2176 of whether the House should be denied the right to consider a bill such as this. The bill in essence prevents the same type of high-handed tactics which are being used today on the floor of the House, and I sincerely hope that all Members will have an opportunity to cast tneir vote on this legislation. As I have said, I have been the author of several FEPC bills, all of them to pre- vent discrimination in employment be- cause of race, creed, color, national origin, and so forth. In our America, where we are all striving to preserve our fundamental freedoms and lberties, we should not be afraid of any legislation which would give Americans the right to earn a living on an equal basis with all other Americans, regardless of race and creed. We preach tolerance for other peoples, but, unfortunately, we forget that, right in our own country, a minor- ity of our own citizens must suffer dis- crimination. We are sending thousands of dollars to countries overseas to curb and prevent the spread of communism, while at home we foster the very condi- tions which lead to communism. Men will not turn to communism in America if they are given equal opportunities for employment, and through this employ- ment secure for themselves and their families a decent standard of living. I am not afraid of the consequences of @ permanent FEPC. The original FEPC established through Executive order by President Roosevelt brought no dire re- sults. In fact, records show that it was most successful in its operation, and I believe that its fair and just administra- tion helped to spread in an effective way the idea of tolerance and brotherhood. In these troubled times we may be again forced to ask the men and women of our country to serve in the armed forces and protect once more all that we hold dear—God forbid that this will hap- pen—but if it does, how can we ask our young people to give of themselves, and perhaps even their lives, if we do not assure to them at home the very free- doms for which they may have to fight. That kind of service is not predicated on color or ancestry or any creed, but mere- ly on a common love of freedom and jus- tice and a determination to preserve these priceless gifts. If we are honest with ourselves, we will today show to those who suffer from discrimination at home and to those abroad who are look- ing to us for leadership that we truly be- lieve in the ideals which Americans have espoused since the founding of the Re- public—tolerance and liberty. There is one way to prove our good faith, and that is to consider FEPC legislation and vote in favor of it. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how the time stands? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 32 minutes re- maining; the gentleman from New York 36. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits]. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, we are fighting the very old struggle here today and we might just as well recognize it; for the United States is no longer a con- federation of sections, nor is the United CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE States a conglomeration of individual States: we are now a nation. We are not trying to legislate morals, which, I think, is an oversimplification of what we are trying to do here today; we are trying to implement a very old, a very honored, a very treasured right in our country—to protect a person inviolate in the posses- sion of his life and his property and his right to the pursuit of happiness. Equality of economic opportunity is just such a right. In this legislation we are trying to keep up with modern times which dictate that we have to pass a Jaw which in its appli- cation, is only keeping up with modern times. We must also pass a law which has teeth in it or we are saying to ourselves that the right to equality of economic opportunity which we are trying to as- sert and preserve and maintain is not dignified enough to have Government en- forcement. That is the fundamental problem here. Everybcdy who wants FEPC, who wants it sincerely and deeply and understands whet it means as an American, wants it effective. We know that you cannot have a policeman for every violation, and we know that en- forcement powers is what makes for de- terrence against violation. The Legis- lature of the State of New York knows that, too, for it has memoriahzed the Congress by Resolution passed concur- rently, dated January 31, 1950, to pass this very bill, and I am going to put that memorial in the Recorpv. It says and I quote: * * © the enactment of such Iegisla- tion (H R 4453) is of the greatest tmpor- tance to the people and will tend to unite the country and create greater respect for our institutions among the other peoples of the world * * - I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have heard a lot about the reverses which the United States has taken in the Far East in for- eign policy; and we have taken serious reverses there, but let us not forget that we are asking Asiatic peoples to adopt democracy. We are asking them to learn the freedom that democracy means, this billion people in the Far East who have yellow skins, and the 140,000,000 people in Africa who have black skins. We ask these peoples to have faith that democ- racy is fair and just and honest and does exactly what it promises to do. We can say that so much better and without questioning whether we are deceiving ourselves if we extend this elementary measure of justice to our own colored citizens in the United States. Good faith in our acknowledged responsibility to spread the ideas of freecom to all peoples demands that we pass this bill and pass it today. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr, McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire t) the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Win- STEAD]. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill. Mr. Chairman, today another great American custom is being thrown aside to make way for FEPC, one of the most un-American bills which has ever been FEBRUARY 22 brought before the Congress of this great country. I do not have to remind any- one present that for over 100 years it has been the custom for the Congress of the United States to honor the birth- day of George Washington, the Father of our Country, by assembling, reading his Farewell Address, and then adjourning in honor of his n.emory. But not so to- day. We must wrangle with this vicious measure which is designed as vote bait to serve the interest of selfish politi- cians—for this is election year Whata shame that this has to be with so many grave issues facing us at this time, when, for example, children, old people, and sick people everywhere are suffering from our inability to settle the coal strike which has this country Lractically paralyzed. What a shame that our President, who is leading the fight for passage of this legislation, has not used his authority to settle so grave a situ- ation. And if he does not have author- ity to do this, the Congress 1s equally at fault for not having given him the au- thority necessary. It 1s a grave fact that children as well as adults look upon John L. Lewis as being all-powerful. Only this morning, for example, my 6-year-old son, who Fas been ill for ap- proximately 4 weeks with measles and chicken-pox, called me, said he was cold and asked me if I would get in touch with John L. Lewis and see if something could not be done about heat for our apartment. With the race our country is having with Russia for atomic-energy control, and the inability to get Communists off our Federal pay roll, with many other equally serious problems facing us, we still have to consider, on George Wash- ington’s Birthday and at the expense of pressing problems, legislation, which, if passed, will mean complcte regimenta- tion of business and the creation of more bureaucracy and add tremendously to the taxes now being paid by business- men—both large and small. Contrary to what the advocates of FEPC would have the people believe, this is not a matter which concerns only the Southern States, even though it is true that Representatives of the South have previously prevented this measure being enacted into law. It is true that the South was first to realize that something much more fundamental was involved than we were led to believe in the move to establish a permanent FEPC. Per- haps this is why this whole matter has come to be regarded by many pecple as a southern problem, inasmuch as the race question is involved and sincc a large percentage of the population of the South is Negro. Even the civil-rights program, which seeks to destroy the South's way of handling the race ques- tion, and which has been tested and proven to be the best method for both races, is not all there is to this measure, which its proponents are so frantically trying to force on the people. This proposed FEPC legislation has correctly been called a violation of the traditional American system of free en- terprise. In taking away from the em- ployer the right which, under the Con- stitution, he has always enjoyed in select- ing employees according to his own be-
1950 lief in their qualifications, loyalty, and so forth, this legislation, if enacted, would invade deeper into the rights of the individual by dictating to the em- ployee for whom he must work. I would like to quote from Donald R. Richberg, writing for the Washington Star, Janu- ary 4, 1948, when he said: Unless government is to destroy an eco- nomic system of competitive freedom and social system of free association, it cannot undertake to level down the inequalities that result from differing abilities and op- portunities, or to interfere with the volun- tary selection of one’s associates in work or play. Mr. Richberg goes further in his state- ment by saying: No one would dare to propose that an employer be given the right by lew to com- pel a man to work for htm That would be “involuntary servitude”’—slavery. Yet it is solemnly proposed that an employer shall be forbidden the right to refuse to employ a “qualified” man because of his race, color, or religion. This means, in practical effect, that if a Government regulator says that a man is “qualified” and rules that he has been denicd employment because of race, color, or religion, then he must be em- ployed It seems to be forgotten that an employer works for his employees Just as they do for him. He is obligated by law to do a great many things for his employee. So the proposed law would force an employer into involuntary servitude to men who are under no obligation to work for him. Taken in its broader sense, an em- ployer must either comply with the reg- ulations of the Fair Employment Prac- tice Commission or be punished by fine or imprisonment without being able to claim the right of trial by jury. Think for a moment of our Atomic Energy Com- mission in the event of the passage of this legislation, the provisions of which make it unlawful to discriminate in Fed- eral positions against any applicant for a job because of his natural origin or ancestry. This serious threat to AEC security alone is enough to show the danger of such legislation. As a matter of fact, it would be unlawful, under this proposed legislation, for the Atomic Energy Commission to ask any questions of the applicants as to his place of birth, citizenship, race or any question of that nature, which we have always regarded as necessary from the standpoint of na- tional security. To point out the effect this legislation would have on business in general, I ask you to imagine if you can an agent or agents whose job it is to travel over the country, interrupting the business day by questioning the employees with view to making charges against the employer because of his failure to employ, or fail- ure to fire, someone because of his race, religious belicfs or national origin. As an example of what could happen if FEPC legislation is passed, I quote from a@ communication received from Mr. T. J. Priestley, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa. In a pamphlet entitled “FEPC, the American Gestapo at Work,” Mr. Priestley relates his experience with inspectors for the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor during the war when his firm was engaged with the war effort. His statement follows: During September 1943, there came to the office of the Priestley Printers, singly and in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE pairs, elght or nine able-bodied draft-de- ferred men, who demanded to see the pay- roll books of both the Priestley Printers and the Priestley Engineering Co. At different times they spent hours taking the names and addresses of employees. They pressed our typists into their service. They mailed questionnaires to the employees which en- couraged them to oppose their employer, and when the workers failed to return them, others fullowed, so that no less than three questionnaires were received. * * * They annoyed the employees at their homes and called them on the telephone as late as 11:15 p. m,, after they had retired They worried the employees and interfcred with our pro- duction. They entered, without permission, into our engineering department through a door having a sign “No admission” and en- deavored to have a machinist break his contract with the Priestley Engineering Co. They demanded and took from our unsus- pecting clerk samples of printed matter con- taining the names and addresses of our cus- tomers, to whom they addressed letters hav- ing the effect of belittling the prestige ot the Priestley Printers. Let it be borne in mind that, even though it appears that pressure for this legislation is aimed at the South as a punishment measure, such a law would mean that employers everywhere, regard- less of the section of the country, would be drawn into line according to the dic- tation of Government regulators. I should like to call to your attention parts of a report of a vacation journcy by youthful editors below Mason and Dixon’s line whicr appeared in the New York Herald Tribune, August 6, 1949. In discussing the racial relationship in the South, these cditors had this to say: The racial relationship in the South is different from what we were led to expect. We thought we might find some kind of racial persecution and reul misery among the Negroes. We can truthfully say that the Negroes we have seen and spoken to seemed, almost without exception, happy and on the whole the relationship between black and white in the South was more friendly, more cooperative, more understanding, and more constructive than many relationships be- tween, say, white managenient and white Jabor in the North. * * * As one col- ored university professor said to us: “We are in a healthy and constructive process of evolution.” * * * And strangely enough, while the Negroes themselves are anxious to have full economic and educational equal- ity (but much less anxious than some of their white northern friends) they would certainly not welcome the abolition of ra- cial segregation. This fact constituted, per- haps, our greatest surprise. Over and over again, Negroes said to us that they are proud of their race, that they would like to keep their race apart, and that while there should be other equality, while there should be the friendliest cooperation, they themselves would like to see the con- tinuation of segregation. Such findings must come as a great blow to the advocates of FEPC legisla- tion who hope that by its passage to bring about social intermingling among the races. From time to time, in this and past discussions of this proposed legislation, it has been pointed out that this measure is definitely un-American. Is it impos- sible to believe that either party would sponsor such a measure as this, under the terms of which every businessman in the Unitcd States wou!d be told from Washington who to employ and who to 2177 fire, if {t were not for their desire to obtain the votes of the radical groups who sponsor such measures, including the Communist? As you know, it is true that the Communist Party is and has always been active in support of FEPC legislation. We might well ask ourselves just why the Communist have such in- terest if indeed this legislation is not Communist-inspired. May I bring to mind the reported words of the President himself, spoken in connection with criticism of one of his aides, when he said: “No can tell me who to hire or who to fire.” This, coming from the President of the United States, is one of the strongest statements cone could imagine against this so-called fair employment practices legislation. Why. Mr. Chairman, would you want to force upon the people of this country a poli:y which you personally refuse to follow? Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Tennessee {[Mr. Mur- RAY]. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill. It is a sad commentary that this un- democratic, unconstitutional, unfair, and communistic-supported legislation is being considered on the birthday of the beloved Father of our Country, George Washington. It is highly unfortunate and regrettable that the House sees fit to celebrate the birthday of the immortal George Washington with the considera- tion of such ill-timed legislation. Article 123 of the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the authority and forerunner for this type of vicious legislation. I charge that the proponents of this measure are not interested ir the wele fare, well-being, and success of the mi- nority races in the Southern States, but that they are directing this legislation at the South for political purposes. They are simply using the Negro in the South as a political football. The white southerner 1s the best friend the Negro race ever had. The great majority of the »eople of the United States are not supporting this legislation and the lhttle popular support it has today comes mainly from pressure groups, radical organizations, Communist-front groups, and representatives of minority racial organizations. The fair employment practice bill, H. R. 4453, is revolutionary, dangerous, and drastic legislation, which should not be enacted by Congress. In my opinion its enforcement would absolutely destroy free enterprise and private industry, as it would create intolerable conditions in the management of any business. It would mean bureaucratic control and regimentation of all] private industry. It would be a serious blow to our present form of government and would finally result in a totalitarian form of govern- ment. It is the most far-reaching effort ever attempted to control and direct business. Not only would it subject pri- vate industry to dictatorship by our Government, but it would also strike a real blow to the freedom and control of labor unions by their members. Mr,
