Now, let us turn to the regional offices and see who is going to harass the business people back in the States. Here is the list for the State of New York: 2227 ‘Regional office, New York 8al- Tocumbent Title Race ary Lawson, Fdward H.| Regional direc- | Colored .|$5, 600 tor, Jones, Madison 8...) Fair-practice ea- |...d0..... 3, 800 aminet. Jones, Robert G__..}.-2-. d0....22-2--- .- G02... 3, 800 Donovan, Daniel RK] ..--do...... | White...} 3, $00 Trish, Miuam_._ 2. Clerk-stenogra- Colored _| 2, 000 pher, Asepha, Tilhe.__-2-] 2.2 -do lw... | White...} 1,620 Schwartz, Soma....}..2-. (3 {te _ d0..0.- 1,620 “This is the list that 1s going to help Gove ernor Dewey harass the white Amcrican busl- nessmen of the Empire State. You will note that it 1s composed of four Negrces and three white people. Please read the names of the three white people and see if you can figure out their antecedents. “Businessmen of New Yoik are going to have a hard time after this war without hav- ing all this communistic conglomeration to deal with, to say nothing cf the one which Governor Dewey and his political henchmen Nave now heaped upon them. “REGIONAL OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA “‘Now, let us turn to Philadelphia, the birthplace of the Constitution—the City of Brotherly Love At the risk of causing glori- ous cld Benjamin Franklin to turn over in his grave, I read you the list: “‘Regional office, Philadelphta . ' . Sal- Incumbent J itle Race ary Fleming, G@ James. Regional dnec- | Colored. |$5, 600 lor Greenblatt, Mile | Fair-practice | White__.| 3, 800 dred eMLTMINOT Manly, ilo A lo-fe2-e. do Lllliee Colored} 3, 800 Risk, Samuel Ro ---do. -. ......| White . | 3,800 Gniunape, Wallard_{--2 do. Colored | 3, 200 Gorgus, ticle. 2228 Clerk-stenogiu- | . do... 1, 800 pher, Klinger, Karvy 2222]. 22. dow. White_..] 1,800 Brown Grayee . -- do... Colored. | 1, 440 “ «You will note that it 1s composed of eight individuals—-tive Negroes and three whites, Mildred Greenblatt, Samuel R_ Risk, and Kary] Klinger. “ ‘Don't you know there will be some broth- erly lovo when that crowd gets going on the businessmen of the Philadelphia area? “ ‘REGIONAL OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. “Now, here is the regional office in Washe ington, D C., the Nation’s Capital, where there has been so much persecution of white gentiles in the last few years Here is the st: “ ‘Regional office, Washington, D. C. Incumbent Title Race a Evans, Joseph...... Regional direc- | Colored |$6, 600 tor. Houston, Theoph- | Fair-practicoex- | . do... 3, 200 jlus. aminer Kahn, Alieo..----2-{... doo... ... | White...{ 2, 600 Chisolm, Kuby-..-- Cle k-stenogea- Colored. | 1, 800 pher, Urback, Dorothy._.]-..-- do_...-------]--- do..... 1, 620 “*You will note it consists of four Negroes and Alice Kahn. Just what chance a white gentile will have with this group 1s entirely problematical, to say the least of it.
2228 ‘ “REGIONAL OFFICE, CLEVELAND “ ‘Now, let us move out where the West be- gins and take a look. Here is the list in the Cleveland regional office. “Regional office, Cleveland Incumbent Title Race oor —— McKnight, Wil- Repional direc | Colored - |#4, 600 liam, tor. Abbott, Oleott R...} Fair-practiee ex- | White...] 3, 00 armner. Glore, Lethia.....--|-... do... . ....| Colored_| 8, 200 Kelley, Berniza. Clerk -stenog ~--tlo.....| 1, 620 raphe Wasem, Edna.--..-}..--. W0_ we eee eee White...} 1, 800 “*you will note that this group is com- posed of three Negroes and two whites, Ol- cott R. Abbott and Edna Wasem. ““Don’t you know the white people of Cleveland will enjoy being dominated by them? “ “CINCINNATI REGIONAL OFFICE **Ctnctnnati seems to be largely under the jurisdiction of the Cleveland office since it only has two people: “‘Cinaannatt Incumbent Title Race {| Sab ary James, Harold_....- Fair-practice ox- | White.._|$4, 600 alainer, we newc cence nee eee ee- Clerk-stenogra- |__--...---| 1, 800 pher. “DETROIT REGIONAL OFFICE “‘Now let us move on to Detroit, Mich. Here is the regional office for Detroit: “ ‘Detroit Sal Incumbent Title Race ary Bwan, Edward..... Examiner tn | Colored .!$4, 600 charge Sese, Doris K_....-- Clerk-stenog- | Japa- | 1,620 rapher. nese Amer- iean, “ ‘You will note that it 1s composed of one Negro and one Japanese. I know the busi- nessmen of Detroit are grateful for this con- sideration. “I should like to hear some of the com- ments they will make to you gentlemen from Detroit when you get home next summer, if you support this vicious measure. “REGIONAL OFFICE, CHICAGO “Here is the list of the regional office in the Windy City: “ ‘Regional office, Chicago Sal- Incumbent Title Race ary Henderson, Elner-.} Revional direo- | Colored. |$5, 600 lor Gibson, Harry H. | Falr-practiee ex- |-..do..... 3, 800 aminer, Echults, Joy_.-.----|---- du... eee ee White. _.| 3, 800 Williams, Le Roy-- -do...-----. | Colored. | 3,200 Zeidman, Penny -.. Clerk- -stenog- | White...| 1,800 rapher. Marguer |j...-- dO... 2-2-- Colored.| 1,620 Ingram, ite 8. “You will note it is composed of four Negroes, Joy Shultz, and Penny Zeidman. I am told that a representative of this group went into the office of Swift & Co. and asked how many Negro members they had on their board of dtrectors. The answer was, “We have no Negro members on our board of directors.” Then the question came beck, “Why haven't you?” This just shows what this supergovernmental set-up is driving at. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE They want to communise America and de- stroy everything which our glorious ances- tors have left us and for which our boys are now fighting and dying all over the world, “ ‘REGIONAL OFFICE, ATLANTA “'Here ts a lst of the Atlanta office: “ ‘Regional office, Atlanta 8al- Title ary Incumbent Race Dodge, Wither- spoon, Regional direc- | White.../$4, 600 or Fair-prectice Hope, John.....---- Colored _| 8, 800 examiper McKay, George D..|._.-- do__......-..] White...] 3,200 Chubb, Sally..---..| Clerk-stenog- |...do..-_. 2, 000 rapher, Ingram, Thelma....]-.---d0......--.-- Colored .| 1, 800 “'You will note that it consists of two Negroes and three whites; the most im- portant post in this office, that of exam- iner, {s held by a Negro. I wonder how the people of Georgia enjoy the domina- tion of this group. I may have more to say about them later. “‘REGIONAL OFFICE, KANSAS CITY “Here is the list of the Kansas City office: “‘Regional office, Kansas City | Sal- 1 Tncumbent Title Race ary White... /95, 600 Regional direc- tor Hoglund, Roy A... Ormabee, Eucene..| Fair-practice ex- |.-.do._...] 3, $00 nmuner. Jones, Mildred_-...] Clerk-stenog- | Colored_| 1, 620 rapher Schlien, Helene G__|--.--do....------- White._.} 1, 620 “*You will note that this office force con- gists of three whites and one Negro. You can read the list of whites yourself and then judge how many of them really represent the people of that area ““ST, LOUIS REGIONAL OFFICE “ ‘Here is the list of the regional office at St. Louis: “<St. Louis 4 Sal- Incumbent Title Race ary Theodore Brown...| Examiner tn | Colored _|$3, 800 charge Morrls Iavine _.... Examiner,.  . | White 3, 200 Armatha Jackson...{ Clerk-stenog- | Colored _| 1,620 rapher. “You will notice that ft consists of two Negroes and Morris Levine. Just how they came to select these particular individuals to preside over the destiny of the white busi- nessmen of the grcat State of Missouri I can- not understand. “ ‘REGIONAL OFFICE, DALLAS, TEX. “'The members of the regional Office at Dallas are as follows: * ‘Regional office, Dallas Bal- Incumbent Race ary Castenads, Carlos..| Hegional diroo- | Whito.../$4, 600 fr. (Vacancy}.....-.--- Fair-practice |___..-.... 3, 200 @: . Gutleben, Willetta.| Clerk-stenog> | White...| 1, 800 rapher, “*You will note there is one vacancy. Last year that position was held by a Negro, namely, Roy V. Williams, The other two members, Carlos Castenada, the regional di- rector, and Willetta Gutleben seem to be in charge of the office at the present time. This ig the regional office that attacked the Dal- FEBRUARY 22 Jas News last year for carrying an advertise- ment for @ Negro janitor. This fellow Cas- tenada, the director, held the same position that he holds now. If this set-up ts made permanent, then I presume the rest of the white American businessmen in Texas may expect to be harassed just as the Dallas News was. “REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW ORLEANS “The regional office at New Orleans con- sists of the following members: “‘Regional office, New Orleans Incumbent Title Race Sor Ellinger, W. Don... Regional diree- | White...}$3, 800 ol. Morton, James H_.| Fair-practice | Colored} 3, 200 evamimer. Ronning, Evelyn... Clerk ~stenogra- White...) 1,500 pber. — “You will note that there are two whites and one Negro in this office. As the Negro is the fatr-practice examiner, just what the decent people of Louisiana may expect at the hands of this outfit 1s somcthing to con- template “REGIONAL OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO “The San Francisco office consists of the following individuals: '‘Regional office, San Francisco Sal Inenmbent Title Race ary Kingman, Harry L.} Regione! diree | White...|$5, tor. Rutledpe, Edwurd..[ Fair-practice |..-do..... 4, 600 examiner Ross, Bernard... _--]---. do........2-- _-. 00.2... 3, 800 Seymour, Virginiu.. “amtnistrative an \ eee 2, 000 assistant Maven, Jewol_.. ...| Clerk-stenogra- }|...d0-.... 1, 800 pher. “This 1s the only office we have found yet that consists entirely of white (?) people. Just what the background of each one of them is I am unable to say. “LoS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE “The Los Angeles regional office consists of the following: “‘Los Angeles Sal- Incumbent Title Race wry Hunt, A, Bruce....| Herings exam- | White-_-/$5, 600 iver. Brown, Robert E...| Fair-practice ex- | Colored .| 3,600 am Iner. Lopez, Ignacio._..--|- White. _.| 3, 800 Vetwr, Vera G.-..- Clerk-stienogra- ---G0....- 1, S00 pher, Lerna, Marle......-[-----d0..--.+-.---|---d0....-| 1,620 “*¥You will note that there are four whites and one Negro 1n this office, the Negro being the fair-practice examiner. I do not know what consideration the white businessmen of the Los Angeles area are receiving at the hands of this group, but from what I can hear there is considerable gnashing of teeth over the situation. “Mr Chairman, this FEPC is a supergov- ernment of commissars, with more power for evil than any other agency that has ever been created in this country. If Congress should ratify it and make it the law of the land, then we will have sacrificed and destroyed that sa- cred freedom for which our brave men are now fighting and dying on every battle front in the world. “We have no right to pass such a drastic revolutionary measure that literally changes our way of life, as well as our form of govern- ment, while these boys are away from home
1950 in uniforms, fighting to sustain American in- stitutions. ‘As I said before, we are going to carry this battle against such un-American activi- tics into every congressional district in the United States next year, in the primary, 50 that no one can crawl behind the party cloak and claim immunity at the hands of any seg- ment of our people. “This is a battle for the survival of free constitutional government, for the survival of the American way of life, for the survival of free enterprise, for the survival of Amer- ican liberty itself. “‘It 1s a battle to save America for Ameri- cans,’" The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. RANKIN) there were—ayes 101, noes 161. Messrs. RANKIN and WILLIAMS de- manded tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. RankKIN and Mr. PowELL. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were—ayes 106, noes 163. So the motion was rejected. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I ack unanimous consent that all debate on the Steed amendment and all amend- ments thereto close at a quarter after 10. Mr. COLMER. I object, Mr. Chair- man, Mr. POWELL, Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the Steed amendment and all amendments thereto close at a quorter after 10. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr Powe Lt) there werc—ayes 143, noes 149. Mr. KLEIN, Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. Siti of Virginia and Mr. PowE..i The Committee again divided; and the teers reported there were—ayes 140, noes 167 So the motion was rejected. Mr HOBBS) Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which is at the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr Honss At the end of the amendment offered by Mr, Sterp inseit’ “Prov.ded, however, That nothing in tha pending bill shall mean nor be con- strued to mean that any person who lacks the qualifications necessary to fit one to per- form the duties of the job for which that person may be applying, must be employed in spite of his disqualification.” The CHAIRMAN. The_ gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 min- utes. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, a parhamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state 1t. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What is the opinion of the Chair with reference to the time for debating amendments? In other words, I have an amendment on page 1, line 9, of the Steed substitute. When will the Chair recognize me to discuss that amendment? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. That is not a par- liamentary inquiry. The gentleman from Alabama is recog- nized. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, there are just two points that I desire, very dis- passionately, to make. The first one is that never in a single one of these so-called FEPC bills has there been stated any affirmative re- quirement that anyone seeking employ- ment should have any qualifications whatsoever for the job he is seeking. Suppose there are two stenographers applying for a job with you, will you show any discrimination between the two per- sons who are applying if one of them never saw a typewriter and does not know how to spell “cat,” and you give the job to the other one? Is that dis- crimination? Suppose a man_ never plowed a furrow in his hfe and he asked for a job with you on your farm. If he does not know a p'ow from a nibhick will you give him the job in preference to one who does know the business? Of course you will show discrimination, and you ought to; yet there is not a word in any of these bills that requires efficiency or any qualification whatsoever. My amendment simply states that you can- not force an employee on an employer unless there is some showing that the man or woman secking employment knows something about the job. The other point I wish to make is one which I have made repeatedly on every single one cf the occasions when FEPC has been up in this House, and I have yet to have my challenge answered by anybody except the gentleman from New York [Mr Marcantonio], who still in- sists, briliant man that he is, that the thirteenth amendment against slavery 1s an answer-—which, of course, is absurd, with all due respect to the gentleman. My poimt is that this FEPC 1s utterly unconstitutional, and no man can read the Hodges case 1 Two Hundred and Third United States Reports, page 1, and reach any cther conclusion but that the Federal Government has no right to intrude into the police powers of the sovereign States. Congress has no right to regulate private employment between citizens of the States And, whether you like it or not, you have got no more right to intrude there than you have to fix the price of butter on Mars. That is all I wanted to say except this in reply to the gentleman who quoted so eloquently the Churches of Christ in America and their alleged deliverance. But I go to the fountainhead and call your attention to our Lord and Savior Himself who in a sermon gave us a para- ble about a labor dispute where several men were employed at different hours of the day. The employer’s question was— and it has never yet been answered, and there is no answer to it in this bill: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” That is the question that has been ringing down the ages for 2,000 years; and you cannot take my job away from me and put somebody in it whether he be qualified or not merely because of the color of his skin. That is all I have to say, and I appreciate your attention, 2229 Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. In order to clarify the parliamentary situation, to what amendment has the gentleman from Alabama offered his amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama was to the Stced substitute. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer one particular point that has been made to the Committee. That is in reference to the application of penalties in the bill now under consideration. I have heard it stated on a number of occasions on the floor here that you can send a man to jail for violating the provisions of this bill. I did not know what the gentlemen were talking about—several of them made the statement—until finally a Member of this House came and pointed out section 14 to me. He pointed out that it provided a penalty of $500 in fines or downward or a 1-year sentence or downward. I then realized what they were talking about. I had read that section before, of course, but I had no idea that was the one to which they referred. Therefore, I take this time to explain exactly what that section is and let us get it clear in our minds so that the Members who re- ferred to it will know what it is. I be- lieve they were somewhat confused. Some of them are not lawyers. I used to be a lawyer. Section 14 provides a penalty for any- one who resists, opposes, impedes, in- timidates, or interferes with a member, agent, or employee of the Commission while engaged in the performance of duties under this act or because of such performance. Then the penalty 1s pro- vided If you will go to your general code you will find that is a very normal, ordi- nary provision. The Federal Code, title 18, sections 253 and 254 outlines a great number of different officers of the United States Government who are glv- en protection against assault, interfer- ence, and so forth, while engaged in the performance of their duties. If this bill had made sections 453 and 454 applicable instead of writing a new section 14, the penalty would be 3 years imprisonment, SoI want to make this clear: Section 14, which provides that penalty in essence, means that if you commit an assault against an officer who is charged with the responsibility of enforcing this act while discharging such responsibilities, then that officer as an officer of the Fed- eral Government is afforded the protec- tion that Federal officers are normally afforded under Federal statutes. The bill we are considering has nothing to do with the enforcement of the law itself. The truth of the matter is, and if I had sufficient time to explain it I would go into the matter in detail, the general concept of the prohibition in this bill, the enforcement of in case of violations of that prohibition is exactly like it is in the Labor Relations Act, the general
2230 Jabor act, that is on the books today. It proceeds upon a charge of violation and hearing thereon. If there ts a find- ing of an unfair labor practice, there follows an order to cease and desist. If that order is not obeyed the enforcing agency may proceed into the courts to procure a judgment to enforce it. The only way a man could be put in jail under this act—let us get this clear so that nobody will be confused about it—would be to resist a Federal officer; then he would be subject to a milder Federal penalty as compared with the general law that would be involved in such case, or, for him to disobey the in- junction of a court after he has had a hearing before the court for failure to comply with the order to cease and de- sist. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I ask for this time in order to make some comments regarding the difference between the Steed sub- stitute and the McConnell amendment. We are now considering the Steed sub- stitute for the McConnell amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma I[Mr. STEsD] has stated to the committee that he adopted my bill, H R. 6668, with the exception of the title I do not object to his title “Fair Employment Practice Act.” I want to discuss the purposes of the substitute, and to dis- tinguish between 1t and the McConnell measure. I believe we have made this much headway in the consideration of the leg- islation, and that is that the only issue is whether or not we are to have com- pulsion or sanctions or shall we have & voluntary program based upon concilia- tion. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacogs] enlightened us on that, because he finally stated that under the Powell bill a court could hold one in contempt, and that means a jail sentence for not obeying a cease-and-desist order. The gentleman from New York [Mr. POWELL] has stated time and again, and so have others, that enforcement powers are necessary to carry out the provisions of the FEPC bill. On the contrary, it is the philosophy of the McConnell amend- ment and the Steed substitute that there shall be no sanctions. The Steed sub- stitute proceeds entirely on the basis of conciliation; that through education and mediation there shall be adopted, throughout industry, equality of oppor- tunity. It is to promote equality, and therefore to take steps toward the Amer- ican goal. Now, the McConnell amendment, I agree, is designed to achieve the same thing, but here is the weakness in it. Section 7 provides harsh penalties for interfering with the Commission and ought to be stricken, Although Mr. McCONNELL’s amendment proposes to eliminate the jail sentence and leave it on the fine basis, his amendment pro- vides for investigatory powers and for subpena power. Also it proceeds on the theory that there is a quarrel, a dispute. The McConnell amendment provides for five high-powered judges. They are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE called Commissioners, but they operate under quasi judicial procedures. The theory is that the Commission must choose between two sides. Our bill pro- ceeds on the other theory. It establishes a fair employment practice agency in the Department of Labor and gives a man- date to carry out the philosophy of this bill. There is danger, therefore, if we adopt the theory of mediation rather than compulsion, in setting up a com- mission procedure to regard the parties as antagonists, as applicants for jobs that are not accepted, or as employees that are discharged, when actually the legislation is designed to advance us through educational methods toward a desirable goal. Now, I think the House recognizes that I have come a Jong way to come to this point of conceding that some legislative action ought to be taken by the House on the problem. I think there are grave reasons why we should take action. At the same time, I have made it equally clear, with these elements of compulsion incorporated, that I could not at any hazard vote for the Powell bill. But, I am extremely interested in this matter, and my measure has been offered in good faith, and the gentleman from Okla- homa has sponsored it in good faith. So, we ought to proceed consistently with this theory of mediation, leaving out all elements of compulsion. For that reason the Steed measure sets up advisory coun- cils, National State, and local, with rep- resentatives of management, labor, and the public to advise with the Secretary in promoting equality of opportunity. There are three principal differences between the Steed amendment and the McConnell amendment: First, a director and not a court or @ commission of five. The Steed bill provides a director to be paid $15,000, the McConnell bill five men to be paid $12,00C each. You will save some money. Sccond, as to the investi- gatory powers, the Steed amendment has no investigatory powers, no subpena powers and no sanctions whatever. The McConnell bill does have them to the extent indicated. Finally by providing advisory councils the Steed substitute emphasizes conciliation rather than co- ercion in the promotion of job oppor- tunities. I was in a clinic in a southern city the other day where there are Negro tech- nicians and other employees. I said to the doctor, “How did it happen?” He said, “I am glad to help Negro tech- nicians and clerks. Soon after I hired some colored people I had to discharge one. Some said it was because she was colored and not because she was incom- petent. If there were an agency telling me what I had to do it would have been another story.” Here was good proof that voluntary methods will work. But such experiences should be passed on to others, and employers who try to help in such programs should be spared har- assments from a Federal agency. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HESELTON. Is an amendment to the Steed substitute amendment proper while the amendment offered by FEBRUARY 22 the gentleman from Alabama is still pending? The CHAIRMAN. It is not. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will have to be disposed of first. Mr. HESELTON. Further, can an amendment be offered to the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania at this time? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it can. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I of- fer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hrse.Ton: Page 11, line 19, after the word “discrimination”, insert a new paragraph, as follows: “(b) After the filing of any written com- plaint, the Director of the Commission shall designate one of the Commissioners to make, with the assistance of the Commission staff, prompt investigation in connection there- with, and, if such Commissioner shall de- termine after such investigation that prob- able cause exists for crediting the allega- tions of the complainant, be shall imme- diately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practice complained of by con- ference, conciliation, and persuasion”; and renumber paragraph (b) of section 4 to read paragraph (c) of section 4. Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HALE. To what amendment is the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr, HESELTON] being offered? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts stated that he of- fered his amendment to the McConnell amendment. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. Is it not a fact that amendments to that amendment are not in order until the Steed amendment is disposed of? The CHAIRMAN. No; an amendment can be pending to each of the McConnell and Steed amendments. Mr. RANKIN. But the Steed amend- ment is a substitute for the McConnell amendment; therefore, it seems to me it should be voted on before we go on to amend the McConnell amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The two amend- ments may each have amendments pend- ing to them. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield to the gen- tleman from Kentucky. Mr. MORTON. The amendment was offered to page 11, and there are only 8 pages to the bill. Mr. HESELTON. It should be changed to page 5. I am sorry for that. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chair- man, that the amendment be corrected to read “page 5.” Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield to the gen- tleman from Wisconsin. Mr. KEEFE. I just went to the read- ing clerk to ascertain what amendment it was that he just read. As I under- stood it, it related to page 11.