2178 The bill would take away from private business its right and privilege of hiring and firing its employees. It would en- croach upon the prerogatives of man- agement to pass upon the qualifications of persons secking employment and would deprive it of the right of selecting its own employees. The measure would control the selection or fitness of appli- cants for membership in our union labor organizations and would pass upon their right to discharge members from their unions. This contemptible legislation is spon- sored and supported by all radicals, left- wingers, Communists, and those opposed to our present form of government and to private enterprise. It would set up a colossal bureaucracy with vast and dangerous powers of con- trol and regimentation. It would de- prive the employer of using his own good judgment of choosing qualified, capable employees and labor unions in selecting their own members. TTEW ERA OF RACKETEERING Any dissatisfied applicant for a job could file a complaint with the FEPC, could force the employer to leave his business and submit to a kangaroo hear- ing as to why the disappointed job seeker was not hired. Any disgrun- tled person who has been discharged could likewise file a complaint with the FEPC and force the employer to submit to a hearing as to why he was fired. The passage of the bill would set up a new era of blackmailing and racketeer- ing. It would result in thousands of com- plaints and hearings by the FEPC due to shysters and agitators who would claim that they were either refused employ- ment or were discharged in violation of the act. They will file ungrounded com- plaints with the hope that the employer will pay off to them rather than to go to the trouble and expense of a FEPC hearing. This legislation would be a crushing blow to private enterprise, individual imitiative, and to the freedom of labor unions in choosing their own member- ship. It is inimical to the best inter- ests of our country. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] 3 minutes, Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, regardless of what has been said here about this legislation being directed toward the Negro, there is the argument that it does not involve the Negro solely. There hag been discrimi- nation in this country amongst many groups. Anyone who has ever lived or traveled in an industrial area of this country certainly has observed that. We all reahze today that something should be done about it. Many minority groups are still suffering from discrimi- nation. Mr. Chairman, there is another as- pect that has been touched upon by a previous speaker. That is, in connection with cur foreign relations we belong to many of the international organizations and we must associate with all of those nations, 60 or 61 of them, with people of different color, of different religions, and of various races in the world. We have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE voiced our admiration and our adherence to nondiscrimination against minority groups, then we proceed to violate those principles, and we are, therefore, thought by people over the world as being hypo- crites. It is injuring our relationship with foreign nations, to say the least. It has been and is embarrassing to any United States citizen who is assigned to a principal position on one of our inter- national organizations to sit with those people and pose as being something that we are not. Certainly we can enhance our prestige and our influence the world over with those people if we will do what we say we will do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- ance of my time. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the minute that the gentlcman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] yielded back to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. €mirH) for debate. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, we have been in session for a long time. It is now almost 7 o'clock, and it is obvious this bill cannot be seriously considered ana concluded during this session of the House. I think most of the Members are very tired. It is about time we were getting away from here. I think a good many of them are ready to get away. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. gentleman from New York. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he realizes I am feeling very wide awake and I have no desire to leave until we complete the business of the day. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. The gentle- man is a good deal younger than some of us and I congratulate him. I admire him, I like to see him up here jumping around and going on. But I think it is about time we quit. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise. Mr. POWELL. Mr, Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yielded 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia only for debate. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, I ask recognition on my own to of- fer a preferential motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York yielded to the gentleman from Virginia for a particular purpose. The motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not in order at this time. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, I now move, on my own time, that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has no time. The gentle- man from New York and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have control of the time. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr, Sms] for debate. I yicld to the FEBRUARY 22 Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr, Chair- man, will the gentleman yicld? Mr. SIMS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, having some time of my own, I now move that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN, The gentleman from South Carolna was yielded 4 min- utes time for debate, He 1n turn yielded to the gentleman from Virginia but he cannot yield to the gentleman from Vir- ginia for the purpose of offering that motion. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, I respectfully appeal from the de- cision of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair be sus- tained? Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I make @ parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, is that appeal debatable? The CHAIRMAN. Under the 5-min- ute rule; yes. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. The Chair will say that the discussion is now on the appeal. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, this fs the first time that I ever knew Members of the House to have to edec in in this way to be recognized for a motion for the Commiuttce to rise. In my opinion that motion is privi- leged, and any Member has a right to make it at any time. I do not propose to discuss this mon- strosity at the present time. I will do that under the 5-minute rule. But I secured this time to support the appeal of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH]. In the first place, we are going to be here all night, if this goes on. I am sure that Joe Stalin heard that applause, because you are driving through here a piece of communistic legislation that Stalin promulgated in 1920, and you could not pass it in a sin- gle county in the United States by a popular votc, as was shown in Califor- nia. You are trying to ram this thing through here by intimidation, 1n order to bring about a condition that the American people do not want. The gen- tleman from Virginia |[Mr. SMITH] has made the motion that the Committee do now rise. Mr. MARCANTONIO, Mr. Chairman, @ point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I make the point of order that the gentleman from Mississippi must direct his remarks to the question of the appeal from the rul- ing of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to comply with the request of the leader of this FEPC program the gentleman from New York [Mr. MaRcANTONIO], and
1950 I want to confine myself within the rules of the House. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yleld? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from Virginia. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. The gentle- man from Mississippi is one of the most astute parliamentarians of the House, and he has had long experience here. Now, we frequently have bills come up here by rule on which there is general debate lasting for 2 and 3 days, on which time is allowed for those pro and con. The gentleman understands from the ruling of the Chair that we might now be placed in a position where we could never rise. Mr. RANKIN. If the ruling of the Chair is correct, we could be held here for 3 days and nights. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Is it not the custom and the usual practice in this Touse, whenever they are ready to rise, that somebody does make a motion right in the middle of debate? Mr. RANKIN. Absolutely, and that motion is privileged. That is what I am trying to tell the House I do not want to irritate the leader of this movement, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio], and that was not my in- tention at all. Mr, RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from South Carolina. Mr. RIVERS. He is not only the leader, but he is the father of this mon- strosity Mr. RANKIN. I mean the father of this program. Mr. RIVERS. “Monstrosity” is the word. Mr. RANKIN Father of this mon- strosity. I have been in this body for some time Ihave had as many parlia- mentary battles as any other man in this generation, and I am here to tell you that the gentleman from Virginia is cor- rect. Unless this motion is privileged, we might go on here from day to day for the next week or 10 days, or the next month, and nobody would be permitted to make a motion that the Committee rise. Myr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. RANKIN. I yield. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Iam sure the gentleman did not mean by his reference to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MarRCANTONIO!] to attribute legitimacy to this offspring, did he? Mr. RANKIN. No, no. man misunderstands me. Mr. RIVERS. He is the foster father. Stalin is the father. Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman from South Carolina suggests he is the foster father. But I want to talk about the motion of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SmitH]. Any Member has the right to move that the Committee rise, and it is privileged, and if it were not privileged, why, we could be compelled to sit here from day to day. We all know we will be here until daylight, at least, unless this motion is carried. The gentle- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from North Carolina. Mr. REDDEN. If that were not true, then whether we would ever adjourn or whether the Committee ever rises would depend upon the one who has charge of the bill. Mr. RANKIN. Certainly. We might just sit here from day to day. So Iam supporting the appeal made by the gen- tleman from Virginia [Mr. SmitH], in the hope that the House votes on it and lets us go home and get a good night’s sleep, and try to forget this crazy measure. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to tl + motion May I just bricfly state the situation, that if we do not support the Chair we will go back into the House, and when we go back into the House we will £0 through the same filibustering tactics, a motion to adjourn, which we will de- feat, because we have the votes, and quorum calls, and then we will go back into the Committee of the Whole again. In other words, this motion is not offered sincerely because if it were offered sincerely it would mean that we were trying to expedite this matter. But this will prolong the situation for at least another hour and a half. We are going to finish debate according to the clock in 2 hours, not by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania |Mr. McCon- NELL] or myself, who control only the division of the 2 hours. If this ruling is not sustained, we are merely going to prolong staying here and again g0 through the whole fllibustering tactics which we have just defeated. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POWELL. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman—— The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise? Mr. NICHOLSON. May I ask what the parliamentary situation is? Mr. POWELL. I do not yield for a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. The debate is on an appeal from a decision made by the Chair. _ Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. We are under the 5-minute rule. No Member, no matter what his position is on the committee, has the right to yield of his time to any- body else. He may yield for an inter- ruption, but he cannot yield time. Mr. POWELL. I am yielding for an interruption. The CHAIRMAN. The_ gentleman from New York has control of the time. Mr. NICHOLSON, I am not making an interruption. Mr. MARCANTONI®O. Iam not going to take much time to debate the point raised by the gentleman from Virginia nor to enter into a discussion of the bastardy proceedings in which the gen- tleman from Mississippi has engaged. Chair- 2179 The question is very simple. We are pro- ceeding under the rules of Calendar Wednesday. Time is fixed for 2 hours of general debate, The gentleman from New York [Mr. PowEtu] yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sims]. When the gentleman from South Carolina yielded to the gentleman from Virginia, he could not yield for the pur- pose of making that motion. Therefore, the ruling sf the Chair is entirely in ac- cordance with the rules and should be sustained, notwithstanding the objec- tions of the gentleman from Virgina {Mr. SmitrH] and the oration of the gen- tleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin]. The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair be the judgment of the Committee? The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the Committce divided and there were—ayes 123, noes, 177. Mr. SMITH of Virgima. Mr. Chair- man, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. POWELL and Mr. Smitu of Virginia. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 148, noes 83. So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. The _ eentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Srms} is rec- ognized for 34% minutes. Mr. SIMS. Mr. Chairman, I am op- po.ed to this legislation; I am opposed to any legislation of this type, because I do not believe that civil mghts is an end 1n itself. I do not believe there is anything sacred about civil rights legis- lation; I think that whether civil rights legislation is right or wrong depends en-= tirely on whether it accomplishes its ul- timate end of attaining and preserving human rights. As I understand the en- actment of civil mghts is merely putting human rights into law; consequently, if by passing the law you do not attain and preserve human rights then I feel that civil rights legislation is wrong. I feel the same way about States’ rights legislation. Here again we have a means toward accomplishing an end. States’ rights legislation is certainly not right if it does not attain that ultimate goal of reaching and preserving human rights. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that this Icgislation will succeed only in sctting up in the South irritants, will succeed in encouraging the Ku Klux Klan, will suc- ceed in destroying hbcralism in that sec- tion of the country which needs liberal- ism most. It certainly is not conducive to harmonious race relations. Every liberal here today should vote against this FEPC measvre. Liberals should not be tied to an FEPC slogan. They should look behind the slogan and see if the bill really accomplishes its objective. I have been very much impressed by some of the arguments which many of the proponents of this legislation have urged before the subcommittee headed by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Powe tv]. Senator Paut Dovucias, one of the greatest liberal leaders in the Senate for whom I have the highest respect, points
2180 out that “job discrimination against Ne- groes is directly weakening national unity and 1s giving other Communist op- ponents of our democracy a propaganda weapon”—1949 hearings, page 231. I certainly agree with Senator DOouGLAs that job discrimination against Negroes, as well as the race problem in general, is a Federal as well as a State problem and that Federal action as well as State action is necessary if we are to be suc- cessful in our efforts to solve the prob- lem of two races living togethcr harmo- niously with human rights for all people. Senator Husert H. HUMPHREY, consid- ered by many to be the civil-rights leader of the Senate, in his testimony before the FEFC subcommittee last year, based his aiguments for FEPC on the principle ef government that the fundamental task of the Government is “to provide them with at least one thing—opportu- nity"—page 99. I agree with Senator Humpurey in his statement that the fundamental task of the Government is to provide the people with at least one thingz—opportunity. The distinguished gentlewoman from Califcrnia, the Honorable HELEN GaHa- GAN Coweras, who is recognized as one of the most outstanding liberal leaders in this body, testified before the FEPC sub- committee and stated that— We are told that racial and religious preju- dice can be eliminated only by education and that legislation in this delicate field will promote strife and conflict. She continues by saying: The opposition ignores a tundamental dis- tinction between prejudice and discrimina- tion. Prejudice is a state of mind, and dis- crimination is an overt act * * ® Our system can indulge a man’s individual preju- dices. * * * When prejudice is trans- lated into active discrimination, * * * it is the proper function of government to pre- vent such practices. I agree with the distinguished gentle- woman that it is the proper function of government to prevent the overt act of discrimination if the Government can accomplish this good without accom- plishing even more evil But I wonder if the distinguished gentlcwoman would not agree with me that it is also the proper function of government to attempt to eliminate the causes of prejudice and that through eliminating the causes of prejudice we may be able to eliminate more of the overt acts of discrimination than we can through legislation outlaw- ing discrimination. In other words,I am not one of those that holds that racial and rehg:ous prejudice can be eliminated only by education. I believe, as does the distinguished gentlcwoman, that we nced education and legislation. But perhaps I differ with the distinguished gentle- woman in believing that the legislation should be designed to eliminate the causes of prejudice rather than to outlaw the overt act of discrimination. Senator Irvine M. Ives, known as the father of FEPC in that he was the driv- ing force behind the enactment of the first State FEPC Jaw in New York in 1945, makes several statements before the FEFC committee which I think should be included in the record here, and which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I personally agree with. First he states that— If you have to enforce this kind of under- taking by punitive measure, by legal com- pulsion, it is going to fail. Unless you can convince the rank and file of people that it is inherently right * * * and get them to cooperate in backing it up, your undertaking cannot succeed, Senator Ives states further: And the success or failure of it— Meaning FEPC— rests not primarily on the terms of the stat- ute or the substance of the statute, but pri- marily on the type of administrator you get. Now before going into the needs that exist in America which the proponents of this legislation are trying to meet and before going into what FEPC would ac- tually do in attempting to meet this need, I would like to make several ob- servations. Fair employment practice legislation isnew. Asa miatter of fact, the first acts of this specific character were adopted in the legislative session of 1945, It 1s common knowledge that it oftentimes takes a period of a generation of experi- ence for an observer to make a fair ap- praisal of the effectiveness of this new law. As a matter of fact, we have op- erated in a tight labor market during the entire time the FEFC legislation has been law. The tendency to discriminate is obviously rather slight during a period of full employment as compared with the temptation to discriminate during a de- pression. I want to make the point that if it were conclusively proven—and it has not been—that State FEPC laws have worked successfully, that this is no in- dicaticn that they will continue to work successfully during a period of wide- spread unemployment. Another observation which I would lke to make is this: In those Southern States where the minonity group repre- sents a very large proportion of the pop- ulation, you have an entirely different problem than you have in a State where the minority represents a very small Proportion of the population. It is en- tirely possible that the type legislation neco-sary in Minnesota. for examnle, where they have, according to the 1940 census, less than 10,000 Negroes, 1s not the type legislation that would be necd- ed in Mississippi, where there are more than 1,000,000 Nerroes. And it conse- quently follows tnat, even 1f FEPC lewis- lation is proven to be desirable in the States in which it has been tried, 1t has not been tried in any State in which a single minority group represents a large percentage of the total population of that State. In considering any legislation designed to help the members of a minority race it is necessary to consider the whole problem of two races living together har- moniously with human rights for all. This issue is of particular importance and Significance to those of us who live in a section of the United States which is faced with this very real problem every day in the year. All through FEPC hearings we find the statement over and over again by the proponents of FEPC FEBRUARY 22 legislation that this measure is not pointed at the South. Almost without exception the proponents of FEPC have stated this measure is not pointed at the Souta. But I say to you that any legis- lation which is designed to help the members of a minority race should be pointed at the South because that is where the largest numbers of the mem- bers of minority races are located. In other words, any bill that is drawn up to help members of the munority race should certainly be drawn up sc that it will work in the South because here is where the greatest opportunity for doing good exists In any bill to help mem- bers of a minority race, the situation in Mississippi should be given more con- sideration than the situation in Minne- sota because a law which would help members of a minority race woud help over a milhon Negroes in Mississippi, while there are only about 10,009 that could be bencfiled in Minnesota. Iam not a traveling man. I am not familar w.th the problem of discrimina- tion as it affects most of the minority groups. I am fairly familiar with the problem of the Negro and the white man living together in the South, particu- larly in South Carolina. In five of the eight counties which I represent there are morc Negroes than whites. Iam very anxious to pass legislation that will help the Negroes in South Ca.ohna and over the Nation but I am convinced that the proponents of FEPC fail to see clearly the real nced that exists. FEPC Icgislation, even if it were en- forceable and we oll Know il 1s not going to work in the South but even if it did work all over the United States it would help a very few members of the Negro race, af we pass FEPC and if FEPC works, we as a government would still fail miseradiy m cur effort to provide opportunity for a'l. Opporiuaity does not begin when a man becomes 21 years of age and 1s ready to go to work. Tnere are millions and millions of members of the Negro raze who have never becn given an opportunity to receive an edu- cation. There are millions and millons of Negroes who have not been given the opportunity to receive adequate medical care. In other words, there are millions and mulions of Negroes who have not been given an opportunity to develop their personalit.ics and  capabil.ties. What good dors 1t do a man to say that you shall ke given a job in line with your abilities, if he has not been given the op- portunity to develop those abilities. FEPC is a farce as far as giving a man equal opportunity is concerned. If the proponents of FEPC really want to give the Negrocs in America equal op- portunity, if the proponents of FEPC accept the minority problem as a na- tional problem and I agree with you, it is a national problem, then the pro- ponents of this legislation should step boldly forward with a program for pro- viding basic needs to this minority group—basic needs so that they can properly develop their personalities. The argument is used by proponents of FEPC that we cannot sell democracy and the idea of equal opportunity to the world
1950 if we do not practice it at home—that we must close the gap between principles and practices. I agree with them com- pletely that solving the race problem and providing equal opportunity is a national problem. Let us face it realistically. Let us not make the same mistake that we made in America back in the nine- teenth century when slavery was abol- ished. The problem then was exactly the same problem as it is today; that is, two races living together harmoniously with human rights for all. What was the situation then? We had many people from outside of the South shout- ing, “Pass a law that makes all people equal and then we will ave political freedom and human rights.” And on the other hand, within the South you had an equally loud group that were so busy shouting “States rights” that they did not have time to try and solve the race problems that did exist in the South. Neither group recognized the problem of the South for what it was, an economic problem. Perhaps the War Between the States could have been avoided, if, instead of abolishing slavery, the slaves had been bought by the Government, and freed, and had been given education, and train- ing, and land, and an opportunity to be economically independent individually. But Congress then did not recognize the problem as an economic one. They thought that by passing laws they would secure political freedom and human rights for the Negro. Let us not make that same mistake again. Fair-employment practice legislation wil not give to the Negro an opportunity to become economically independent. Let us give the Negro the opportunity to develop his personality and his capabil- ities. After all, the Christian religion uses as a standard the development of the personality, to determine right from wrong. The Christian religion is not nearly as concerned with the rewards that one receives on this earth, even if that reward be fair employment, as they are with the opportunity to develop one’s personality. Education is certainly one way toward solving this problem. But education is not enough. Education should be cou- pled with legislation and that legislation should be designed toward providing those basic needs for all people. Actual- ly, legislation designed toward lifting up those people on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder will, in the long run, eliminate most of the causes for preju- dice and will provide opportunities for millions and millions of Negroes who are not given an opportunity to develop their abilities. However, if the proponents of FEPC legislation feel that we cannot wait on legislation designed to lift up all people who are on the bottom rungs of the eco- nomic ladder because of our position as the leading advocate of democracy in the world, I suggest that we pass legisla- tion designed specifically to provide these opportunities to the Negro mi- norities. I sugeest, first, that we make a huge Federal appropriation to the States on the basis of their Negro population for the purpose of providing adequate edu- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cational, health, housing, and recrea- tional facilities for the Negro. I sug- gest, secondly, that we establish a mi- nority employment agency for the pur- pose of finding jobs for Negroes all over the United States. In other words, it would encourage voluntary migration of Negroes from the South to those parts of the United States where better employ- ment opportunities exist. And, thirdly, that a national education program should be conducted with the objective of eliminating discrimination by educa- tion and publicity. My suggestion of legislation to elim!- nate the causes of prejudice would help the common man within the Negro race, It is not designed like FEPC to help only a small percentage of the Negroes, per- haps 3 to 5 percent who could be classi- fied as the elite members of that race, My objection to FEPC is, first, that the Commission will, in my opinion, use its authority in an effort to end segregation in the South. Secondly, FEPC legis- lation, or the consideration of FEPC leg- islation, stirs bitterness and hatred among the races in the South. It does not work toward harmonious race rcla- tions and the rank and file of the people will not accept it—consequently, it will be unenforceable. If this FEPC law were passed it is reasonable to assume that the President of the United States in appointing mem- bers for the Commission would appoint people genuinely interested in the suc- cess of the legislation. I think that it is also reasonable to assume that all of the members of the commission would feel that segregation is discrimination in itself and that, consequently, they would have no sympathy at all with the people in Southern States who are opposed to ending segregation. I think it is en- tirely reasonable to assume that these people would agree with the report of President Truman's civil-rights commit- tee that the Nation should force the South to end segregation and that they would use what authority they have toward furthering this aim. I think that the activity of the wartime FEPC justifies these expectations. President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights recommended that the Na- tion force the South to end segregation by withholding Federal funds. And, since the South would not end segrega- tion, it would be bled economically—just as it has been bled by discriminatory freight rates, high protective tariffs, and so forth. This would destroy human rights by lowering per capita income, lowering ability to meet basic needs in a section of the country with an already low per capita income. A vote for FEPC is not a liberal vote— it is a vote against human rights. I re- fuse to vote to throw a sop to minority agitators not genuinely interested in the Negroes in South Carolina. I shall con- tinue to oppose vigorously this and sim- flar legislation. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina has ex- pired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. WOLVERTON], 2181 Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the enactment of the leg- islation now before the House in Com- mittee of the Whole, a bill to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. This act known as the Fair Employ- ment Practice Act, H. R. 4453, has been on the calendar of the House since Au- gust 2, 1949, when it was favorably ree ported with amendments by the Com- mittee on Education and Labor. Bills to establish a Federal Fair Em- ployment Practice Commission have been before the House continually since 1944. These bills have been considered by com- mittees of the House on three separate occasions, resulting each time in a favor- able report and recommendation that the legislation be passed. Both Republican and Democratic Party platforms have pledged enactment of such legislation. Major religious, labor, civic, veterans, and racial organ- izations have declared FEPC to be the most fundamental of all pending civil rights bills. The bill comes before the House today only after every parliamentary tactic at the disposal of the opposition has been utilized. At times the efforts made by opponents to prevent this bill from being considered by the membership of the House have been a travesty on parlia- mentary law and procedure. This is especially true when it is considered that parliamentary law is designed to enable the majority to work its will. However, with reference to this bill the rules were used to prevent rather than facilitate ac- tion. It is gratifying, however, that at last the persistency of the Members in favor of the legislation has won and the bill comes before the House for action, and, what will in my opinion be favor- able consideration. The bill is designed to protect those rights of freedom and equality of oppor- tunity which are guaranteed to every person by the basic principles upon which our Nation is built; to help make it pos- sible for all our people to enjoy a decent standard of living, to remove from our social fabric a practice which weakens its foundations; to promote a better mu- tual understand and good wil] among our people, drawn as they are from many races and embracing as they do many creeds; to help assure that domestic tranquillity and industrial peace which is so necessary to the realization of our tremendous productive potential as a Nation; to elevate the level or our moral, social, economic, and political life; to preserve and enhance the dignity of the individual which chiefly distinguishes this Nation from the totalitarian na- tions of the world. Because we all subscribe to these ob- Jectives, it should be possible to approach this problem without political partisan- ship. The enactment of Federal fair~ employment practice legislation, as I have said, has been pledged in the plat- forms of both major parties. The presi- dential standard bearers of both parties have advocated the establishment of a Fair Employment Practice Commission. Members of both parties have introduced bills to accomplish this purpose in the
2182 Senate and the House of Representa- tives. It is my hope that this unanimity of purpose will make possible a bipartisan approach to the problem that will re- sult in the speedy enactment of this bill. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. ABER- NETHY ]. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, no people have ever had greater rights and liberties than our people reserved to themselves in the Constitution. Spe- cious argument may try to show that Negroes and others are entitled to spe- cial consideration. But the instigators of the agitation intend, not to add to the rights of the American people, but to stir up friction, envy, hatred, and dis- content. This is a cardinal aim of Com- munist strategy. It is designed to give small minorities special privileges at the expense of the majority. When these special privileges are granted—or usurped—the majority lose important rights, and most if not all of their free- dom. Those familiar with communism know it is based upon the theory of class struggle. The interects of the working class are supposed to be different from the interests of every one else. There- fore, they contend therc is irrepressible enmity between the working class and every one else. Communism is dedicated to the ruthless suppression of individual rights, as well as destruction of any po- litical or social system which respects them. But to weaken the unity of a free people, to destroy faith in the integrity of free institutions, Communists have found that agitation for civil rights can pay big dividends. It is perfectly adapted to stirring up conflict, setting race against race, employee against em- ployer, one religious group egainst an- other. So Communists and .ellow trav- elers, with pretended pious concern for civil rights undermine the only free soci- ety on earth in which civil rights are really respected. FEPC legislation destroys the free market for goods and services upon which cur economic system and our po- litical liberty both depend. In a free market for services, both employer and employee are free to bargain and need not agree unless mutually satisfied. An FEPC law, by bringing the State as a third party into the market—a party who can say, “You must employ this man”—destroys the free market. Thus, a worker, instead of remaining as one of two free bargainers, becomes a slave in a market controlled by the State. Noth- ing more destructive of the rights of labor could be devised. FEPC legislation assumes that any ap- plicant for a job has acquired, by the sole act of applying, a vested interest in that particular job—an interest en- forceable at law. A man may say, “You refused to hire me because I am col- ored,” or “because I am a Jew,” and if he can get a commission or court to believe him, then the State may order the applicant employed with full pay from the date of his first application. The State thus becomes the final arbi- ter in all hiring. If the people once con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cede this right, then both employer and employee are bound by its inexorable consequences. One of the basic human rights God has given man is the right to make his own estimates of others, to like them or to dislike them, to trust them or to distrust them, to associate with them or to avoid them, for any rcason or for no reason. The moment that right is taken away, freedom becomes a mock- ery. And the civil-rights agitation is designed to destroy that element of free- dom. To attempt force is to threaten na- tional unity and to invite disruption. To attempt it now, with communism over- hrvnging the world, is to play straight into the hands of Moscow. I warn you that the people are tired—very tired—of unnecessary regulations and Govern- ment meddling. We are now overregu- lated by Government bureaus, commis- sions, and Federal snoopers. The old mantel clock no longer beats a soothing, restful “tick-tock, tick-tock,” but a rapid “regulate, regulate, regulate, regulate.” I repeat, our people have grown very tired of an overdose of Government regulations. If private enterprise, or even govern- mental agencies, can be forced to employ a certain percentage of Negroes, or a certain percentage of any minority group, irrespective of seniority rights or qualifications, then in the not too distant future will we not be confronted with forced proportionate employment of mi- norities within a minority group, such as so many blacks, browns, tans, yellows, or so many halfbloods or even quarter- bloods? If this is lawful, then those of the various religious faiths could de- mand equitable distribution of employ- ment among their respective sects and there would follow the forced hire, in every business, shop, and office of a cer- tain percentage of Protestants, Cath- olics, Hebrews, Mormons, Mohammed- ans, Buddhists, atheists, sun worship- ers, Moon gazers, and so on and on and on. Why even Communist Russia and Hitlerite Germany would bow in shame at such dictatorial orders. Mr. Chairman, do you know that the FEFC would abolish trial by jury insofar as the FEPC is concerned? Do you know that FEPC lcgislation would destroy the GI bill of rights insofar as it gives pref- erence to veterans? Do you know that a man who worked all his life to estab- lish a business, using his money and toil in doing so would not be allowed to sur- round himself with employees of his own choice if the FEPC became a law? Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking as a Democrat, I am not speak as a south- erncr, but I am speaking as an Ameri- can. I am deeply concerned over the effect that this legislation would have upon every element of American society, on those true Americans who love local self-government. The FEPC proposal is class legislation. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy which believes in equal rights for all and special privileges for none. The FEPC is nothing more than an arterial highway to regimentation and serfdom, Consult the American businessman, the American farmer, the American banker, FEBRUARY 22 the American merchant and see if they will submit to such regimentation and dictatorial powers as are proposed in this vicious FEPC legislation. It is time the American people knew just what this evil bill proposes to do. This bill would hound, badger, restrict, and discourage private enterprise; destroy local self- government; and, in my judgment, do more to Hitlerize and communize Amer- ica than any legislation ever submitted to Congress. It is a wolf in sheep’s cloth- ing. The name of the commission is de- ceptive and the title misleading. At this very hour the Nation is troubled with grave foreign problems, the spread of communism, an ever mounting na- tional debt, high taxes, deficit spending, farm failures, mounting unemployment and scores of other problems of serious consequence and extreme emergency. It is rather ironical that the FEPC legis- lation should be treated with equal im- portance at this hour. Mr. Chairman, I am truly concerned over the effect this proposed legislation would have upon our Nation—the great- est, richest country in the world—a nation to which thousands upon thou- sands of discouraged, despondent, hun- gry aliens m'grate every year looking for a share of the riches and blessings and happiness which this great America holds for its peoples. I know of no proposal or program which would do greater harm to the freedoms now en- joyed by the American people—and which freedoms those from other coun- tries come here to find—than the FEPC as proposed in this legislation. The bill is not fair. On the contrary it is unfair. It will not create a single new job for a minority worker. On the contrary it will more than likely decrease his opportunty for employment. In the interest of the general public, including minority groups, the bill cught to be defeated and I trust that the Members of the House will so vote. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ricw 1. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, on this day when we celebrate Washington’s Birthday and hsten attentively to his Farewell Address, I cannot understand why we take up legislation of this kind, for it certainly is not to the best inter- ests of our country, something which Washington enjoined us all to keep close to our hearts. Ever since I first heard of this legisla- tion I have investigated and studied the subject. I have reached the conclusion with a great deal of conviction that we cannot legislate morality; it is an im- Possible thing to do; it is not the right thing to do, It will not work. For this reason I am against this legislation and shall oppose it in every way I possibly can, because I believe that it is going to do harm to our country. You cannot force righteousness on people. You must educate them to do the ngnt thing. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Brown] a few minutes ago said that this was bad legislation for the South. If itis bad legislation for the South, then it is bad legislation for the North, and it is not going to help anybody.