1950 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state to the gentleman from Wisconsin, for the purpose of clarifying the situa- tion, that the gentleman from Massa- chusetts just obtained unanimous con- Sent to change the number of the page from 11 to 5, Mr. HESELTON. That is right. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be reread for the information of the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? There was no cbjection. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will State it. Mr. TACKETT. Is there any objection to reading all of it? The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is about to read the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. TACKETT. I would like to have unanimous consent to read the whole bill again, Mr.POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN Objection is heard. The Clerk will reread the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massa- chusetts |Mr. Hrese.ton]. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr, Hesr.Ton to the amendment offcred by Mr McConne tu: Page 5, line 19, after the word “discrimina- tion”, insert a new paragraph as follows “(b) After the filing of any written com- plaint, the Director of the Commission shall desiznate one of the Commissioners to muke, with the assistance of the Commission staff, prompt investigation in connection there- with, and, if such Commussioner shall de- termine after such investigation that prob- able cause exists for crediting the allega- tions of the complainant, he shall imme- diatcly endeavor to eliminate the un'awful employment practice complained of by con- ference, conciliation, and persuasion”, and renumber paragraph (b) of section 4 to read paregraph (c) of section 4 Mr HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for any confusion that may have arisen as a result of the offering of this amendment and will explain it to you briefly. I also apologize to any who may have heard me say some 3 hours ago that I was going to offer this type of amendment. to the committee bill as I am sure that the committee will accept it. I wanted to offer it to the bill filed by the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania because I believe he can be in- duced to accept it and I have becn as- sured by the gentleman from Arkansas, who 1s the original author of the other bill, that he would accept it. I am going to vote against the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and he knows it. He is one of the best men there is in the House and I pay tribute to him publicly for his sincerity and integrity in his approach to this problem. I am going to vote against the bill offered by my colleague from Pennsyl- vania, and he knows it, and he accepts that in the same spirit that he has always accepted any differences of opinion be- tween him and myself. I hope we can leave this Chamber tonight with every- body knowing we have the highest re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE spect for each other, even though we do not agree with each other in this in- stance. I am offering this for a con- structive purpose. If you will look at the committee bill you will find that they took verbatim the language of the Mas- sachusetts statute which was enacted in 1946, so far as the outline of the general purposes is concerned, but for some rea- son unknown to me they preferred to insert language which I believe is more limited in terms of authorizing the di- rector—not only authorizing him, but telling him that we want him to do this. We want him first to resort to con- ference, conciliation, and persuasion. That was because in Massachusetts the commission which came lato existence in 1946 after legislative investigation of 1942, 1944, and 1945 has this to say in its first report: It (the commission) has not chosen to conduct a punitive expedition in Massachu- setts, but has preferred to steer a conserva- tive course of educating employers and em- ployees alike as to their responsibilities and obligations under this law. A year later they refer to it again. They say: From the beginning the commission has reccg,nized that the elimination of discrimi- natory employment practices, bused upon in- dividual and group prejudices, can be more effectively accomplished by reason instead of force. Finally, last November they said—and I want to call your attention to this be- cause of the fears which have been ex- pressed here tonight as to what would happen if we pass this bill On November 30, 1949, the commission reported that out of all the cases, some 562 cascs, imtiated and reccived, of which 341 were closed after .nvestigation and conference, not a single ene had re- quired judicial review, Every one had been settled. That is a policy that I think we can tell thes newly appointed commis- sioners, if this matter becomes law, is our determined wish. I say to you as one who 1s going to vote for this bull, if the Commission maladministers this law and fails to carry out the congressional intention, I will be the first one to join in a move to abolish that Commission. I am delighted to see the gentleman from New York |Mr. Powe] in agree- ment, Listen to just this one statement: Once more the Commission acknowledges the wisdom of the provisions of the law requiring that the first efforts to adjust complaints must be made through confer- ence, conciliation, and persuasion. This process invites couperation and is the an- tithesis of swinging the big stick. I want no part of any swinging of any big stick or of any force. On page 248 of the hearings you will find the testimony of the commissioner of the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Commission before this com- mittee. In answer to the fear that this would drive business out of Massachu- setts, let us go to the record. The Bos- ton Chamber of Commerce was against this in 1946. In 1948 they filed a report, after 3 years of administration, and said that since the fair-cmployment-practice Jaw was in effect 36 new businesses had 2231 been established in metropolitan Boston. Further than that, 58 new firms had begun construction work. When I used to try cases I tried them on the evidence. I do not think that evidence would lead anybody to fear that if we enact this law business will be adversely affected. Every area is going to benefit. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. HESELTON] has expired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr, Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentle- man may continue for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I just wanted the gentleman to yield for the Purpose of calling his attention to the fact that in Philadelphia we have had a similar ordinance to the committee bill for the past 2 years. Not only has that bill worked without the necessity for re- sorting to any enforcement clause what- soever, but more and more business has come into Philadelphia. There has been no difficulty whatever in the application of the ordinance. I thought the gentle- man would be interested in having those facts, Mr. HESELTON. I thank the gentle- man. I think that is true also of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and I think it is true of every State that has this law. Let us dispel this cloud of fear, accept our responsibility, and finish this job at once. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. I see nothing wrong with the amendment that the gentleman has proposed. Mr. HESELTON. I thank the gentle- man. Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to ask the gentleman what the word “imme- diately” might covery. What do you un- derstand by the word “immediately’’? Mr. HESELTON. Written complaints, under the language of the bill, ought to promptly set the agency at work to de- termine whether it is a valid complaint. If it is not, he ought to toss it out. If it is, he ought to go ahead and settle it. Mr. McCONNELL. Has it been deter- mined what the word “immediately” means in your Massachusetts statute? Mr, HESELTON. I eo not know. I suppose it means “at once.” May I quote the language of the Mas- sachusetts law to which I previously re- ferred, being subsection 8, scction 3, chapter 368, of the acts of 1946: To create such advisory agencies and con- ciliation councils—local, regional, or State- wide—as in its Judgment will ald tn efiectu- ating the purposes of this chapter, and the commission may empower them to study the problems of discrimination in all or specific fields of human relationships or in specific instances of discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, or an- cestry, in order to foster, through community Chairman,
2232 effort or otherwise, good will, cooperation, and concilintion among the groups and ele- ments of the population of the Common- wealth, and muke recommendations to the commission tur the development of policies and procedures in general and in specific in- stances, and for programs of formal and in- formal education which the commission may recommend to the appropriate State agency. Such advisory agencics and conciliation coun- cils shall be composed of representative citi- zens, serving without pay, but with reim- bursement for actual and necessary traveling expenses; and the commission may make provision for technical and clerical assist- ance to such agencies and councils and for the expenses of such assistance. Iam delighted that the committee bill provides for these agencies “in order to foster, through community effort or oth- erwise, good will, cooperation, and con- ciliation among the groups and elements of the population of the Commonwealth.” As I stated, the committee bill wisely incorporates that recommendation. Having referred to the testimony of Mr. Elwood S. McKenney, commissioner, Massachusetts Fair Employment Prac- tice Commission, at pare 248 of the hear- ings, let me quote portions of that testi- mony as evidence which I think is per- tinent and convincing. I do not know Mr. McKenney personally but I know him by reputation. I am told by our col- league, the gentleman from Massachu- Setts |Mr. HERTER], that he is one of the persons primarily responsible for the great success of the Jaw in Massachusetts who has an excellent background for practical advice to us: In 1942, 1944, and 1945 investigations were made by the legislative committees in Mas- sachusetts with respect to the extent of em- ployment discrimination in the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. Those investiga- tions revealed, as late as the one in 1945, that there was without doubt considerable dis- crimination in utilities, most manufacturing concerns, retatl stores, and other places of business. * * ° s e I would like to examine our experience in the 3 years of this law in Massachusetts. Prior to the enactment of the statute in Massachusetts the representatives of indus- try said that the passage of FEPC legislation would create such a burden upon employers that the most damaging effect it would have would he to drive business out of the State. Well, the 1948 report of the Boston Chamber of Commerce speaks for itself. That report said that during 1948, the third year that the fair-employment-practice law was in effect, 36 new business organizations had been es- tablished in metropolitan Boston, and, fur- ther than that, 68 existing firms had begun new construction at a cost of 8300,000,000. * . Ld es * It is also significant that after 2% years of FEPC in Massachusetts, the Associated In- dustries in Massachusetts and the Boston Chamber of Commerce both issued state- ments that although they were not in favor of the law as a matter of principle, they were satisfied legislation of that type could be administered without causing a burden upon industry. * Cd . e e In Massachusetts there were many, many businessmen, and there still are, who are not in favor of the principle of FEPC legislation, but because it is the law we have consider- able evidence that they have given voluntary Compliance to it. Cd e * e es There ts Httle doubt that the experience din Massachusets, New York, New Jersey, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Connecticut has convinced the legislatures, indurtric::, aad the people in these States that the FEPC can be effective. . ° * s s From the beginning of its administration in the fall of 1946, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Commission has proc- essed over 600 complaints of economic dis- crimination involving business organizations employing over 400,000 persons. > * eo s e I think a Federal act, provided the per- sohs who administer it are chosen intelli- gently, can be administered just as well as the acts in the States of Massachusetts and New York. Let me emphasize that, for I think it is the very heart of the success of the Mas- sachusetts act as Mr. McKenney asserts and you will note he also makes the same reference to the New York administra- tion. I cannot say too emphatically that if the persons who may be named and will have the responsibility of adminis- tering this law learn from the exneri- ence in Massachusetts, New York, Con- necticut, and other Statcs and apply that experience, there is every reason to be- licve that no one will be injured but that all will be benefited. I reahze that the debate no longer seems to be of any great importance here in Washineton in determining congres- sional intent. I regret that that has too {requently been the case in construing a law in our courts. However, I do state with all the emphasis at my command that I want you to vote affirmatively on these amendments if, and only if, you want them to be construed by the Com- mission and by the courts as a legisla- tive mandate which must be recognized and applied, and cannot, under any cir- cumstances, irrespective of the personnel of the Commission, be distorted or disre- garded. Please be assured that while I feel keenly this is the proper approach, I prefer that you vote against the amend- ments if you want to give this Commis- sion any more inclusive power or if you want to give them any reason to believe that this amendment does not mean ex- actly what it says. This should not be a punitive venture in the United States nor should it give any person named to this Commission any shadow of authority to engage in a club-swinging effort. I repeat that, if any do, I am entirely confident a great many of those who tonight or tomorrow morning work for this bill will work end- lessly and successfully to abolish that Commission at the earliest possible date on the ground of their complete disre- gard of the purposes and intent of this law as clearly stated in the House version. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has again expired. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. COLMER. Will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. BRYSON. I yield briefly. Mr. COLMER. As I understand It, before any other amendment can be offered to elther of the pending amend- ments, the pending amendment to the amendment will have to be disposed of? The CHAIRMAN, That is correct. FEBRUARY 22 Mr. COLMER. I would like to ask further when those questions will be put. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the Chair does not know how many Members will endeavor to speak for or against the several amendments. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, we are not surprised that our colleague from New York, Mr. ViTO MarcANTONIO, con- tinues to insist upon the enactment of legislation designed to set up a pere- manent so-called Fair Employment Prac- tice Commission. In the squabble be- tween the present Democratic and Re- publican leadership for first honors in this fight, it should not be forgotten that neither of the great political parties can rightfully claim to be the father of the child. Those of us who have served through ‘the years with the gentlcman from New York know of his strange ideas and philosophy. It will be remembered that as we prepared our sons for World War II, the gentleman from New York |Mr. MarcanTonio!] did not vote for a penny to defend this country or to equip our boys until after Germany invaded Russia. The ideas embodied in this proposed legislation, the Fair Employment Prac- tice Commission Act, were conceived and born in Russia. The first government position ever held by Joseph Stalin was in 1917, com- mussar of minority nationalities. Surely the membership of this House would not intentionally follow the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcantonio} or Mr. Stalin. Mr. Chairman, legislation providing for the establishment of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission carries the blessings of the President. Both of the great parties have pledged themselves to the enactment of this in- iquitous un-Amcrican philosophy. Rep- resentatives from each of the great po- litical parties stand where I now stand, in the well of the House, and call upon Coneress for the enactment of this leg- islation. Frankly, I seriously doubt the sincerity of the leadership of either of the two great parties or the President in advocating the legislation. It is @ strange paradox to find the President himself apparently is unwilling to be bound by the provisions of this proposed law. Imagine our surprise and consterna- tion when the President, confronted with a practical application of the measure, repudiated it in colorful language and in no uncertain terms, The incident made front page news all over the Nation; but it is improbable that many notcd a con- nection between the President's plainly stated attitude and this section of his civil rights program. A radio and newspaper columnist de- manded that President Truman dismiss his military aide, in view of the latter’s alleged connections with certain influ- ence peddlers in Washington. To this demand, the President made this clas- sic answer, “No one’”—exact epithet de- leted—“tells me who to hire and fire.” This incident reminds us of the ancient adage concerning whose ox is gored. An attempt to dictate to the President on matters of employment pertaining to his personal staff aroused his ire. Yet he
1950 urges Congress to pass a law which pro- vides—and I quote—that “the right to employment without discrimination be- cause of race, color, religion, or national origin is a right of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” Should this measure become law, em- ployment and promotion based on merit would be superseded by Government decree. The seeds of dissension would be sown among the workers. Each would look upon the others with suspicion and distrust. No average American worker could feel secure. This effort, purport- ing to secure recognition for minority groups, actually gives employment of members of such groups a preference; and once employed, the member of the minority group is given extraordinary protection against discharge or dismissal. In a measure which has “fair” as part of its title, I can imagine nothing more un- fair and discriminatory against the aver- age worker than this bill which threatens the employer with dire retribution should he raise a finger against one of these sacrosanct minorities Let us assume a situation under the law. A plant has occasion to lay off several employees. Minority groups represent about 20 percent of the fac- tory’s personnel. To avoid the dclays, costs, and possible punishment of being called before the Commission on charges of discrimination, it is much simpler to let the Americans go even if they were better workmen than those who could claim discrimination. The effect of this action on the efficiency of the plant and the lowering of morale and productivity of the workers can readily be seen. The proposed act provides for the is- suance of rules and regulations by a commission, which is lawmaking by the executive branch of the Government under authority delegated by Congress. But since Congress obviously has no power to take the action proposed in the bill, Congress has no power to delegate to a rule-making body. The State of New York has a fair-em- ployment statute which gives an indi- cation of the type of restrictions a Fed- eral commission might introduce. Pon- der this: You cannot mention color or religion in advertising for employees. You cannot ask for the photograph of an applicant. You cannot inquire as to his birthplace, his original name, or what holidays he celebrates. The rights of free speech and free opinion would re- ceive an awful drubbing from such a regulatory body. A further aspect of the proposed leg- islation which has been generally over- looked is the welcome offered to sub- versive groups by the measure. Since the bill] also applies to the Federal Gov- ernment and its multitudinous instru- mentalities, as well as to private business, such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission is forbidden under the law from asking an applicant where he was born, whether he is a naturalized or na- tive-born citizen, what his race is, or even what his original name might be. He may not be asked to show his naturaliza- tion or first papers. He cannot be ques- tioned as to membership in racial or re- ligious organizations. The successful CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE search for disloyal Federal employees is difficult enough now, even with an elab- orate program of loyalty checks. The proposed law would make the task far harder by prohibiting simple inquiries that might throw light on a subversive background. That such an open door to sabotcurs is considered at all seriously by the Nation’s lawmakers is incompre- hensible. Now let us examine the constitutional- ity of the bill. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights cnumerates certain natural rights which Congress shall not abridge. Included in the first of the ten amendments are those of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. The ninth amendment makes clear that other rights than these do exist and that they are retained by the people. The tenth amendment expressly limits the powers of the Federal Government to those dele- gated to it by the Constitution, and re- serves all other powers to the States or to the people. This measure violates the first amend- ment by abridging freedom of speech, freedom of religion and frecdom of asso- ciation. It violates the fifth amendment by denying an essential liberty of a free people through arbitrary restraints on freedom of association in business, in schools, and in labor organizations; by denying liberty of contract in attempt- Ing to compel employers to hire un- desired persons and to deny employment to desired persons; by denying to a mi- nority of those operating private enter- prises the same liberty of contract and the same freedom of association which are preserved for the mafority. This violates the constitutional guaranty of “equal protection of the laws” implicit in the fifth amendment. It violates the sixth amendment by denying trial by jury. It violates the ninth amendment by proposing that Congress usurp rights retained by the people. It violates the tenth amendment because Congress would assume a power reserve’ for the States. And it violates the thirteenth amendment by imposing an involuntary servitude upon certain employers. If such a Federal law, with its many flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights, can be enacted and held constitutional, the American people may as well kiss their sacred rights farewell. This meas- ure is the entering wedge. Under it there is no constitutional protection against laws which first deprive employ- ers of their rights, as is attempted in this measure, then deprive employees of their rights, as is partially attempted in this measure, and finally deprive all persons of their rights previously regarded as permanently preserved and safeguarded by the guaranties of individual liberty set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution there has been no question of the right of an individual to establish himself in legitimate busi- ness and to select his employees accord- ing to his own standards without inter- ference or hindrance. Personal freedom of contract is a fundamental of our free- enterprise system. It is the American conception of individual freedom. 2233 But should this measure become law, liberty of contract is violated because it possesses the power of compelling con- tracts. The entire field of employer- employee relations would be invaded. With every act of an employer or his sub- ordinates in hiring, discharging, promot- ing, or otherwise regulating employment subject to complaint and investigation on the grounds of alleged discrimination, the plight of business under such cir- cumstances would be lamentable. Menaced by a commission with wide powers of rule-making, investigation, and issuance of cease-and-desist orders, orderly plant management and efficient production would disappear under a tor- rent of inquiries and investigations that would arise to harass business. The small-business man, already overbur- dened, would find himself buried under an avalanche of new regulations, investi- gations, hearings, and litigation far be- yond his time, his energy, or his cash reserves. To declare that legislation of this sort is necessary to protect the rights of mi- norities is to use communistic language. There are no minorities in the American way of life. There are only Americans, This is not a country of majorities or mi- norities—it is a country of individuals who possess inalienable rights under the Constitution of the United States. One of the most deplorable tendencies of modern political science is the growing disposition to legislate in behalf of classes. Every American citizen has re- course to the courts when any of his real rights are denied. No American worthy of his citizenship has any necd of legis- lative Pablum which nourishes him at the expense of self-sustaining fellow citizens. To violate the rights of the individual is to violate the Constitution. It is as simple as that. That is the way it must be considered and ruled upon. No per- son has any special rights simply be- cause he is a member of a minority. And no person has any of the fictitious rights outlined in this ridiculous piece of legis- lation. The proposal to establish a Fair Em- ployment Practice Commission under a Federal] statute is not an assault on the South alone. It is equally dangerous to all industry in our great free country. As I have stated, evidently the President does not believe in it himself, no matter how much he protests, for in his own words he has said that he does not be- lieve that anyone has a right to tell him whom to hire and whom to fire. And I believe a principle that is wrong when applied to the President is wrong when applied to the average American busi- nessman. I call upon you, my colleagues, to defeat this measure without delay so we can go on with essential national business. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the parliamentary situation here is a bit confused by the number of amendments pending and, of course, we have to tak? this sort of as a catch-as-catch-can proposition.