1950 I can best state the basis of my oppo- sition to this legislation by reading the 15 reasons that French Jenkins, of Arch- bold, Ohio, gave against it. He said that the bill in its present form was objec- tionable for the following reasons: WHY I OPPOSE A COMPULSORY FEPC LAW (By French Jenkins, Archbold, Ohio) 1. It would create distinctions between citizens and set group against group, class against class, race against race, and sect against sect. 2. The sponsors deliberately ignored the fact that the elements of intolerance and Prejudice are present in the minds of those who favor as well as those who object to the proposed legislation to further confuse and divide citizens. 8. It is discriminatory to the extent that constitutional rights would be denied em- ployers in order to satisfy the demands of those who allege deprivation of rights. 4. The burden of proving that an applicant 1s not qualified for an available Job would fall upon the employer. Charges of unfair employment practices would be easy to make but difficult to disprove. 5, An employer would be required to comr- ply with interpretations and decisions made by partisan or prejudiced administrators. 6. The burden of expense in contesting allegations made by a claimant would fall upon the employer, whereas claimants would be dismissed without cost or prejudice. 7. An employee belonging to a self-styled minority group who is discharged for in- competence, insubordination or other just cause may accuse the employer of discrimi- nation, thus subjecting the employer to harassment and costly tigation, 8. Such a law would ot only irritate and aggravate, but also make both employers and employees acutely conscious of race, color, and religious differences. 9. It would deprive an employer of the right to select employees on the basis of ex- perienced judgment and result in injustices, ineMiciencies, and misunderstandings 10. It outlaws free speech by prohibiting an employer from making any inquiry what- soever about the character, ability, experi- ence, or background of an applicant for an available job and also could jeopardize the security of our country in case of war. 11. It deprives an employer of the right to select employees while giving an applicant job right to pick and demand an available job. 12. It deprives employers of rights which @re preserved or retained for unions, lodges, educational institutions, churches, political parties, government agencies and depart- ments, bureaucrats, legislators, judicial bodies as well as Federal and State execu- tives, officials and administrators. 18. It will impose burdensome expense on employers and cost the taxpayers more than the benefits that could be gained by those for whom it is proposed. 14, It is ‘‘class’’ legislation !n behalf of a few people who may be correctly classified as deserving special consideration, 15. It is sponsored and noisily supported by the undercover agents of a movement that is determined to bankrupt industry and government for the purpose of establishing a foreign dictatorship. You cannot do anything better for your country than to vote against this piece of legislation. It is morally wrong, unethical, and unsound. It is like sin— Iam against it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the renticman from In- Giana (Mr. MapprEn]. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act now under consideration by the House is the most important of the four civil- rights recommendations set out by Presi- dent Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights. The four essential rights which this committee recommended for congres- sional consideration were: First. The right to safety and security of the person. Second. The right to citizenship and its privileges. Third. The right to freedom of con- science and expression. . Fourth. The right to equality of oppor- tunity. The fourth of these fundamental rights of American citizenship is the one that we are considering today in this legisla- tion, H. R. 4453. Any citizen, regardless to what minor- ity group he belongs, is entitled to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination by reason of his American citizenship. I personally believe that intolerance and racial discrimination against others cannot be cured by legislation, but I do think the legislation which will make it illegal for a person or group of persons to maliciously discriminate and inex- cusably prohibit an American citizen from enjoying equal rights under the law, will be a great step forward and eventually cause the outlawing and banishing of so-called second-class citizens. We all know that the opposition to FEPC is well-organized, and 1t will re- quire constant application and diligence on the part of all people who believe in equality of citizenship to eventually suc- ceed in their efforts. To my mind, intolerance and preju- dice are the basic reasons for the fact that this legislation is necessary. In- tolerance and prejudice have done more to retard the progress of world civiliza- tion than any other one scourge. In- tolerance and prejudice are the primary causes for discrimination. Discrimina- tion is destructive not only to those who are on the receiving end but to the perpe- trators of such evil. It should be clear to every American that when we erect barriers against individuals and groups on the grounds of race or religion, we hamper and retard our own progress both from a cultural and economic standpoint. The essence of a free democracy is based on our recognition of the dignity of the individual regardless of national origin to which the people of our Nation dedicated themselves when both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written. It is the spiritual value and citizenship equality of democracy which distinguishes us from totalitarian nations which subordi- nate the rights of the individual for a statism and materialistic philosophy. I firmly believe that the four great citizenship rights which I set out at the beginning of this speech should be re- quired reading in every high school and college of America, These four rights set out a goal which should be the desire for every true American to have our Gov- ernment accomplish. Our great Ameri- 2183 can heritage is based on the importance of the individual citizen. From the earliest moment of our history, we have believed that all American citizens have an essential dignity and integrity which must be respected and safeguarded. Moreover, Americans believe that the welfare of the individual is the final goal of group life. And furthermore, to se- cure these rights, each man must be willing to respect the rights of other men. We again come back to the basic moral principle that all men are created equal as well as free. If we follow this prin- ciple, we have an obligation as Members of Congress to guarantee equality of opportunity to all men. Without this equality, freedom becomes an illusion The question of civil-rights legislation, and especially FEFC legislation which we are considering today, should not be a partisan question. Both of our great political parties at their conventions in 1948 went on record endorsing civil- rights legislation, particularly FEPC legislation. The Republican Party in its platform was equally emphatic along with the Democratic Party in its declara- tion on this subject. In the last paragraph of chapter 4 of the 1948 platform of vthe Republican Party, adopted at its Philadelphia con- vention, it said the following: One of the basic principles of this Re- public is the equality of all individuals in thetr right to life, liberty, and the pursult of happiness. This principle is onunciated in the Declaration of Independence and em- bodied in the Constitution of the United States; it was vindicated on the field of battle and became the cornerstone of this Republic. This right of equal opportunity to work and to advance in life should never be limited in any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. We favor the enactment and just enforcement of such Federal legislation as may be necessary to maintain this right at all times in every part of this Republic. On January 27, 1950, I mailed a letter to Guy George Gabrielson, chairman of the Republican National Committee; a letter including the above section from the Republican national platform. On February 2, 1950, I received the follow- ing letter from Chairman Gabrielson: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C., February 2, 1950. Hon, Ray J. MADDEN, . House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. Mapven: This will acknowledge your letter of January 23 expressing your in- terest in the FEPC bill (H. R. 4453). I note you advise that the bill is being held up by the Rules Committee of the House of Rep- resentatives, I appreciate your bringing this informae- tion to my attention, and I shall plan to dis- cuss your suggestion with Congressman Jon Martin. Sincerely yours, Guy GEORGE GABRIELSON, Chairman. Had Chairman Gabrielson followed up on that letter, this legislation would be on the floor in the regular way and not filibustered on Calendar Wednesday. It is indeed unfortunate that this bill did not come on the floor of the House through the regular legislative procedure by being favorably reported through
2184 the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, through a bipartisan split, the vote to report this bill from the Rules Commit- tee was 6 to 6. Therefore, we are con- fronted today with the considering of this important legislation under the handicap of the Calendar Wednesday procedure. If the Members of both political parties will follow the dictates and recommenda- tions of their party platform, this FEPC legislation will be passed by this body before adjournment this evening. We realize that every legislative trick will be resorted to to defeat this bill. To my mind it is as much the duty of Re- publicans and Democrats who believe in their partly platform to remain con- stantly on the floor in order to prevent unnecessary quorum calls as it is to vote favorably on this legislation for final passage. I hope both the Republicans and Democrats cooperate on this non- partisan and necessary piece of legisla- tion. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, this is a weapon that is aimed directly at the heart of the institution of private prop- erty. It has as its alm the outlawing of private ownership. Mr. Chairman, I would not pay the price to go to heaven that the supporters of this monstrous fraud are paying to stay in Congress. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Horrman]. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana LMr. MappveEn] just called attention to the Republican national platform. I want to say to him and to the Members on the other side that since Mr. Roosevelt was elected on a platform which promised a 25-percent reduction in national expend- itures and employment and to which he did not adhere, there has never been a platform that his party has followed. Platforms, as many people know, are made to garner votes, not to guide the party after the election. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Futton]. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I am one of those Republicans that believes that it is a responsibility to live up to the party platform. It is stated that one of the most effec- tive selling points for communism is that it guarantees to every citizen in the Com- munist countries a first-class citizenship. It is time the United States of America made definite that we guarantee first- class unlimited citizenship to each and every citizen regardless of race, creed, or color. And I am strongly for it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me at this time to ask that all Members be allowed to extend their remarks at this point in the RECORD? The CHAIRMAN. It is entirely in order, and without objection, it is so ordered. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. RANKIN. I will have to object for the time being, Mr. Chairman. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. O’TOOLE] Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Chairman, I won- der how many Members of this House know how it feels to be classified and treated as a second-class citizen. People of my faith and people of my blood have experienced that feeling and treatment for many, many years. The fact that people of my faith were among the earli- est colonizers did not save them from the wrath of the bigot. The fact that Washington’s army was made up of nearly 50 percent Irish was soon for- gotten. Every war and emergency throughout our history found the Irish and the Cath- olic rushing forward to defend the Re- public. They built solid communities, erected hospitals, homes for the orphans, the blind, indigent, and infirm. They pushed the railroads across the prairies to make this a greater and Stronger land. Yet all of these things were cast aside by those who lived in the blindness of intolerance. We found it necessary to have laws passed in the early days before we could practice our religion and open our schools. We spent 10 years of fear, degradation, and shame during the know-nothing movement. During those days we saw our churches befouled, our schools and convents burned to the ground, and our fellows hanged from lampposts. In this century many of us lived in constant fear in many small communities of the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan. The signs on places of employment, “No Irish or Catholic Need Apply,” are not forgotten, although they have been forgiven. One Irishman, tired of read- ing signs of this nature, appended one of them with the lines: The man who wrote that Wrote it well, For the same is written On the gates of hell. In my own lifetime I can remember the advertisements in New York newspapers in the help-wanted columns and by the resort hotels that had the inserted pro- vision ‘No Irish or No Catholics.” Twen- ty-five years ago it was necessary for the Catholic people in New York to threaten to close their accounts in certain New York banks before those institutions would employ Catholics. Even today there are communities that will not em- ploy school teachers if they are of the Catholic faith. Conditions such as these make it im- possible for us to achieve the destiny planned by the founding fathers. The Republic cannot endure when great mi- norities are denied the privileges guar- anteed by the Constitution. The con- tract of citizenship is not a unilateral one calling for sacrifices and not bestow- ing privileges. Our citizenship is a pre- cious right which must not be profaned by restrictions because of race, creed, or color. The right to serve our country inherently begets the right of her bless- ings and gifts. The citizen who is anx- jous to love our land and share its re- FEBRUARY 22 sponsibilities must not be denied all of its guaranties. No Member of this body tonight can honestly say that all of the people within our borders are treated equally in the light of education, housing, and employ- ment. Such lack of fairness is degrad- ing to the character of every Member of this House. We profess to be Chris- tians, but we forget the Sermon on the Mount. If we believe in God we know that all human creatures were made in His image and likeness. Hence, we are bound to respect all of our fellow men and to treat them with the dignity that His likeness commands. Whether we came into this world white or black, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, atheist or agnostic, we are His creatures and we are entitled to receive from each other the love He bade us give. Tonight we have at last been given the opportunity to adjust an injustice that has endured too long. Tonight when we have the chance to make this the America it was meant to be, let us pass the bill that is before us so that all Americans regardless of faith, color, or creed may finally feel that they are first- class citizens. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey {Mr. Case]. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Chair- man, the gentlewoman and the gentle- man from California a while back were speculating as to what the vote in Cali- fornia meant. Whenever I hear people try to figure out what a vote like that means, I am impressed by the fact that not everyone always understands what he is voting about. I do not suggest that all the people of California did not know what they were doing, but I do believe the vote taken there was not a good expression of the will of the people even of that State, on this subject. I do not believe the people of this coun- try are opposed to eliminating discrimi- nation in employment. I prefer to take as my guide to the will of the people the expression of the platforms of the two major parties for the last several con- ventions. Let me read again what the 1948 Republican platform said on that subject: This right of equal opportunity to work and to advance in life should never be limited in any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. We favor the enactment and just enforcement of such Federal legislation as may be neces- sary to maintain this right at all times in every part of this Republic. And more than that. Would any of us urge he had met his responsibility in respect of the issue before us, or any other issue, for that matter, merely by mechanically registering what he cal- culated would be the result of a vote taken in his district at any particular time. What Edmund Burke said to the electors of Bristol in 1774 applies with equal force to us today: “You are en- titled not only to my industry but to my judgment as well.” In my judgment, this legislation is vitally needed both to eliminate deep-seated injustice at home