2234 I am going to send an amendment to the Clerk's desk and at the proper time we are going to get a vote on it. We may not have further opportunity to discuss it. But if you will hear me for a minute, in my opinion, there will not be a vote against this amendment, certainly not more than one or two. I pointed out to the committee on last Wednesday a fact that I do not think anybody can dispute, that this is a polit- ical matter purely and simply. I am bringing something close home to you in this amendment and that is the de- fense of our country. You may be agree- able to playing politics on this question of the color of a person’s skin or where he came from or something of that sort, but you will not play politics with this. I have enough confidence in all of you to say that. This is an amendment to the Steed amendment: Page 1, line 12, after the words “labor organization”, insert: “‘Provmded, hotvever, That it shall not constitute discrimination under this ect for a contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission to refuse to employ aliens.” Ther? is nothing in this bill or in any of these amendments that will protect the Atomic Energy Commission or your country. As a matter of fact, as these bills are now written, the Atomic En- ergy Commission could not discriminate against an enemy alien so far as em- ployment is concerned in this vital mat- ter that affects not only the safety of this country but the safety of the civil- ized world. When the amendment comes to a vote I am going to ask your consideration and your vote upon the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to play politics here on the eve of an election. I pointed that out to you last Wednes- day That is why this matter was de- ferred until this time so that under the lash of your primaries and your general elections in this approching fall you would have to yield to the organized minorities. In the half minute I have remaining, I want to just give you this to think about on that political aspect, because the chances are I will not have another opportunity. This country today is be- ing ruled and run by organized minori- ties. I call your attention to the fact that the grcat mass of the unorganized in this country is greater in all of its power than the organized minorities, and when you are considering the polit- ical implications of this thing you bet- ter think about the question of the un- organized masses. Some day—and it is the only answer that I know to this question, and not only this question but other questions that are leading us down the road to totalitarianism—the unor- ganized masses will organize in opposi- tion to the organized minorities. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words. Mr, HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. Briefly. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would just like to correct the statement that the gentle- man from Mississippi made in regard to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE atomic energy employment. The Atomic Energy Commission at this time has spe- cial legislation which makes it possible for them to employ or discharge any em- ployee of that Commission without cause and without explanation. Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Tennessee. Mr. GORE. At Oak Ridge, Tenn., the gaseous diffusion plant which manufac- tures and separates fissionable material, such as uranium 235, is operated by a contractor, the Carbon & Carbide Corp., which would be subject to the provisions of this bill. Mr.COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. COLMER. Is it not also true that up until this legislation is enacted, if it should be, that everybody has a right to fire or hire whom they please, but this legislation would supersede it? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS, I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr, HOFFMAN of Michigan. I think the gentleman a few moments ago voted to shut off debate at a certain time. I understand the gentleman has now spoken twice. Mr. JACOBS. That is not correct. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I have seen him on the floor twice. Maybe he was not talking. Mr. JACOBS’ Well, I say I did not vote to shut off debate. If the gentle- man was interested and had had his eyes open, he would have known it. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- sent to proceed for three additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? There was no objection. Mr, JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 14 months and sat with this body for ap- proximately 12 months. I have never taken it upon myself at any time to ques- tion the motive of any Member because of any position that he took. I have grown a little weary of ccrtain Members, and to be brutally frank, the Member that just left the well of this House, get- ting up before this House and imputing political chicanery to thosc Members who disagree with him. Isay to the Member, I surrender my patriotism to no one, including the gentleman, and yet I favor this legislation. I favor enforcement clauses. The gentleman favored them also in the Taft-Hartley law and asked that they be enforced against John L. Lewis. The Member who is addressing you today requested the President of the United States to invoke the Taft-Hartley law in the present emergency, although I disagreed with the emergenc; proce- dure. But at least I am consistent. I do not take one position one time, and another another, I do not know wheth- er it will make any votes in my district to support this measure or not. There are more white people in my district than there are Negroes. I do not know FEBRUARY 22 whether the gentleman from Mississipp! Judges me by his own motives or not. There are more white people in his State that vote than there are Negroes. I am getting a little tired of this Holy Willie prayer down here in this well. You recall Bobbie Burns’ Holy Willie, who thanked the Lord in a congratulatory vein that he, Holy Willie, was not wicked like his neighbors. I have friends from below the Mason and Dixon's line and I respect every one of them, and I have reason to believe that many of my friends below the Mason and Dixon’s line respect me. But I say to you that there are people who come down here and talk about the other fellow having political motives. They remind me of the old fable of the three peas in the pod who saw that the walls of the pod were green; and so they thought the whole, wide world was green. Now let us quit this Holy Willie prayer business and get down and consider the legislation itself. Mr. Chairman, I say again that I sur- render my patriotism to no man, but I also say that I believe that one of the great historic documents of our coun- try, the Declaration of Independence, when it said that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness, laid down the great American proposition. Some of you may think that is radical. If you do, read the article, The Greatest Opportunity on Earth, that was published in the glamour maga- zine of business, Fortune, in October of 1949, in which it is graphically illus- trated how the right to life is meaning- less to a man who lives in a metropolitan area and who cannot get work, because if he cannot get work he cannot get money, and if he cannot get money he cannot eat. If he cannot eat he cannot live. The right to life in order to be of some meaning to that man must mean the right to work. While I am talking about the right to work, do you observe that the gentlemen who talked here so much about the right to work about a year ago when labor legislation was being considered do not seem to be so much interested in the right to work today. At least, I think we should be consistent. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Arkansas. Mr. TACKETT. I respect the gentle- man, for I noticed that during the labor debates and the other debates had on the floor of the House he has always been eminently fair even to those who oppose him. May I ask the gentleman whether or not he believes that this Congress should enforce against the rest of the people of this country that which they will not impose upon themselves? How many Members of this Congress that are proponents of this legislation are work- ing Negro employees in their own offices? Mr. POWELL. That is one reason why we have this provision exempting businesses that employ less than 50 peo- ple. Mr. TACKETT. In order to take care of the Congressmen. Mr. JACOBS. I can answer for my- self. I took over my predecessor’s ex- perienced stafi and I have maintained 1t.
1950 Let me say this in closing: The gen- tleman from California [Mr. Jackson] made a point of the fact that there would be certain rights of a majority that would be violated. The very thesis of the American Government is that there are some rights a minority enjoys that no majority can take away. I believe the right to work in an industrial, inter- dependent economy is one of those rights. I do not believe the minorities can enjoy those rights without legislation of this type. One hundred and forty-nine mil- lion people against 1,000,000 cannot tell me how to worship God in this coun- try. I believe that the right of a man to have a job and to work is one of those inahenable rights of the American citi- zen. The American Government, under its Constitution as amended pursuant to emancipation guarantees such rights. I favor this legislation as a practical implementaiion of that right. The nature of those who oppose it is theirs; it rests in the crucible of their own consciences, as does my motive. I cannot see their motives, so I do not impugn them; I sce no reason why they should be less gracious to me and anyone who agrees with me. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you feel this evening as I do? Well, if you do, you must have a great feeling of frustration in your heart. There have been many speeches made in the well of the House preaching the spirit of tolerance and brotherhood and of the right of people to earn their daily bread and their right to jobs and to work. There is not a person in this Chamber who will not wholehcart- edly subscribe to that thesis. I recall, and Iam not an eminent theologian, that the most tolerant man that ever walked in human flesh on the face of this earth was born into a world torn by intolerance and injustice. Jesus, the Nazarene, Son of God, came into this world preaching a doctrine, if you please, a spiritual doc- trine that has lasted over 2,000 years. lis Ministry has been carried forward all these years, a doctrine of tolerance, of faith, of decency, of brotherhood, of jus- tice. And what do we see in the world today? The forces of hate, the forces of intolerance, the forces of injustice, the forces of greed and avarice and the forces of antichrist and antigod march- ing on all over the world. What is the answer to the situation® The answer here today is the FEPC—they say. Two thousand years of Christian effort try- ing to put into the hearts and souls of the people of the world the spirit of brother- hood of tolerance of charity and justice has failed to eliminate discrimination and intolerance and to establish here the true brotherhood of man. I confess that I have grave doubts that the pro- posed bill will achieve that result. Now, I would ask the chairman of this committee a question with respect to this specific bill. I ask it honestly. I do not see him on the floor. I mean the gentleman from New York [Mr, PowEtri] the gentleman in charge of the bill. He himsclf said that it was a very fair and a very decent question and it ought to be answered. I would like to gct the an- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE swer to the question. The question is this: How are you going to deal with the fellow employees who practice discrimi- nation? There is nothing that will deal even remotely with this problem in the present bill. Let me illustrate. An employer hires an individual who is not accepted by his fellow employees. The employer has not practiced discrimination, yet the em- ployee referred to is treated so badly by his fellows that he is forced to quit. The only provision of the pending bill which even remotely touches that question is found in subsection 5 of subsection (g) of section 6. I have studied it and con- clude that this provision is utterly in- effective to deal with this problem. What is the “other remedial action” that is referred to in that section? Will the gentleman from New York answer that question, please? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin |Mr. KEEFE] has expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes in order that I may receive an answer to that question. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr, Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr. KEEFE. Iask the gentleman from New York |Mr. Powe] in his own time to give me a decent answer to that question. Iam sure he will do it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion, which is at the Clerk’s desk. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. HorrMan of Michigan moves that the Committee do now rise and report the pend- ing bill back to the House with the recom- mendation that the enacting clause be stricken. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. We have had one pref- erential motion. The Committee has voted on it. There has been no change in the bill, and therefore this motion is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The from New York is correct. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Mr, POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr. SUTTON. I expected that objec- tion. I impugn the motives of no Mem- ber of this Congress. I realize that this jis a political situation that we are in now. No one can doubt the patriotism of the speaker who is now addressing you. As the highest decorated Member of this Congress, no one can doubt my patriotism. But I realize, as I speak here this evening, that I am speaking to deaf ears. I am speaking to Members that have to play politics. I am not playing politics. I am speaking from the heart. I realize that those fellows north of the Mason and Dixon’s line have to vote for FPEPC through political obligations. I realize that those fellows south of the Mason and Dixon’s line speak their con- victions when they say they are against FEPC, and I am one of those. Mr. Chairman, I would gladly leave this up to the votes of the populace of the gentleman 2235 States throughout the 48 States, not only to the volunteer State of Tennessee but to the State of Massachusetts, the State of Maine, the State of New York, or any other State, for those States to vote how they feel on FEPC. I am firmly convinced, Mr. Chairman, that should the population of those States vote, there would not be a State in the United States that would vote for FEPC. I have a picture here that I would like to show to this House. It is a pic- ture of a boy who is the brother to a sister who works for my wife back in Tennessee. This boy I hope will attend college in Tennessee. I will help him out because I believe in education and not legislation in connection with FEPC. This boy does not believe in FEPC. He believes in education. The entire family of this colored boy is one of the most devout Christian families and one of the greatest believers in God in the State of Tennessee. This boy does not want FEPC in the State of Tennessee. He is completely happy with the situation in Tennessee, because we are giving him the same educational privileges that we of white origin have in Tennessee. We will give him a fair trial should be come to a court of justice. His entire fam- ily is happy with the situation there. I would like to show you the picture of this boy back in my home town of Lawrence- burg, Tenn. I challenge any man in this House to show me a man who is happier than this boy in this picture. It is the picture of a boy, a Negro who is eating a watermelon. If you will show me a man in the United States who is happier than this boy I will buy you the best suit of clothes there is in Washington, D. C. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUTTON. I cannot yield at this time. I regret I have but 5 minutes. I tried to get more but I knew the gentle- man who objected would object. I am sorry for I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan. I hope this bill is defeated because it is against the best interest of the American people, not only in the South but throughout the United States of America. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, this House has been in session nearly 24 hours. If we had an electric voting device I think we could have saved 4 hours’ time since 12 o’clock noon today. We have used up at least 4 hours in taking at least eight or nine roll calls. These roll calls and quorum calls could have been accomplished in a few minutes or a few seconds by an elec- tric voting machine. The facilities of this House are really obsolete, in my opinion, in that we do not have an elec- tric voting device. Many legislative bodies, including the General Assembly of Iowa, now have electric voting equip- ment. I realize that a great many of the Members feel that it would be difficult to keep up with their office work and at the same time have an electric voting device, but I believe they would save so much time on the floor that they could take
2236 care of their correspondence without any difficulty and actually expedite the trans- action of business in the House. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, LECOMPTE. Very briefly. Mr. RIVERS. Along with the electric voting device will we get an electric car to travel from our office over here? Mr. LECOMPTE I imagine that young folks like the gentleman from South Carolina will not want an electric car. Mr. RIVERS. I am trying to take care of my brother. Mr. LECOMPTE. I cannot yield fur- ther unless I can get more time. Mr. Chairman, as I approach this question I am having more difficulty than I have experienced on any meas- ure that has come before the House in the 11 years I have served in this body. I respect the sincerity of purpose of every Member of this House. I believe that every Member on both sides of this question have approached it seriously, conscientiously, and in an effort to reach a fair and honest conclusion. My own feeling in the matter is that in spite of what may be said and after I have heard the debate all afternoon and evening— and the clock is approaching midnight— I cannot escape the conclusion that the ultimate objective of this kind of legis- lation is to compel the man in the small institution like a small grocery store, a small law office, a small print shop, a small bakery, a small barber shop, the proprietor who pay the wages to say to him: “You have got to hire the man whom the Commission says is qualified under rules laid down by the Commis- sion,” regardless of the fact that he may not fit into the job in your small town and your small! institution. I cannot escape the conclusion that the ultimate objective of this legislation is to force employers to hire men and women who do not fit into their institu- tions. I realize that the gentleman from New York has said correctly that the bill does not apply to institutions employing less than 50 people, that it does not apply to institutions that are doing a wholly intrastate business, that it does not ap- ply to family institutions or religious in- stitutions; but I believe it is an opening wedge that will ultimately lead to the control, regulation, and regimentation of every small-business institution in the United States, and that the employer will fini that he is curbed and controlled by rules and regulations laid down by a commission here in Washington. I would go as far as any man in this House to do something for the under- privileged. I would walk from here to Iowa to help those who are in distress and need help. Ihave a very good friend who graduated from the State University of Iowa with me 40 years ago, a very in- telligent Negro, who immediately on leaving college went to Mississippi and established a college for the underprivi- leged people of his race down in the deep South, known as the Piney Wood School of Mississippi. I refer to my friend Lawrence Jones. Some of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Representatives from Mississippi may know about the Piney Wood School. I know very little about it except that my friend Lawrence Jones has put in 40 years laboring to improve the conditions of the people of his race in the South. He has accomplished a great deal, al- though he has not had anything like enough support to accomplish as much as he would desire. I have the confi- dence of this man to the extent that he asked me to investigate an offer of sev- eral thousand acres of land to be do- nated to his school in return for a rather elaborate annuity for the man who gave it. I investigated the offer and had to recommend that the offer be rejected because I feared the title to the land was in great doubt and a great deal of time and expense would be required in litiga- tion, and perhaps the case would be lost in the end. At this late hour I hope the House may adjourn or recess, because I believe Members are in no frame of mind to legislate carefully and wisely after 12 long hours of wrangling. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? Mr.POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have two letters I would like to read in connection with certain matters that have been discussed here today. The first came on January 21, 1950, from the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, D. C., and is signed by Joseph E. Gedra, and reads as follows: CHURCH OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, Washington, D. C , January 21, 1950. The Honorable Grorce W. ANDREWS, The House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mr. ANDREWS: It is only because of the far-reaching and bewlldering effect, I truthfully believe, the passage of the FEPC bill will have upon the fundamental struc- ture of our society, that I write to ask you Kindly to consider these few important facis before casting a favorable vote: 1. Cries of antiracial, antisemitism, anti- Catholic, etc., will skyrocket beyond calcula- tion. Then, to prove all alleged charges will mean jamming our courts, with the resultant confusion, 2. Such a bill is contrary to the God-given gift of selectivity. For instance, we select our food, literature, forms of entertainment, friends, etc. People should exercise that right with regard to employees. There are abuses, of course. But the right which a person enjoys from above will be eo smoke- screened if the FEPC bill Is passed that one Will lose sight of this right. 8. Forced consideration, by pressure groups, of one’s race, religion, nationality, rather than his qualifications will undermine our national set-up. There appear to be some advantages in this bill. For instance, Catholics may see in this bill a way paved for a Catholic to become President of the United States. But apart FEBRUARY 22 from this the bill can inflame the emotions of our people, making them supersensitive to thelr color, race, and religion. Herein lies the grave danger. That something should be done, everyone agrees; but I believe the solu- tion of this acute problem will not be found in the FEPC. With every best wish, I am, Very sincerely yours, JosePH E. GEDRA. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yleld? Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentle- man from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York made a state- ment in his opening remarks that this bill had the support of Catholic and other religious organizations, The gen- tleman now addressing the Committee is reading a letter which gives very defi- nite information that the gentleman from New York and the committee did not give to this Committee when he said this bill had the support of the Catholic denomination. Mr, ANDREWS. I thank the gentle- man. Isubmit, Mr. Chairman, this is a forth- right and logical conclusion to be drawn about this bill. The second letter that I would like to read came to me recently from a colored man, Davis Lee, publisher of the Tele- gram Newspapers of Newark, N. J. Tre TELEGRAM NEWSPAPERS, Newark, N. J. Congressman GEORGE W. ANDREWS, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Drak CONGRESSMAN: For the past several months I have been a “lone Negro voice cry- ing in the wilderness” in an effort to paint a true word picture editorially of the fine race relations existing In the South between Ne- groes and whites, hoping that through my efforts the advocates of civil rights, from the President down, would discover the ultimate harm which will result. However, it is now apparent that certain groups in this Nation have succeeded in pushing the administration so far out on the civil-rights limb until nothing cam pre- vent a showdown on this ill-timed proposal. You have read my views which were in- serted in the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Hon. Harry F. Byrp, and you no doubt have read some excerpts in your local papers. As a Negro, naturally I want to see my race enjoy ever right, every privilege, and every opportunity enjoyed by every other Ameri- can, but I am convinced by experience and keen observation that he is acquiring these privileges, opportunities, and rights as he is capable of utilizing them, and that to enact such drastic legislation now would precipi- tate the very thing which we are seeking to avoid, racial conflict. The only real, sen- sible, and practical solution to this race problem is a broad educational program. It might be possible to convince the advo- cates of civil rights that the Megroes and whites in the South are making rapid prog- ress in finding a workable solution to the so- called race problems, and should be left alone. This might be accomplished by com- paring the progress, wealth, and achieve- ments of the southern Negro with that if his northern counterpart. Concrete examples of southern racial cooperation and good will should be extensively publicized.
1950 In the past northern Negro newspapers have lambasted southern Representatives in Congress without cause or provocation. However, starting next week the Telegram Newspapers will begin a series of articles on the Senators and Congressmen from the South and their contributions to Negro prog- ress. This assignment will be handled by me personally. I trust that I shall be able to see you during my visit there. Won't you kindly let me know if this be possible? Yours truly, TELEGRAM NEWSPAPERS, Davis Ler, Publisher. Mr. Chairman, this bill is, in my opin- fon unconstitutional and very definitely un-American. If enacted into law you will see a huge Government agency spring up overnight. The cost of the operation of such agency will be stag- gering and will be borne by the taxpay- ers. The cost would be at least a half- million dollars. A Commission of five members will receive $17,500 each for the four members and $20,000 for the Chair- man of the proposed Commission. The budget of the United States Gov- ernment should be balanced. Creating new and expensive Government agencies is no way to balance the budget. The opposition to this bill should not be confined to the South. It should come from Americans everywhere, North, East, West, and South. If this bill becomes law it might well be the last straw that will break the back of free enterprise in America—that sys- tem which has meant so much to s0 many and made America the greatest Nation on earth. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, the very able and dis- tinguished gentleman and lawyer from Indiana [Mr. Jacoss)—and I hope he is on the floor—will the gentleman come down in front—held forth a few mo- ments ago, very eloquently and very con- vincingly, upon his sincerity and his con- sistency, and I do not challenge him as to either—I concede he is both sincere and consistent, but I am forced to ques- tion slightly, very slightly, his recollec- tion. Did not the gentleman, who con- vinced us that we should not deprive a man of his right to work, oppose the Taft-Hartley Act? Just yes or no. Mr. JACOBS. I do not know of any law that requires me to answer yes or no, Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Did the gentleman vote for the Taft-Hartley Act or did he not? Mr. JACOBS. I was not in Congress when it was passed, and the gentleman knows it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. All right. Did not the gentleman oppose the Wood bill? Did the gentleman sup- port the Lesinski bill? He was here then, when it was offered. Mr. JACOBS. Yes, and there were some amendments that I offered myself. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is all right. Mr. JACOBS. The gentleman does not want the answer? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gen- tleman has answered today. He has had xXCVI——141 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE plenty of time. He spoke twice from the well here the last time at length and per- suasively on the right to work. That was the gentleman’s text. He asserted re- peatedly and with great force that no man should be deprived of his right to work, The Lesinski bill, which he sup- ported, had it been adopted, would have deprived a man of his right to work unless he joined the union. Where, I say to the gentleman, is your consistency? Where was your support for the right to work when you voted against the Wood bill for the Lesinski bill? Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and ask unan- imous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for one observa- tion? Mr. BARDEN. No, please. I am afraid the gentleman will get me mixed up with himself and the gentleman from Michigan. I do not want to get mixed up in that. I know the gentleman from Indiana and I am very fond of him. He is very sincere in his work on legislative matters. But I am not going to be a party to carrying on that discussion. Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of things said here on the floor that I guess might just as well have been left unsaid. I happen to be one who for many years has been interested in improving race relations in the State of North Carolina. I do not think anyone in this House or anywhere else would say that we have not done an excellent job in North Carolina. I have been in some tough school fights. Fights for both the colored and white schools in North Carolina, at a time when it was pretty tough going, but it has paid off. It has paid off marvelously well. Before we begin to name too many folks as discriminators, I suppose there are 436 discriminators in this House. We are discriminating in our taste, we are discriminating in our choice of clothes, we discriminate when we employ our office personncl, and we will continue to do it. Weare not going to pass any law that will interfere with that right. The Democrats discriminate against the Re- publicans when they are in office, and I can tell you that the Republicans dis- criminate against us when they get in office. We are not going to solve all the troubles of the earth by passing this kind of bill. I think it would be well to think for a moment while you are discussing the Negro race that they have many things to be proud of and the other people of this country have many things to be proud of, because the Negroes have trav- eled further and made more progress economically, socially, and educationally in 75 years than any racial group on earth. They did it by working together. And by working with those who desired to help them and this country. Now that we think we have about reached the point where we can be proud 2237 of our accomplishments in America, here comes an ambitious group of headline hunters who want to jump up now and pass an FEPC bill and say, “We are re- sponsible for it all.” I once heard of an old Bancroft’s barn- yard rooster who every morning just be- fore the sun came up would rise up on his roost, flap his wings, and let go a mighty crow. Then, in a few minutes after the sun came up, he would strut around the barnyard among the hens and say, “Tut, tut. See what I did?” Now who is it appearing upon the scene that is waiting to say, “Now see what we did?” Iam not so sure that even if you succeed you are going to be proud of your accomplishments. Iam not so sure that those of you who have been so interested in the closed shops are not going to bring about confusion, conflict, and disturb- ance with your closed shops and with your contracts. So far as my own State is concerned, I know you are wrong. There is not a man in this House who has spent more time working with the colored people of North Carolina than I have. I am pleased to say that they re- spect me and I respect them. They are my friends, and I am theirs. I do not have to go any further than the author of this bill, who knows of my interest in them and who knows that when it comes to educational matters we never have a moment’s conflict over taking care of them. But right now we are dealing with a matter which is inflammatory. It is dangerous. To some it may be just a political move. But to others it is a most serious question on which we have very strong, sincere, well-founded con- victions. I for one do not want my Gov- ernment telling me who I must employ, for that same philosophy might go so far as to say who I must work for wheth- er I liked it or not. In either instance it is such an invasion of individual rights as to be inconsistent with and re- pulsive to our American way of life. I say to you in all seriousness that those of you who now are urging this come from sections of the country that have not dealt with this problem and did not deal with it when it was really bad and tough. Where were you back yonder when we were having all the trouble in lifting ourselves up by our own boot- straps? I hope we can get along with- out this thing which I believe will be bad for the American people. Mr. JACKSON of California. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there seems to be some thought here that the people of California do not know what they are doing when they go to the pells, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Recorp at this point the county by county vote in the State of California on the fair-cmployment practice issue. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The gentleman would have to do that in the House. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair under- stands that it is a compilation made by the gentleman. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection.
2238 (The matter referred to is as follows: ) Constitutional amendments and initiative measures Fair Employment Practices Act—utiative Declares State poliev that all persons have the right of equal oppot- tunity to secure employment ‘To effect gsuen poltey makes {t unlawful to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to disertmi- nate in conditions of employ went ougainst any person beesuse of race, religion, color, Counties national origin on ancestry, Establishes a commussion to prevent such unlawful prac tices by conciliation or order and by education Provides for judiclal review of com- mission’s orders Appropr ates sum for curmmuission Yes No Alameda.......------- 64, 242 181, OGL Alpine 22. - 20 8b Amador... fu 1,387 Butte 22. 8, 2U1 7,620 Calaveras, 5 1, 542 Colusu_. 560 1,742 Contra Cos' 17, 860 2s, 827 Del Norte. 575 SAS Fl Dorado. ANS 2, 164 Fresno... 18, 42, 34, 1H Glenn _ old 2, 21s Humboldt. 4,392 7, WA Imperial... -- 1, 474 4, 505 Inyo...... - 667 1, 442 Kern 7,078 23, 660 Kings -..- 1,591 4,989 Lake. ..-. - b92 1, 969 Lassen. 1, 118 1, 876 Los Angele: 2p4, HIN 75x, O41 Madera. 1,218 4, 31g Marin 6,413 14, 618 Mariposa. 416 T7t Mendocino 2, 022 4, O04 Merced 2, 44x 6, 604 Modoc... -. 343 1, 11s Mono._... - WA 269 Monterey--.-.-------- 4,217 14, 389 Napa... 2,315 7, 001 Novada... J, 471 3,836 Orange_- Q, 508 40, 5X0 Placer. ..-- 2, 566 6, 887 VPlumius._2-- - 1, 093 1, 78h Riverside... 7,396 2A, V4 Sactamento. 1h, 530 37, O04 San Benito_. Tt 2,172 Ran Bernard 33, 274 41,725 San Diego. - - 31, Ott 83,000 San Franelsco .. .---- 9, 651 141, 054 San Joaquin ... -- 7,959 25, O85 San Luts Obispo.-- .- 8, 150 3 Sanu Mateo _...-- --- 12, 064 42, 201 Santa Barbara. &, 804 14, 580) Santa Clara... 1K, G5 41, 615 Santa Cruz... 3,071 11, 209 Shasta__...- eee 2,120 4, 109 Niort hele - 217 399 siskiyou 2,047 4, 252 Bolano.. 6, 417 14,902 Sonoma. 6, 202 14, 473 Stanislat 4,902 14,2) Sutter. — KOT 3, 222 Vebaina - &40 2,469 Trinity -22....22-2---- Ay X05 Nulore...- 4,438 16, 407 Tuolumne Y,112 2,273 Ventura .. 4, 785 14, 410 Yolo wee 1, 606 5, ORS Yuba. ...---2--------- 1,174 2,054 Toll 2.2.2... 