1950 and to maintain our prestige and leader- ship among the nations of the world. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. CoopER]. Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I re- gret that time is so limited that an op- portunity is not afforded for a more ade- Quate discussion of this important sub- ject, but I want to make at least a brief statement clearly indicating my position. I am strongly opposed to the pending bill, H. R. 4453, which is commonly re- ferred to as the FEPC. I have always strongly opposed legislation of this type and I am still opposed to it. It is my conviction that this legislation is unsound in principle and impracti- cable in application and it certainly should not be enacted into law. To say by the strong arm of the Fed- eral law to a free American citizen that he does not have the right to exercise his choice in the selection of his employces is a violation of some of the most cherished and time-honored principles of our system of government. The enactment of this legislation would seriously disturb and in many in- stances destroy the friendly and cordial relationship existing between employers and employees. It would likewise force many em- ployees to work and associate with other employees who are very disagreeable to them. In adopting this type of program the Federal Government would be extending a@ measure of control over our people that would be entirely untenable. To set up a Government agency as the ar- biter of employment in private business would place a burden on the private en- terprise system that it should not have to bear—this private enterprise system that has contributed so largely toward making this the greatest country in all the world. It is certainly my intention to vote against this bill, and to continue to exert my best efforts to defeat all legislation of this type which strikes at the very heart of our glorious democratic way of life. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gen- tleman from IlHinois [Mr. Yates). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I favor passege of this bill. This week has been designated as Brotherhood Week. Throughout our Nation meetings are taking place to re- view our ways of democracy and to search for the means to promote a better under- standing of human behavior and man’s relationship to his fellowman. It is particularly appropriate that this bill, H. R. 4453, the FEPC bill, should come up for consideration this week, for in our deliberation we must face frankly the question whether we shall continue to condone or correct discriminatory prac- tices by which many of our people are deprived by other people of their con- stitutional right to earn a living without regard to race, creed, color, or religion. The bill has been a long time in com- ing up. Since we convened about 7 weeks ago, this House has been literally in a state of siege, as proponents of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE bill have struggled to capture the floor for its consideration. Its opponents, successful until now, have fought just as desperately to prevent it. It appears that the siege is now over. Few measures have provoked such fer- vid emotionalism. During the past few weeks those of us who favored the bill’s passage have been accused of forsaking principle and resorting to cheap political chicanery to attract votes from minority groups. A deliberate attempt has been made to damn the bill as communistic and its adherents an anti-American in the hope of thus deflecting support from the bill. It seems incredible that these argu- ments should be advanced seriously. Those who accuse us of trafficking in votes cannot deny that they are the poli- ticians in this matter, playing upon the strings of human prejudice in order to charm the votes of those whom they want to reelect them. Proudly and piously they clothe themselves in principle knowing full well that the principle they uphold is archaic, the relic of a decadent system which cannot be sustained in reason; that their principle is in con- flict with the wishes of the great ma- jority of the people in this country. Their argument that only Commu- nists are interested in protecting the civil rights of minorities is not only false, but grossly so. What a monstrous con- demnation they impose upon the Amer- icun people in their assumption that Amcricans are not genuinely devoted to our democratic ideals, and that the task of protecting and preserving our consti- tutional rights rests exclusively with a non-American, subversive element. The contrary is so true that their challenge scarcely needs denial. The American people as a whole will fight for the jus- tice and the liberty proclaimed by our Constitution in order that its blessings may be assured to each of our citizens. This argument is but anothcr example of the effort of those who oppose neccs- sary legislation to kill it by deliberately denouncing it as communistic, seek- ing to conjure up in our minds the hor- rors which the term “communistic” brings. Deception frequently walks in splendid raiment, and more and more we find patriotism being used to cloak private purpose. This approach is as insidious as that employed by the Com- munists themselves, in posing as lib- erals in order to exploit our weaknesses, to create doubts and suspicions, to de- velop dissension in our ranks. As long as opponents of ‘his bill insist upon preventing social reform, they will drive oppressed minority groups santo the Communist orbit, for as the prejudices and hates which this bill seeks to curb are permitted to go unchecked, commu- nistic propaganda designed to inflame those injured by such evil forces must of necessity find sympathetic appeal. No American enjoys relegation as an in- ferior to second-class citizenship. From time to time much has been said on this floor of the enemies within our gates, No greater enemy lies within our gates, seeking to destroy our democracy than race hatred, prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination. How long can we expect swelling resentment against such 2185 forces to remain bottled up within those subjected to their influences before some explosion takes place? It cannot be de- nied that hate engenders hate. A short time ago Jackie Robinson, the first Negro to be permitted to play in the major baseball leagues, was requested to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in connection with the question of loyalty to the United States of large numbers of the Negro race. His testimony had real signifl- cance and substantiated completely the writing of one psychiatrist that— Even though their personalities seem well accommodated to the caste system, it should not be thought that the Negroes are too stupid to realize the nature of the situation. They understand it quite well, in fact much better than do members ot the white caste who naturally wish to disguise and extenu- ate it out of loyalty to our democratic theory which does not countenance caste and class lines. Listen to what Jackie Robinson said: Just because Communists Kick up a big fuss over racial discrimination when it suits their purpose, a lot of people try to pretend that the whole issue is a creation of Commu- nist imagination. But they are not fooling anyone with this kind of pretense, and talk about Communists stirring up Negroes to protest, only makes present misunderstand- ing worse than ever. Negroes were Stirred up long before there was a Communist Party, and they'll stay stirred up long after the party has disappeared—unless Jim Crow has disappeared by then as well. Let no one delude himself into believ- ing that Negroes are not thinking these things through. Those who oppose passage of this ill have advanced many arguments. They speak of States’ rights—that this is in- terference by the Federal Government with the right of each State to determine the rights of its citizens and of admin- istering its police powers, and they charge that this bill 1s unconstitutional. Perhaps the best answer to this charge has been given by a group of southerners themselves in the statement issued by the executive committee of the Southern Regional Council on September 15, 1948, entitled “‘An Honest Answer in the Civil- Rights Controversy’: “States’ rights” has been a much abused term, and here again probably the courts must be the final authority. But one thing is clear States’ rights must not be used to defend indefensible violations of human rights, as has sometimes happened in the past. States’ rights mean nothing without States’ responsibilities, and it is on this score that the rest of the Nation is uncon- vineed. Every honcst Southerner must admit that the Southern States have often been less than scrupulous in meeting their responsibilities to all citizens—and some of the States where the cry of States’ rights has been the loudest have been the most at fault. Unfortunately, in the present con- troversy there has been almost no Official public statement of the determination of Southern States to meet their responsibili- ties squarely. There would no doubt be disagreement as to just what “States’ responsibilities” in- clude. Without uttempting the heroic task of defining the term completely, we might consider one of its more obvious aspects. The State government, like any government, is designed to be the servant of the people. Through it, the people can justifiably expect certain of their rights to be protected and
2186 certain public services and facilities to be provided. The duty of the State is to serve not merely a segment of the population but the entire population, This duty is not met when the government represents only the interests of the dominant group. In many of the Southern States today, we see the spectacle of officials deciding matters affecting the colored population without making the slightest effort to determine the wishes or opinions of the group concerned. All too often, responsible Negro opinion is neither sought nor seriously considered when it is volunteered. With respect to the constitutionality of this bill, let me point out the obvious fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is the only body which can determine that question, not rep- resentatives in this House. This act will apply only to industries engaged in interstate commerce, unde- niably the province of the Federal Gov- ernment. Were we to speculate as to the constitutionality of the act, we would find much support in decisions of the Supreme Court. For instance, in the case of Hirabayashi v. U. S. (320 U. S. 81, 100), Mr. Chief Justice Stone wrote for tae court: “Distinctions between citi- zens solely because of their ancestry are br their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Again in New Negro Alliance v. Sani tary Grocery Company (303 U. S. 552, 651), Justice Roberts, speaking for the unanimous court, said: The desire for fair and equitable condi- tions of employment on the part ol persons of any race, color, or persuasion, and the re- moval of discriminations against them by reason of their race or religious bellefs is quite as important to those concerned us fairness and equity in terms and conditions of employment can be to trade or craft un- ions or any force of labor organization or as- sociation. Race discrimination by an em- ployer may reasonably be deemed more unfair and less excusable than discrimina- tion against workers on the ground of union affiliation, But in spite of the fact that many rep- resentatives from the South would have you believe that this bill is directed against the South, because of the great number of Negroes there, the problem with which we are concerned in this bill is not only a problem of the American Negro. The South has no monopoly on prejudice and discrimination. This is a national problem, applicable to every community which houses members of a minority group, hyphenated Americans who have met with frustration and fu- tility in their efforts to obtain equality of opportunity in employment. Ger- man-Amencans, Italian-Americans, Po- lish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Cavholics, and Jews—peoples of every ethn.c group and religion are affected, peorjes who, while enjoying broad American citizenship, cannot break through the barriers of prejudices which deny them the oppor- tunity to earn a living on the same basis of equality as other Americans. This act will be a weapon to fight those anti- American forces which would destroy in- terracial and religious understanding among the American people. American democracy has flourished because of differences—differences of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE peoples, religions, and cultures, all fused in freedom and working together for the common good. The idea that opportuni- ties for employment shall be predicated upon sameness in religion or color of skin or the shape of eyes, has no place in our society; otherwise we will have ac- cepted the concept of a master race, a single superior race or religion. This bill does no more than recognize the fact that American citizenship belongs to no privileged group—that all citizens are entitled to equality of economic oppor- tunity. This bill goes no further than to safeguard the right to work, free from discrimination because of race, color, re- ligion, or national origin. Another argument which has been ad- vanced against passage of the bill is that racial prejudice cannot be eradicated by legislation. Perhaps it is true that pas- sage of the act will not in itself abolish prejudice, but it cannot be doubted that it will help in this direction. Experience has shown that legislation can create conditions favorable to the disappear- ance of racial hatred, that it makes prog- ress much less gradual. We do not here propose that this legislation is the sole cure-all. It must be supplemented by economic and educational advancements, for one approach without the others cannot make its mark within any rea- sonable time. We stand ready to assist in pressing for such cconomic and edu- cational advancements. Can many of those who fight passage of this bill say the same in the face of their consistent opposition to legislation which would provide higher wages, better housing, and improved educational facilities? One commissioner of the New York State Commission Against Discrimina- tion has stated: Critics of fair-employment laws used to claim that long-established habits of dis- crimination could not be changed by legis- lation Their argument has been unmis- takably answered today. Nearly four years’ experience in New York --and similar ex- perience in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Con- necticut, Washingion, Oregon, New Mexico, and Rhode Island, all of which have passed antidiscrimination legislation modeled nfter the New York law---indicates conclusively that vise legislation creates a climate of opinion in which disciimination tends to dis- appear. Equally convincing is the reaction of employers operating under such an anti- discrimination statute. And in that connection let us take the case of the Sperry Gyroscope Co which began em- ploying Negroes in 1941 and steadily progressed until 3 years later one- third of its Negro employees were in highly skilled occupations, one-third in semi-skilled occupations and the re- maining one-third in other jobs. Pres- ident Gillmor of the company had this to report on the company’s experience: The initial employment of Negroes and each subsequent extension of their employ- ment into new categories was received with doubt by the supervisors, and, in some cases, by rumblings and even threats of trouble from some groups of white workers. The threats never materialized, the doubts dis- appeared and were succeeded by friendliness and cooperation in helping the Negro to learn his new job and to progress to a better one. I know of no instance now where FEBRUARY 22 the Negro worker is not judged entirely on the basis of his competency and without consciousness of his race. Those who indulge in racial prejudice do not dislike the individual members of the affected group. It is the group itself in the abstract, a broad blur, to which their prejudice is directed. They may on occasion find one or two individuals objectionable, and this offers reason to them for condemnation of the class to which the individuals belong. Where they admit and recognize talent and fine qualities in one or two individuals, they nevertheless refuse to permit them to emerge from the group. The fact that individuals may differ means nothing; all are ignominiously lumped together. Mr. Chairman, racial prejudice will dis- appear when appraisal 1s given on an In- dividual basis, as it should be, rather than on the basis of class or group. How can this be achieved? Normal contacts between peoples of varying eth- nic backgrounds diminish prejudice; en- forced scgrepation intensifics it. Race relations are improved by living together, working together, and getting to know people of different racial heritage. Pre)- udice 1s not instinctive or hereditary. It is kept alive by man-made harricrs, and this act offers the chance to break some of those barriers. If this law is to be ef- fective it must contain provisions for making it so. While much good has been done by conciliation and publication, and this act louks to these methods for clim- inating discrimination in the first in- stance, enforcement is necessary when conciliation breaks down. Otherwise, the act may very well be meaningless. Mr. Chairman, 1n a world where more than three-quarters of its people have eyes, rcligions, and skins different than ours, the paternalism which found gen- eral acceptance in the past as ‘‘the white man's burden” is being vehemently re- jected, because paternalism is synony- mous with exploitation. If we are to live 1n this swiftly moving world, if we hope to gain the confidence of its peo- ple whom we want to accept our demo- cratic standards as their own, we must eliminate our own depressing paternalis- tic patterns. We cannot continue to be silent witnesscs to social injustice if we are to retain responsible world leader- ship. Discrimination in employment, a real barrier to economic opportunity, 1s such an injustice. This bill will help to cor- rect it and I certainly hope it will be passed. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Okla- homa |[Mr. STEED]. Mr. STEED. Myr. Chairman, it is to be regretted that we do not have the time to ta'k on the merits of the bill now pending. A great deal has been said about the sincerity of the Members. I want to make a case for my own sin- ceriiy. Although I am opposed to this bill, I happen to be a coauthor with the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays] of an FEPC bill. It is too bad we do not have more time, but I think the time has come when we ought to forget what we have been talking about, which is something with a label called FEPC. The time has come when we ought to
1950 forget the label for 8 minute and look at the law itself. This law is a long ways from being what the label would lead you to believe it is. I think the time has come when you Members ought to know & few things about this before you get to vote on it. This bill is being represented to the people of the country as being a bill to help minority peoples get a better break in this country. The exact opposite is the truth, and I base that statement on the very language of the bill itself. No bill has ever come before this Congress which discriminatcs more against citi- zens of this country and particularly against a minority than does this bill, because by the language of the bill itself you will find that not only will they lose all the privileges they now have, but they will not be able to get any privileges at all except at the will and pleasure of the bureaucrats which this bill will set up. This bill is selling these minorities down the river because the terms of the bill itself specify that it shall not apply to any factory employing less than 50 people. In other words, if anyone has the mis- fortune to work where thcre are only 49 people or less, and you are saying to the people that you say you want to help, “It does not make any difference—you can- not be discriminated against until you get in a crowd of 50 or more people.” In other words there cannot be any such thing as discrimination until there are more than 50 people in a plant. Mr.COLMER,. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEED. I yield. Mr. COLMER. In that connection the testimony before the Committee on Rules and at the hearing shows that the gentleman whose name is on the bill as its author, the gentleman trom Michi- gan [Mr. LesInskI! would have his own employees exempted from the provisions of the bill because he docs not have 50 employees in his office. Mr. STEED. Certainly. Anyone em- ploying less than 50 people 1s exempted and that goes for all Members of Con- gress. Weare here trying to tell the em- ployers of this country whom they can hire and yet we do not want to practice what we preach when it comes to our own office staffs. You can find that out for yourselves. I want to bring out another point. No member of a minority race can have any justice under this bill unless some bu- reaucrat says hecan. He cannot file any charges if the bureaucrat says he does not have a case or does not have the evi- dence. Why, according to this very bill, if a bureaucrat wants to file a complaint for him against his will he can do that. In this bill, in subsection (c) of section 9, you have authority here which gives the bureaucrat the right to take a person from any place in the United States or its territories and can make him go to Bangor, Maine, or Honolulu to answer a charge. He could make a man appear there Tuesday and then compel you to be anywhere else they want you to go at noon the next day. There is such power in this bill that if the Commission so de- sires, they can bankrupt any company in the United States by forcing them to go CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE all over the country to defend themselves against a bunch of frivolous complaints. Furthermore in subsection (b), section 2 of this bill you have something here which discriminates against not only minorities in this country but against every decent American citizen. It says all persons in the jurisdiction of the United States shall have these rights. An enemy alien in this country is within the jurisdiction of this Government and automatically you here give him rights that he never has had before. You are setting up something here which would make the employment officer at the atomic energy plants subject to criminal prosecution. Mr. Chairman, trying to eliminate dis- crimination through this bill is just as silly as a farmer burning down the barn to get rid of the rats. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks at this point, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, today we have witnessed upon this floor a sight that will long remain in the memories of some of us newer Members of this body. A small group endeavoring to filibuster, delay, and defeat a bill thut provides for the equal treatment of all of our citizens in the matter of employment; a bill that merely expresses into law the Golden Rule “Do ye unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet upon this floor today we have heard the proponents of this measure accused of trying to force a communistic measure upon the coun- try. They speak of constitutional rights; rights of the employers to discriminate, and so forth. Yet basically all the FEPC bill does 1s to guarantce to every worker the right of employment regardless of his color or his creed. Ladies and gentlemen of this Hause, it is later than we think. America is looked to by the entire world for leadership and example; the governments of this world that would destroy our form of govern- ment are quick to point out our many mistakes and frailties, and we make many, and have many; we are spending bulhons of dollars to help this stricken world, yet today on a bill that is ele- mentary in its basic principle of right, we hesitate, we filibuster, we delay, we speak harshly; and behind the iron cur- tain our enemies say, “See, they do not practice what they preach, they claiin to be a Christian Nation, they claim to love their brothers; yet they do not do anything for the minorities of their own Nation.” My friends, there is just no answer to such a statement; we know that it is not true in its entirety, but what can we say to the Indian, to the African, yes, to those countries behind the iron curtain. We cannot explain our conduct of today. Itis unexplainable. We have, if we defeat this measure, destroyed the good will purchased by our blood, our resources and our money. Not so many months ago one of the senior Members of this House and a leading opponent, if not the most vocal, 2187 of FEPC stated that some of the fresh- man Members of Congress were serving two terms in one, “their first and last.” I think many of us today, in this group, agree with this gentleman; that it would be better to return to our homes and our families than to serve in this body where so many of its Members place racial prejudice above that of Christian pre- cepts. If we fail in our efforts today, we will have failed our God, our country, and ourselves. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the pending bill are substantially the same as those of H. R. 2232, Seventy-ninth Congress, first ses- sion, reported by the Committee on Labor but never passed by the House. I sub- mitted the best arguments that I could in opposition to that and similar bills on July 5, 1945, and on July 12, 1945, as I had previously submitted the best arguments that I could on May 26, 1944, against similar legislation. THE NAME There is something in a name with which to conjure It sounds all right to provide for fair-employment practice. All citizens want to be fair, but a name may be deceptive. The proposal is by regulation and by statute to require all employers with 50 or more employces and all Federal departments and agen- cics to eliminate discrimination in regard to hiring, and terms or conditions of employment because of race, color, re- ligion, ancestry or national origin. The proposal sounds well, but a name may be misleading. The important matter is not the name but the purpose behind the name The bill meght better be called “Unfair Employment Practice Act.” THE PURPOSE The purpose is to prohibit discrim- ination because of race or color. There are prejudices against creeds and there are prejudices against races. These prejudices are not created by law and they cannot be changed by law. The relation between employer and employee, like the relation between master and servant under the common law, is inti- mate. We like to select our associates, We like to employ those who are congen- ial. We want to know about their fitness. We are to be the judges. The liberty of choosing employees is a part of free en- terprise. It is a liberty protected by the Constitution. Under the fifth amendment, a citizen cannot be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. TWO APPROACHES There are two approaches to the diffi- cult problem of employment. One is voluntary, is by mediation, is by edu- cation, and is by tolerance. The other, and that is the matter that is pending now, is rather in the nature of compul- sion, RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS F.EJUDICES I oppose religious prejudices. I oppose racial prejudices. I believe, however, in the freedom of religion. I believe in fairness for all races. Force and com- pulsion are the wrong way to correct, They will stir up racial ana religious prejudices. The proposal strikes at the
2188 fundamentals of liberty and of free en- terprise. Racial feeling will be accentu- ated. The proposal is social aud politi- cal dynamite. We are throwing the ex- perience cf the ages to the winds. The proposal plays into the hands of those who would remake and reform our insti- tutions and our economy to conform to their socia’ views. The purpose, to eam- inate discrimination, can best be achieved by cooperation. Through the ages, moral and ethical values have not been frozen at a new level by the passage of laws. The pro- posal will set the clock back and will hurt the people it 1s intended to help. It will make the life of every employer miserable. It will result in unhappy, if not violent disturbances everywhere. History and experience prove that you cannot legislate tolerance and morals into people. Compulsion injures the cause to eliminate discrimination. Force will retard the educational prog- ress now being made Man has always responded more willingly to a plea than toa command. I knovy of no better eth- ics than the Sermon on the Mount. I know of no fairer philosophy than the Golden Rule. But I am not a Socialist. If a citizen believes mm the principles of the Socialist Party, I accord to him the freedom of his conviction. I think it would be a mistake to force any creed, any ethics, or any philosophy on any people. The better way is freedom of choice and the tolerance of views. Burning resentment from forced em- ployment will furnish fuel for racial disturbances and will foment rather than eliminate racial prejudices. BIG BUSINESS AND SMALL EUSINESS Generally the large business firm is able to take care of itself. They are familar with labor problems. They have their lawyers. But the small-busi- mess man has trouble enough with bu- reaucracy now. The pending legislation will further harass him. He already has to comply with too many rules and regu- jJations. There are too many investiga- tors. The crux of the pending bill is that it will absolutely paralyze small business. HYPOCR:ISY The argument that the bill imple- ments fair-labor practices is pure hy- pocrisy. The bill takes away the right that every Amcrican enjoys of choosing his own employees It subjects the em- ployer to the charge of prejudice and discrimination every time he hires and discharges, but that is not all. The bill makes the charge a criminal offense and at the same time deprives the citizen the right of trial by jury. No bill ought to deprive the citizen of his right to trial by jury in a criminal prosecution. PRIVALE ENTERPRISE The bill is applicable to all employers, including merchants. It strikes a fatal blow at free enterprise. A man’s suc- cess or failure in business and in farm- ing depends upon his employees, upon @ merchant's or a farmer’s ability to select dependable, loyal, industrious em- ployees to assist him in the operation of his business or his farm or his enter- prise. Under the terms of the bill the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE commission could say: “You must hire this man. You must fire that man. You must promote the other man.” COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM Communists and many Socialists ad- vocate compulsory Federal laws to com- pel men to associate, whether in work or play, with persons with whom they are unwilling to work or play. Communism thrives on strife and disorder. The Communists know that the pending bill will promote disorder. They know that it will foment strife. I am unable to see how those who favor the private en- terprise or capitalistic system can sup- port compulsory employment. Through the ages the moral right of free men to choose companions is so clear and the moral wrong of compelling him to accept an offensive companion is so apparent that it is difficult to conclude that those who believe in free enterprise can sup- port the pending bill or similar legisla- tion. PROVISIONS I shall not discuss in detail the pro- visions of the bill. I believe it to be thoroughly unconstitutional. I refer to only a few provisions of the bill. The proposed judicial review is a misnomer. I have always opposed the refusal of a trial by jury for a criminal offense. The Federal agents are both jurors and pros- ecutors. The citizen is denied, I repeat to emphasize, the right to trial. He may be in contempt for failure to pay back wages, UNENFORCEABLE A moment’s reflection will convince a thoughtful man that the bill is unen- forceable. How can a commission in Washington regulate and provide em- plovees for all of the employers in the 48 States of the Union? It would be the super-duper bureaucracy of the age. RNACKETLERS The enactment of the bill would pro- vide a fertile field for racketeers, black- mailers, and shysters. Merchants and farmers would be subjected to harass- ment by troublemakers and disgruntled job seckers. The small-business man, rather than hire a lawyer, rather than fo to court, rather than take up the mat- ter with Washington, might choose to pay the disgruntled employee rather than be supervised by the Commission. CONSTITUTIONALITY There are grave constitutional objec- tions. The bill declares that the right to work without discrimination 1s an im- munity. The immunity and privileges of citizens can only be provided by the Con- stitution. They cannot be provided by statute. While the bill undertakes to relate employment to commerce, this is not the final hurdle. The fifth amend- “ment to the Constitution still obtains. The right to employ, I assert, is a lib- erty within the meaning of the fifth amendment. CONCLUSION The bill will not provide a single job. There is no occasion for the legislation. The remedy is good will. The remedy is voluntary, not compulsory. All Ameri- cans believe in the Constitution. That Constitution protects the privileges and immunities of all citizens regardless of FEBRUARY 22 race, creed, or color. Any statute that undertakes to restrict or deprive a citi- zen of such privileges or immunities would be in violation of the Constitution. Legislation regulating employment is for the State. Congress is without au- thority to regulate employment. The bill undertakes to implement employ- ment with interstate commerce. I do not believe, however, the implementation will make the legislation constitutional. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, as I un- derstand, have adopted so-called fair- employment acts. California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other States have de- clined to pass such acts. The jurisdic- tion 1s for the State and not for the Fed- eral Government. The bill, if passed, would do more harm than good. It would hurt business. It would be unfair to employers. It would not help employees. In fact, it would do employees a distinct disservice. It is said that the pending bill will be of benefit to Negroes. The vast majority of Negroes hive in the South. There is no material demand from the South, either from the white or Negro race for the pas- sage of the pending bill. We know that all of the lerislation conceived by man, implemented by police force and courts, cannot change man’s thoughts, if he is not willing for that thought to be changed. We know that making laws 1s notenough We know that there must be understanding. There must be tolerance. There must be cooperation, And in the South today there is understanding and cooperation between the white people and the colored people of the South. I emphasize that the pending bill would do the Negro race vastly more harm than good. Under labor legislation it is a discrimi- nation to reiuse to employ a person be- cause he is a member of a union. Why not extend and make it unlawful to re- fuse to employ a person merely because he is not a member of a union? Commissions and associations whose aim is to prevent discrimination by co- operation 1s one thing, but commissions and associations to force employment and by compulsion to prevent discrimina- tion is another thing. The pending bill is not only unconstitutional but it 1s un- workable. It would hurt the people it is intended to help. It is destructive to the American way of life and to the American system of free enterprise. It is destructive to American business. It is un-American und ought not to be passed. Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, here on Washington’s birthday, we, of all times, are considering the notorious FEPC bill. I am sure that all of us listened intently to the reading of George Washington’s Farewell Address. We find many warn- ings that should be heeded. From the time of Washington down to this good hour, this Nation has been able to prosper and to become the envy of the world. This has been possible because of a minimum of Federal regu- Jation. The more we regulate the in- dividual citizen, the further we go along the road to socialism. There has been much said the past several years by em- ployees of the State Department to the