675, 607 1, 682, b1b Mr. TABER Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma ainendment, Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great deal of discussion here this afternoon about this bill and the reasons why one should be for it, because certain other folks are for it. For me it is not a ques- tion of who is for it. It is not a ques- tion of politics. It is a question of what is the right thing to do. Unless the House comes to that conclusion and looks the situation squarely in the face, I fear the results of the action that may be taken. On page 2, in the last full paragraph on that page of the committee’s report, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE there is an indication that 83,000,000 of the population of the United States, bet- ter than 55 percent, are being dis- criminated against. For my own part I have not been able to find cases where there was that discrimination. I believe that the incentive which the employer has to see that a good job is done in- spires him to hire the very best people who present themselves to him for em- ployment. I do not believe it is possible to create a commission of tinhorn politi- cians who will, without knowing any- thing about the problems that that em- ployer has to face, be able to tell him whom he shall employ, what he shall pay them, when and how he shall pro- mote them. I believe if we undertake to do that kind of thing, ultimately we will destroy everything in the nature of private in- dusiry and private employment of our people, and revert to a socialistic state and the inefficiencies that go with it. It was my privilege in 1947 to go to Europe. In Germany there was put on for our edification the most magnificent military drill that I have ever seen, by a colored company, trained by colored of- ficers, and capable of performing with precision every movement that was re- quired for that drill. That indicates what those people can do in a free econ- omy, with a free opportunity and the right of those people to be judged on their merits. The minute you get to the point where an employee is not to be judzcd on his merits and what he is ready to produce, that minute you de- stroy the initiative of the American peo- ple, and you are telling him that he has got to deal in some underhanded way if he 1s going to procure advancement and a better way of life in the world. I do not belicve that we need fear the straightforward consideration of this bill I hope that the Congress of the United States will meet it on its merits and say ‘‘No”’ The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [| Mr. Taner] has expired. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. I move that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan |[Mr. SHAFER]. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Has any busi- ness been transacted in connection with the bill? The CHAIRMAN. That is immaterial. The motion is in order at this time. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. SHAFER) there were—ayes 142, noes 164. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair ap- pointed as tellers Mr. SHaFgeR and Mr. POWELL. . The Committee again divided, and tel- lers reported that there were—ayes 172, noes 165. So the motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Water, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the FEBRUARY 22 Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, re- ligion, or national origin, had come to no resolution thereon. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. MARCANTONIO and Mr. BIE- MILLER demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HARRIS. As I understand, the roll call now 1s on the motion to adjourn. The SPEAKER. That is correct. Mr. HARRIS. If the motion to ad- journ is not agreed to, then what will be the parliamentary situation? The SPEAKER. It will be Calendar Wednesday business, Mr. HARRIS. A further parliamen- tary Inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HARRIS. Do we automatically then go back into Committee? The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up again, yes. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 165, nays 239, answered “present” 1, not voting 26, as follows: [Roll No. 61] YEAS—165 Abbitt Fernandez Peterson Abernethy Fisher Phillips, Callf. Albeit Frazier Pickett Allen, Ill, Fugate Plumley Anderren, Gary Poage H Car) Gathings Preston Andresen, Gore Priest August H Gossett Rains Andrews Grant Rankin Barden Gregory Redden Bates Hagen Reed, Ill. Battle Hale Reed, N. ¥, Beckworth Hardy Regan Bennett, Fla Hare Rich Bennett, Mich Harris Richards Bentsen Hariison Rivers Boggs, La Hays, Ark. Rogers, Fla. Bolton Md Hébert Sanborn Bonner Herlong Shafer Boykin Hill Short Bramblett Hobbs Sikes Brooka Hoffman, Mich Simpson, Ml. Brown, Ga Hops Simpson, Pa. Brown, Ohio Jenison Sims Bryson Jenkins Smathere Burleson Jennings Smith, Kans. Burton Jensen Smith, Va, Camp Jones, Ala Stanley Canron Jones, N.C. Bteed Carlyle Kerr Stigler Chelf Kilburn Sutton Chiperfleld Kilday Taber Christopher Lanham Tackett Church Larcade Teague Clevenger LeCompte Thomes OCole,N Y. Lucas Thompson Colmer Ly!e Thornberry Combs McMillan, S C. Towe Cooley Magee Trimble Covper Mahon Underwood Cox Moyer Velde Crawford Michener Vinson Curtis Miles Vursell Davis, Ga. Miller, Nebr. Weichel Davis, Tenn. Mills Wheeler Deane Monroney Whitten DeGiaffenried Morris Whittington D’Ewart Morrison Wickersham Dolliver Murdock Wiillams Dondero Murray, Tenn Willis Doughton Nicholson Wilson, Okla Durham Norrell Wilson, Tex. Elliott O'Hara, Minn Winstead Engle, Calif Pace Wood Evins Pestman Worley Fellows Patten
1950 Addonizio Allen, Calif. Angell Aspinall Auchincloss Balley Baring Barrett, Pa. Barrett, Wyo. Beall Biemiller Bishop Blackney Blatnik Boggs, Del. Bolling Bolton, Ohio Bosone Breen Buchanan Buckley, Ill. Buckley, N. Y. Burdick Burke Burnside Byrne,N Y. Byrnes, Wis, Canfield Carnahan Carroll Case, N. J. Casc,S Dak Cavalcante Celler Chesney Chudoff Clemente Cole, Kans. Corbett Cotton Coudert Crook Crosser Cunningham Dague Davenport Davis, Wis. Dawson Delancy Denton Dingell Dollinger Donohue Douglas Doyle Eberharter Ellsworth Elston Engel, Mich. Fallon Felghan Fenton Flood Fogarty Forand Ford Fulton Furcolo Gamble Garmats Gavin Golden Goodwin Gordon Gorski Graham Granahan Granger Green Gross Gwinn NAYS—239 Hall, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Jones of Missouri for, with Mr. Davies of New York against. Morgan Edwin Arthur Morton Anderson, Calif. Hall, Leonard W. Halleck Hand Hart Harvey Havenner Hays, Ohio Heffernan Heller Herter Heselton Hinshaw Hoeven Hoffman, ll. Holifield Ho!mes Horan Howell Huber Hull Irving Jackson, Calif Jackson, Wash. Jacobs James Javits Johnson Jonas Judd Karst Karsten Kean Kearney Kearns Keating Kee Kecfe Kelley, Pa Kelly, N Y. Kennedy Keogh King Kirwan Klein Kruse Kunkel Lane Latham LeFevre Lemke Lesinsk! Lichtenwalter Lind Linehan Lodge Lovre Lynch McCarthy McConnell McCormack McCulloch McDonough McGrath McGregor McGutre McKinnon McMillen, Ill McSweeney Mack, Nl. Mack, Wash. Madden Mansfield Marcantonio Marsalis Martin, Iowa Merrow Miller, Calif. Miller, Md. Mitchell Moulder Multer Murphy Murray, Wis. Nelson Nixon Noland Norton O'Brien, Tl. O’Brien, Mich. O'Hara, Ill O’Konski O'Neil O'Sullivan O'Toole Patterson Perkins Pfeifer, Joseph L Pfeiffer, William L, Philbin Phillips, Tenn. Polk Potter Pou'son Powell Price Quinn Rakaut Ramsay Rees Rhodes Ribtcoff Riehlman Rodino Rogers, Mass Rooney Roosevelt Sabath Sadlak St. George Sasecer Saylor Scott, Hardie Scott, Hugh D., Jr Scrivner Scudder Secrest Shelley Sheppard Staggers Stefan Stockman Sullivan Talle Tauriello Taylor Tollefson Vorys Wagner Walsh Walter Welch Werdel White, Calif. White, Idaho Widnall Wier Wigglesworth Wilson, Ind. Withrow Wolverton Woodhouse Yates Young Zablocki ANSWERED “PRESENT"''—1 Allen, La Arends Brehm Bulwinkle Chatham Davies, N. Y. Eaton Gillette Gilmer Martin, Mass. Harden Hedrick Jones, Mo. Macy Marshall Mason Norblad Patman Sadowski NOT VOTING—26 8mith, Ohio Smith, Wis. Spence Van Zandt Wadsworth Whitaker Wolcott Woodruff So the motion was rejected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr. Van Zandt against. Mr. Allen of Louisiana for, Sadowski against. Mr. Whitaker for, with Mr. Gillette against. Mr. Arends for, with Mr. Hedrick against. Mr. Macy for, with Mr. Wolcott against. Mr. Chatham for, with Mr. Brehm against. Mr. Wadsworth for, with Mr. Martin of with Mr. Massachusetts against. Mr. Smith of Wisconsin for, with Mr. Spence against. Until further notice: Mr. Patman with Mr. Mason. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Norblad. Mr. Bulwinkle with Mr. Maton Messrs, HiInsuAw and JOHNSON changed their vote from “yea” to “nay.” Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from New York, Mr. WapSworTH, been taken care of by a pair? The SPEAKER. He has not. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Speaker, I voted ‘‘nay.” vote and vote “present” and may say that if I were permitted to vote I would The gentleman from New vote “nay.” York, Mr. WaDsWoRTH, would Mr. I withdraw my have voted to adjourn if present and voting. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, by di- rection of the Committee on Education and Labor I call up the bill H. R. 4453. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the title of the bill. The Clerk read the title of the bill Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration of the bill. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House consider the bill? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 271, nays 133, not voting 27, as follows: Addonizio Allen, Calif. Andersen, H. Carl Anderson, Calif. Andresen, August H. Angell Aspinall Auchincloss Bailey Baring Barrett, Pa. Barrett, Wyo. Beall Bennett, Mich. Biemiller Bishop Blackney Blatnik Boggs, Del. Bolling Bolton, Ohio Bosone Breen Brown, Ohio Buchanan Buckley, Ill. Buckley, N Y¥ Burdick Burke Burnside Byrne, N. Y. Byrnes, Wis. Canfield Cannon Carnahan Carroll [Roll No. 62] YEAS—271 Case, N. J Case,S Dak. Cavalcante Celler Chesney Chiperfield Christopher Chudoft Church Clemente Cole, Kans Corbett Cotton Coudert Crawford Crook Crosser Cunningham Dague Davenport Davis, Wis. Dawson Delaney Denton D'Ewart Dingell Dollinger Dolliver Dondero Donohue Dougias Doyle Eberharter Ellsworth Elston Engel, Mich. Fallon Feighan Fenton Flood Fogarty Forand Ford Pulton Furcolo Gamble Garmatz Gavin Golden Goodwin Gordon Gorski Graham Granahan Granger Green Gross Gwinn Hagen Hall, Edwin Arthur Hall, Leonard W. Halleck Hand Hart Harvey Havenner Hays, Ohio Heffernan Heller Herter Heselton Hil, Hinshaw Hoeven Hoffman, Il. Holifield Holmes Hope Horan Howell Huber Hull Irving Jackson, Calif. Jackson, Wash. Jacobs James Javits Jenison Jenkins Jensen Johnson Jonas Juda Karst Karsten Kean Kearney Kearns Keating Kee Kecfe Kelley, Pa Kelly, N Y. Kennedy Keogh King “Kirwan Klein Krurce Kunkel Lane Latham LeCompte LeFevre Lemke Lesinskt Lichtenwalter Lind Linchan Lodge Lovre Lynch McCarthy McConnell McCormack McCulloch McDonough McGrath Abbitt Abernethy Albert Allen, Tl Andrews Barden Bates Battle Beckworth Bennett, Fia. Bentsen Boggs, La. Bolton, Md. Bonner Boykin Bramblett Brooks Brown, Ga Bryson Burleson Burton Camp Carlyle Cheif Clevenger Cole, N.Y. Colmer Combs Cooley Cooper Cox Curtis Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Deane DeGraffenried Doughton Durham Eluott Evins Fellows Fernandez Fisher Frazier Pugate McGregor McGutre McKinnon McMillen, Ml. McSweeney Mack, Ill. Mack, Wash. Madden Mansfield Marcantonio Marsalis Martin, Iowa Martin, Mass Merrow Michener Miller, Calif. Miller, Md. Miller, Nebr. Mitchell Monroney Morgan Morris Morton Moulder Multer Murphy Murray, Wis. Nelson Nixon Noland Norton O’Brten, Il. O'Brien, Mich O'Hara, Il. O'Hara, Minn. O'Konski O'Neill O'Sullivan O'Toole Patten Patterson Perkins Pfeifer, Joseph L, Pfeiffer, William L. Philbin Phillips, Tenn. Plumley Polk Potter Poulson Powell Price Quinn NAYS—133 Gary Gathings Gore Gossett Grant Gregory Hale Hardy Hare Harris Harrison Hays, Ark. Hébert Herlong Hobbs Hoffman, Mich Jennings Jones, Ala. Jones, N.C. Kerr Kilburn Kilday Lanham Larcade Lucas Lyle McMillan, 8. C. Magce Mahon Meyer Miles Mills Morrison Murdock Murray, Tenn Nicholson Norrell Pace Passman Peterson Phillips, Calif. Pickett Poage Preston Priest 2239 Rabaut Ramsay Rees Rhodes Ribicoff Riehlman Rodino Rogers, Mass. Rooney Roosevelt Sabath Sadlak 8t George Sanborn Sasscer Saylor Scott, Hardie Scott, Hugh D., Jr. Scrivner Scudder Secrest Shelley Sheppard Staggers Steed Stefan Stockman Sullivan Taille Tauriello Taylor Tollefson Vorys Vursell Wagner Walsh Walter Weichel Welch Wedel White, Calif. White, Idaho Wickersham Widnall Wicr Wigglesworth Wilson, Ind. Withrow Wolverton Woodhouse Yates Young Zablocki Rains Rankin Redden Reed, Il Reed, N. Y. Regan Rich Richards Rivers Rogers, Fla. Shafer Short Sikes Simpson, Il. Simpson, Pa. Sims Smathers Smith, Kans. Smith, Va. Stanley Stigler Sutton Taber Tackett Teague Thomas Thompson Thornberry Towe Trimble Underwood Velde Vinson Wheeler Whitten Whittington Willams Willis Wilson, Okla. Wilson, Tex. Winstead Wood Worley