1950 effect that we must have this type of legisiation in order to show the rest of the world that we believe in civil rights. I note that this declaration is written into the present bill under discussion, It does not seem sufficient for this Na- tion to burden future generations with a huge tax burden and deplete our na- tional resources in keeping up the rest of the world, but now, in addition there- to, and in an effort to get the rest of the world to accept our benevolence, we must Fass such legislation. In other words, we must copy the to- talitarian government's philosophy in or- der to combat communism. This is the wrong approach. No nation on earth today allows as much freedom of employ- ment as ours. When our Government tells an employer just who he can em- ploy and who he cannot employ, we are then following the nations whose philos- ophy we claim to be fighting. I appreciate the fact that it is claimed in this legislation that it makes for se- curity of the employee, but, as General Eisenhower correctly stated some months ago, if that 1s all we want, “security can be secured by going to jail.’’ During the war, by Presidential order, a so-called FEPC was set up, something of a volun- teer system. No one made any serious objections at that time, as there was a war to win. However, after the war, it was the same old story. A bureau had been built up and ‘nstead of folding up, as everyone cxpcectcd, they began an agitation to build up a big organization and it was hard to kill them off, although there was no legislation by Congress es- tablishing such agency. This 1s dangerous legislation. I have heard some express themsclves to the effect that 1t would be a good thing to pass this Icgislation and then Iet the country see just what shape it would place us in. I want to warn you right now against any such idea, for once you set up this measure 1t will grow by leaps and bounds, and it will be hard for us to ect rid of it, no matter how bad it be- comes, for once the people give up their liberties it 1s hard to get them back aga. This Ievislation 1s unconstitutional. However, I know how futile it is to argue this point today, Iam not one to charge the proponents of this b:l] as being Com- muuusts. I yield to them that degree of sincerity that I know they yicld to me. The tragedy of the whole thing 1s that the Nation 1s looking in the main to southern Representatives to defeat this legislation I say this 1s tragic, because I beheve that it 15 a great national ques- tion and not a sectional one. I know that the great majority of the southern Members of Congress are interested 1n the people that they serve, without re- gard to race, color, or creed. The best friend that the Negro has in the South is the white man. The destiny of each race is indelibly linked with that of the other. If one race makes progress so does the other. The Negro race has held down the South because of his economic status. We of the South have been in- telligently attempting to raise the eco- nomic status of the Negro. We have been making progress in this effort. We XCVI——138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE need the help and cooperation of other sections of the country and not so-called do-gooders, who cannot separate social equality from economic equality. What chance docs a Negro have to ke a bellboy or waiter in the clubs and hotels of the North? ‘I recall that when war was de- clared upon Germany, Italy, and their allies, that many of the waiters here in Washington had to be interned because they were aliens. Some of the pro- poncnts of this legislation will turn down a good Negro and then give a job to some alien who cannot speak Enghsh very well. Then they jump on the South for the treatment that we give the Negroes. Economic opportunities to the Negro in the South are opening faster and faster. They are employed in places in the South where you would not employ them in many other sections of the country. So do not criticize southern Congressmen for cbjecting to this bill. It will not help the Negro’ I wonder what 1s behind it anywav when you provide that an em- ployer shall not discriminate against anyone because of national origin? Docs this mean that a foreigner can come to the shores of this country and stand on the same footing as an American citizen? This seems to be the intent of the legis- lation. This one thing alone should dcfcat the bull. The enactment of this Icgislation would do more harm to the Negroes of the South than anything else. It is un- forvunate that the South must bear the burden of opposition to the bill. A ma- jority of the people of all other sections of the country are against this legisla- tion In many States where wu refer- endum has been held similar to that in Cahforma, the pcople overwhelmingly voted against it. This bill makes many pious statements which are not based upon facts What does it provide? First, 1t shall be an unlawful employ- ment practice for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise to dis- criminate axzainst any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privi- leges of employment, becauge of such in- dividual’s race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin Now, let us see what happens The person who cluims that he was agerieved can file a charge, or someone else can file it on his behalf, or a charge can be filed by a member of the Commission, Now, that is taking in alot of territory. You will note that it 1s not limited to the aggrieved person, but to any outsider who is interested in fomenting and stirring up race hatred. Not only that, but it provides that any member of the Commission, and for the purpose of this legislation, the term “Commission” means any employee or agent of the Commission, can file charges. This means that there would be thousands upon thousands of med- dlers and agents continually stirring up trouble. It could become worse than the Gestapo. It could drive honest people out of business. It is cruel and despi- cable legislation. Talk to me about civil rights, what civil rights does an employer have under this legislation? Absolutely none. Let us go a step further. When this charge has been filed, the Commission investi- 2189 gates and, after such preliminary in- vestigation if it finds the proper cause exists for such charge, it shall endeavor to eliminate any unlawful employment by informal conferences, and so forth, If this does not secure the results re- quired by the Commission, then the em- ployer is given notice to appear before the Commission or an agent of the Com- mission for trial. Now, let us see where the trial is to be held. Is it in the county where the employer lives? Is it in the State in which he resides, or somewhere else? The employer can be hauled be- tore an agent or the Commission at any place that 1t designates—in Washington, D. C., Los Angeles, Calif., or Port- land Maine. This 1s infamous legisla- tion, adverse from every fundamental concept of Anglo-Saxon justice. Say, for instance, that A is a man of bad repute He is shiftless and lazy, or the employer believe that he is a man of bad character. A is refused employ- ment. A or some agent of the Commis- sion files a statement, stating that he was refused employment upon one of the grounds set out in the bill Tre em- ployer’s defense 1s that A is a man of bad reputation, that he is shiftless and lazy. or that it is believed that he is a man of bad character. The burden of proof 1s upon the employer. He must prove that the reason thav he turned the would-be employee down is based on some fact other than race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. In other words, the burden of proof is upon him and not upon the person who makes the charge We have prided ourselves in this Na- tion “that a man 1s innocent until proven guilty.” Under this legislation, he is guilty unless he proves himself innocent, that is exactly what the bill says Is the right to employmert without dis- crimination a civil meht? This word “discrimination” covers a lot of territory. Teke for instance a man operating @& business who has an opening for a secre- tary. He might object to a blond, a brunette, a redhead, or he might object to a fat person or & lean person or to @& tall or short person, or to hundreds of other things that go to meke up physical and personal appearance. Would any of these be a defense to a person who 1s turned down on account of any one of them? It certainly would not. No, the so-called ills that the proponents of this legislation claim to cure would make it a thousand times worse, If the propo- nents of this legislation want to argue that this 1s the moral way to prohibit discrimination, I want to say to you that you cannot legislate so-called morals into the people in this manner This bill, if carried to its final con- clusions, would mean the closing of every business concern in the Nation Instead of FEPC standing for “Fair Employment Practice Commission,” I think it stands for “free enterprise perishes completely.” You ask for some information con- cerning the number of employees this outfit will have. Ten thousand—per- haps 100,000, or a million. The sky is the limit. How much will it cost the tax- payers—one million or one hundred mil- lion? No one knows or dares make an
2190 estimate. There would necessarily have to be a large number of snoopers and in- vestigators. Once the camel gets his head under the tent, he is going all the way under. This should not be a government of oppression. There is no burden placed on the would-be employee. This legis- lation sets up a unilateral contract, and nothing else. I have always considered it fundamental that in a hiring, there must be a meeting of the minds. There is none here. I cannot understand how some of the labor unions can be misled into sup- porting this legislation. When the time comes that the Federal Government says to a person who he can and who he cannot employ, as sure as the night fol- lows the day, the time is also coming when the Federal Government will say to the worker where he can and where he cannot work. This is inevitable. This legislation will lead us down the road from which there can be no turn- ing. It 1s dressed up in flowery lan- guage, but just the same, it stinks and is dangerous, and should not and must not be enacted. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I speal in support of the FEPC bill, H. R. 4453. The principle cf fair employment proposed in this bill is of the greatest concern to the people of our Nation. This proposal clearly has an eminent position in the American program of 1m- proved welfare and security for all. It is our obligation to meet this issue squarely, here and now If we believe in the essential dignity and integrity of every human being, it is our duty to adopt this proposz.1 before we conclude this lemsilative day In speaking in support of this FEPC legislation, I speak for the great majority of citizens of my State, for the Washing- ton State Legislature adopted State fair employment practice legislation. The same is true of the Oregon State Legislature. It has been argued here today that fair employment practices legislation would disrupt the economy of the South and cause untold damage and disaster. We cannot deny ‘he vexing problems that would be presented to the South by such legislation. Neither can we deny that progress has been made In improve- ment of race relationships and in broader opportunities for Negroes. How- ever, I wish to record my protound con- viction that the South will make even greater progress, 1ts people in the days to come will be happier and more pros- perous, if its econcmy is grounded squarcly on the principles of equal oppor- tunity for all. No nation, no part of any nation, was ever destroyed by vesting in its government the responsibility for promoting greater equality among its c_tizens. Our Nation was founded on the con- cept that all men are created free and equal, that they are entitled to seek their livelihood and pursue their callings to the fullest cxtent of their individual capacities. The Old South was de- stroyed by slavery, not by freedom. The Soutl. of today, a region of change and progress, will gain in the long run by CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE utilizing to the utmost the talents, skills, and abilities of all its people. What I say regarding the South ap- plies equally well to any other part of the country. America is a land of people ever moving in search of greater oppor- tunity, of better livelihood. The inter- change of population among States cre- ates special problems in the labor mar- ket and responsibilities on the part of Government to keep open the avenues of employment for all people regardless of the color of their skin, the way they wor- ship, or the place they were born. In the Pacific Northwest we pride our- selves generally on the fair-minded and democratic way in which we regard all people. As an area of rapid growth, ac- customed to receiving large numbers of new settlers, we are eager to facilitate their adjustment and integration into community life. We recognized prob- lems of discrimination in employment, some precipitated by the influx of recent newcomers, some of longer standing. We met these problems by creating a State agency to help bring about their solution. A short 6 months following the enact- ment of the Washington State legislation the Reverend Fountain W. Penick, who is one of the members of the commission executing the law, wrote to me stating: The law against discrimination in employ- ment in the State of Washington was en- acted about 6 months ago and therefore can- not be evaluated so soon, however, I think it is quite significant that there has been no appreciable opposition on the part of the employer group Neither has there becn any opposition, woithy of note, during the period which the law was under consideration in the House and Senate I believe the law is quite favorably accepted by the citizens of our State in general. However, this generally favorable re- port on Washington State's FEPC laws should not be taken to mean that local measures, however wel] intentioned and valuable, will suffice to cope with this problem. The problem is a national one because of the national dimensions of the labor market, and legislation on that level is neccessary, aS with the problems of old-age security and labor relations. Local laws are perforce limited in their Jurisdiction. The great interstate cor- porations recruit their personnel, the great national unions draw their mem- bership, from all parts of the country. For personnel supervisor and union alike a national law is needed to insure adherence to the desired employment practices. The bill recognizes that State or local agencies have an important place in pro- moting fair employment. But it is not enough to stop short with local agencies where national standards of decency and fair play must prevail. Just as collective bargaining is a national policy supported by commensurate legislation, so must we proceed in the case of fair employment practices, which likewise involve our economic and physical well-being, as well as our international security, It is obvious that today many men and women are denied the opportunity of working in the jobs for which they are best fitted. This hurts them as individ- FEBRUARY 22 uals. Equally important, it hurts Amer- ica. Its damage can be counted both in the direct economic sense of denying to American production the best available skills, and in the moral sense of weaken- ing our claim to world leadership in the ways of democracy. Discrimination in employment is a wastage of human re- sources and a hlight on the democratic spirit. This is the hour when we must correct this weakness in our public character, We must move forward in such a way that there can be no question of our sin- cerity and good faith. The first step must be taken now by adopting the bill before the House, H. R. 4453. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the statement has been made by the commit- tee reporting H. R. 4453 that it “is a bill designed to protect those rights of freedom and equality of opportunity which are guaranteed to every man by the basic principles upon which our Na- tion is built; that this bill will help make it possible for al] our people to enjoy a decent standard of living ” Gentlemen, the people of this great country are presently enjoying the high- est standard of living which this coun- try, or any other country, has ever known. And Jet me emphasize that we are not presently operating under an FEPC law. The American standard of living has been on the upgrade ever since the pillars of our Government were laid about 200 years ago. There is no reason for thinking that it would not continue to improve without an FHPC, Our progress can be directly atirib- uted to our system of free enterprise. A person in the United States has always had the freedom to go into business, to use his own judgment in employing whomever he deemed best fitted for the jebathand. This freedom has made the United States the leader of nations. The proposed legislation will take away that freedom. It will extract a most vital organ of democracy. FEPC will have a disastrous effect upon private enterprise. Under the pro- visions of this legislation the discretion of the individual will be supplanted by the discretion of the Government. An employer could have a dozen, or a hun- dred, or a thousand cases pending against him at one time. He could be subjected to a lawsuit before a Federal agency by every person who applied for and was denied a job of any sort. Thus, it ap- pears obvious that any pressure group who decided to put a man out of business could do so by a multiplicity of lawsuits. If this measure is made a law, it could be administered in ways which would shock those Americans who are not fa- miliar with its far-reaching proposals. Those proposals are contrary to the American way of life because we do not believe in a totalitarian government, Those proposals are deceptive; they would serve as a yoke to fetter individual freedom. They would be a burden and imposition on the American people. Such proposals are contrary to the tenets of George Washington; they are con- trary to the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson; and they are contrary to the teachings of Abraham Lincoln,
1950 Among other things, this bill states that its provisions are necessary “to re- move obstructions to the free flow of commerce among the States and with foreign nations.” That statement is typical of the farcical and superficial character of the entire bill. The only obstacle to the free flow of commerce among the States and with foreign na- tions today is not discrepancies in em- ployment practices, but rather the whim- sical nature and practices of certain labor leaders. This bill will not correct those practices. Let us be frank and practical about the matter. There are too many mi- norities who are today trying to capl- tahze on this word “discrimination.” There are too many elements within those groups who are interested only in personal motives, complctcly ignoring the principles of constitutional govern- ment. If we cater to those groups for- ever and create a tempest every time the word “discrimination” is thrown in our direction, then we are certainly not up- holding those sound principles upon which our predecessors have built and maintained the greatest Nation in the world. We are here to represent the majority. If this bill were subjected to the vote of the American people, I am of the firm opinion that it would be overwhelmingly defeated. No one denies that 1t would recelve a majority in certain areas in- festcd with Communists. The advocates of FEPC should know that. Minority groups are endeavoring to use Congress as a means to invoke their selfish in- tcrests upon the American people. Let us not be a stooge for their vicc. Once, when a young attorney was about to begin the practice of law, his father, an experienced lawyer, said: “Son, I wish to give you some advice. In the trial of cases, if the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and facts are both against you, muddy the waters.” The waters have certainly been muddied in considering this legislation. The pic- ture 1s distorted and magnified. All American citizens who are capable of working, who are willing to work, and who make a sincere and honest effort in that direction, can obtain work. This advantage does not hold true for Com- munists, alicns, and their type. But, my friends, if FEPC is not defeated em- ployers subjectcd to the act could be forced to give employment to such un- desirables. That is not the American way. Gentlemen, this House is a citadel for the preservation of the fundamental rights of the American people. It is natural to expect that attacks, secretly and in disguise, be made upon this for- tress. All good Americans must be pre- pared to defend it. It is our duty to stand guard, to watch for the enemy, and to defend these fundamentals of free- dom. As a Member of this body, I have given much thought and studied consideration to this FEPC proposal. I have found it to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is an attack, a secret attack, directed at the ramparts of our freedom and de- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE signed to catch the American people off guard. It is made by those who appear as ‘friends bringing gifts.” Many Amer- icans have already been deceived. The bugle is blowing; the time has come for us to stand up and turn back the enemy before liberty slips from our grasp. Vote for principles, not politics, If this measure becomes law, it will be the greatest blunder made by any Con- gress in the history of republican gov- ernment. Mr. TAURIELLO, Mr. Chairman, the civil-rights program was initiated by President Truman, based on the report of his Committee on Civil Rights. He sent the Congress his recommendations on civil rights, and among them are anti- poll-tax legislation and the Fair Employ- rent Practice Commission. Last sum- mer, we in the House passed the anti- poll-tax bill, but the Senate failed even to consider it in committee. Since the beginning of this session, we have been fighting for FEPC. The issue is very simple. Many people try to make it complicated. It is ironical that we here in America— where we consider all men to be equal— that we should even have to have a bill of this kind. But it is necessary. FEFC is simply a program to guarantee the right of every man, regardless of his race, creed, or color, the same opportu- nity to employment that everyone else has. Liberty is of little value to any man unless he can support himself, unless he can earn a decent living at the work for which he is best qualified by his natural skill. The FEPC bill has as its primary ob- jectives the fundamentals upon which our Nation is founded. Asa true Amer- ican who steadfastly believes in justice and protection of human rights, I would be derelict in my sworn duty to the peo- ple I represent if I did not support these ideals. The United States of America is known throughout the world as a nation with the highest level of technological devel- opment and cultural achievement. It offers to the peoples of the world a real- ization of the dream for a better life, a guarantee of full freedom, and the pur- suit of happiness. Yet these promises have fallen far short of their objectives when we consider the history of disgrace- ful and abusive practices of discrimina- tion in granting equality of opportunity for all men who desire to earn a living and who seek to enjoy those inalienable rights of a human being. In an enlightened nation such as ours no longer can we continue to boast about our democratic principles and forsake these ideals in practice. This measure before us is not untimely. It is presented as a practical means of eliminating op- pressive abuses of the full use of man- power and productivity which has robbed our Nation of both utilization of human resources and full productive ca- pacity. It is economically unsound to refuse employment to an individual because of the color of his skin, his re- ligion, or his national origin. A Government agency to eliminate un- fair practices in employment has as its foundation years of practice during the 2191 war through the successful operation of the Fair Employment Practice Com- mission. During peacetime the patriotic spirit of fair play has lapsed into an at- titude of indifference to a large extent. But the experiences in the four States which have created commissions for fair employment practices since the war has fulfilled more than the fondest hopes. In New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, as well as in other States and cities which have established these commissions, the reports show overwhelming approval and progress. My own native State of New York, which pionecred State legislation in this field, has found that the operation of its commission against discrimination has won support and has been patterned by numerous States and cities. The fears of some persons that such a legislative body would Icad to rioting and economic chaos have been proven to be baseless. The belief that the persons who are bene- fited by such a commission would flood the agency with complaints has been dis- proven by experience. In fact, every attack upon the principles set forth by the commission has been overcome by the wholehearted approval of the opera- tion of the program. The report of the Massachusetts Fair Employment Commission after 2 years of operation has reinforced the New York experience in pointing to its success in an attempt to substitute understanding for intolerance. Massachusetts has not conceived the fair employment practices law as an instrument of compulston— The 1948 annual report states— rather it has regarded the statute as pre- senting an opportunity to wipe out feara which men have of other men who are dif- ferent with respect to color, religion, or national origin. Thus all persons have today economic opportunities which they have never had before. These people are sharing now the benefits of American citizenship along with its obligations. The administrators of the State com- missions against discrimination in New Jersey and Connecticut as well as munici- pal commissions have reported that com- Phlance with the provisions of the laws has been accomplished without recourse to the courts. However, these successes are over- shadowed by a desperate need for Federal legislation to deal with discrimination by interstate corporations. Although such situations might be reduced by interstate cooperation, there must be the authority exercised by the Federal Government under that provision of the Constitution granting it supreme power over interstate commerce. No voluntary system will abolish this evil. Discrimination in employment is @ cancer in our society. All over the world, the Communists can point to it as proof of the fact that we do not prac- tice what we preach. Another interesting fact to keep in mind is that witnesses have testified be- fore House and Senate committees that an FEPC will save our economy from three to ten billion dollars in waste in employment which is now occurring.
2192 Those estimates have been made by econ- omists and industrial leaders. They know what discrimination means in dollars and cents. It is incredible to me that legislation of this kind should not be allowed to come before the Congress to permit us to discuss it, to debate it, and then to act on it according to our best judgment. This week is Brotherhood Week. It is the week which we have set aside to re- affirm our faith and trust in God and to rededicate ourselves to brotherhood under God through all the people of all races and all creeds. In my mind, there would be no more fitting time in which to pass a bill which would guarantee the right of opportunity of employment to every man, regardless of his race, creed, or color. Such action would indeed be a demonstration of the true spirit of brotherhood. Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, the culmination of a long effort to enact an FEPC law is a shining example of the power of a vociferous minority group. The consideration of this legislation to- day is concrete evidence of what a de- termined handful of people can bring to pass while an apathetic majority sits quietly by in the hope that Congress will have good judgment enough to reject this proposal. If the businessmen of America were as demanding and as noisy in opposition to this legislation as the minority group has been in favor, I dare say that there would not be 50 votes cast in favor of this bill on final passage. Al- most every extreme measure enacted into law by Congress originated with a small body of people rather than with a great majority of the people. So I think it can be safely said that one of the greatest dangers to the free-enter- prise system and to a constitutional form of government is the apathy of a ma- jority of the citizens of this great Nation. Despite what anyone may say to the contrary, we must in all frankness ad- mit that the FEPC issue has been re- duced to a racial issue. This is because advocates of the colored race have been fn the forefront throughout the long ef- fort to bring into existence an FEPC law. It is indeed a pity that this issue has been reduced to a racial level when, in point of fact, the real issue is whether American business people can continue to enjoy the constitutional right to con- duct business in a free and unhampered manner. When we divorce from this bill all thoughts of race, creed, or re- ligion and think of the law objectively, it simply says that the American mer- chant will no longer be free to hire per- sons of his own choice. The Congress of the United States has never gone this far even during periods of war. The Congress has never seen fit to conscript labor during wartime, yet we would today by this measure before us take a step in peacetime so drastic that it was not even employed in wartime except as an Executive order devoid of congressional approval. One of the most disturbing thoughts about this whole matter is that there are many Members of Congress who will vote for this legislation today, if a vote is taken, who have privately admitted to other Members that they are person- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ally against the bill in principle but that a vote against the measure would spell political doom for them in their districts, This does not necessarily mean that a majority of the people in their districts are for FEPC, but it does mean that the active minority through the process of block voting easily could bring about their defeat. If every Member of Con- gress voted his real convictions on this issue, the bill would be soundly defeated. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read at this point section 5 of the Powell bill: Src. 5. (a) It shall be an unlawful em- ployment practice for an employer— (1) to refuse to hire, to discharge, or other- wise to discriminate against any Individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin; or (2) to utilize in the hiring or recruitment of individuals for employment any employ- ment agency, placement service, training school or center, labor organization, or any other source which discriminates against such individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any labor organization to dis- criminate against any individual or to limit, segregate, or classify its membership in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive such individual of employment opportuni- ties, or would limit his employment oppor- tunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, or would affect adversely his wages, hours, or employment conditions, be- cause of such individual’s race, color, ree ligion, or national origin. (c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer or labor organi- gation to discharge, expel, or otherwise dis- criminate against any person, because he has opposed any unlawful employment prac- tice or has filed a charge, testified, partici- pated, or assisted in any proceeding under this act. The above section in addition to rob- bing management of many of its pow- ers of control and free choice will also abolish segregation in labor unions and in all business establishments. I call your attention particularly to subsec- tion (b) wherein it states that {t shall be unlawful employment practice for any labor organization to discriminate against any individual or to Hmit, seg- regate, or classify its membership, and so forth. This, in effect, throws the doors of all labor unions wide open to every class or type of person and will strike at the very foundation of labor unions. It will, indeed, limit and im- pair its effectiveness as a bargaining agency. Another objectionable feature of this bill is the power of subpena given to the Commission to require witnesses and parties to appear at any place in the United States or its possessions. It de- stroys our long-established system of jurisdiction designed to insure that com- plainants and parties might have issues settled in local courts. Every paragraph of this bill is packed and crammed with dangerous language usurping rights Americans have long enjoyed under the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It will, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, be the saddest day in Ameri- can history when and if the President af- fixes his signature to the FEPC Act. The FEBRUARY 22 consequences of this bill, if enacted, have not been considered and cannot be fully anticipated by many who plead for its passage. I say to you in all sincerity that this bill, if enacted, will do more to disturb racial relations in this Nation than anything that has been done since the Civil War. It will retard the ad- vancement of the colored race in the South for many years. It will close the doors of many business firms in America operated by people who will refuse to ac- cept the tyranny imposed by this legisla- tion. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I fear that today we are modeling a weapon with which to destroy ourselves. Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I favor the passage of FEPC bill, H. R, 4453. I am now and have always been heart- ily in support of FEPC bill, H. R. 4453, and shall vote against all crippling amendments to this bill as well as any substitute bill offered in this body. I feel that I am obligated to do this because such legislation is contemplated by the 1948 Democratic platform in plain, understandable words. In the greatest Presidential campaign known to our Republic, our greatest Democratic champion, President Harry S. Truman, the real spokesman of the Democratic Party, boldly campaigned for FEPC. Furthermore, during the national campaign the majority of the States of the Nation voted for President Truman who openly and everlastingly advocated the passage of such legislation. From the election of President Truman we can truthfully say that the latest national vote shows that the majority of the people of the Nation in voting for President Truman and his program placed their stamp of approval upon this FEPC legislation. As a Democrat I campaigned actively for FEPC legislation and my opponewt who then had served three terms in this Congress did not so campaign, and he was roundly defeated for his fourth term. Because the Democratic platform contemplates this bill, President Tru- man recommends it, his civil rights com- mittee recommends it, and I have pledged myself to support it after I had in all good conscience thought it was right. I must support it today. In answer to the point made by the distinguished gentleman from Califor- nia {Mr. Jackson], that California vot- ers had turned a State FEPC bill down by a crushing vote, I say to him that in the last election President Truman, the vigorous champion of national FEPC, carried California, and consequently from that fact I feel that I can claim, and rightfully, that California voters have endorsed a national FEPC. The claim is also made by the gen- tleman from Kentucky [Mr. Morton] that the present bill with teeth in it, is not the proper approach to do away with bigotry and discrimination. He argues that a real educational program carried on preferably in the early formative years of boys and girls 1s the only way to proceed. This sounds good, but does he realize that there is a need right now for FEPC, and that we cannot wait all the long years for education to jell,
1950 and my honest opinion is that we would have to wait forever to educate some of the bigots and discriminators of this Nation. If the reasoning of the gentleman from Kentucky was ccrrect, then all laws should be self-executing—all laws should be drafted without penalties—and a great educational program should be conducted to appeal to the consciences of the law violators. The Jewish and Christian religions recommend the keep- ing of the Ten Commandments, and thousands of years have been spent try- ins to educate people as to their cor- rectness and the wisdom of observing them, but that was unavailing. Human laws had to be passed with stiff penalties against such offenses as murder, theft rape, false testimony, fornication, adultery, blasphemy, and laws relating to observing the Sabbath, all o° which are contemplated by the Ten Commandments No, my friend, a specific law denouncing discrimination, vyhether founded upon bigotry or not, is but an idle legislative gesture unless there is available in that very same Jaw such civil and criminal penalties as will make prospective offenders stop, look, and listen, and reform before they offend. The gentleman from Pennsylvama [Mr Ricu!] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr O’Haral make the claims that you cannot legislate effectively concerning one’s morals, which is, in- deed, a strange pronouncement from such big and respectable Republicans That is the same old claim which has oft been made by the red-light dis- tricts in many cities of the Nation, gam- bling institutions, and illicit liquor soell- ers and others who do not think con- structively. No; I say that we must have human laws with real teeth in them to teach immoral people to be moral, Mr. Ricu and Mr. O'Hara to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, the advocates of this measure say that it is in the interest of labor and the Ne- gro. I believe that my voting record in the 15 years I have been in Congress shows that I have been a consistent friend of labor; and I believe I can show that I have been a consistent friend of the Negro. I was born in Baton Rouge, grew up in Mississippi and I believe I know and un- derstand their problems better than the Northern advocates of this bill. The bill to coin 5,000,000 Booker T. Washington Memorial half-dollars was written in my office and favorably report- ed by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures of which I was then Chair- man, to commemorate the birth and perpetuate the ideals and teachings of that great American Negro, Booker T. Washington. These coins are now being sold at a premium to establish trade and industrial schools for Negro youth through the Booker T. Washington Birthplace Memorial, a nonprofit organi- zation to bring industrial training to Negro youth, thereby improving the eco- nomic status of the Negro as well as our entire national economy. I have today written a favorable re- port on a bill to make a national monu- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ment of the birthplace of George Wash- ington Carver, the eminent Negro scien- tist, whose agricultural experiments have added millions of dollars in value to southern agriculture. I believe that adequate industrial training and education will make the Ne- gro self-sufficient and able to hold his own in the labor market and build up a measure of economic security for himself and family. After that, and with the full approval of the white Ssuth, where the majority of Negroes live, an cquitable place wi] be found for the Negro as a citizen. He is rapidly reaching that place now. But this so-called Fair Employment Practice Act will not help him and it will not help cur country. I believe it is an instiument designed by Communists to cause trouble and discord, and contribute to uhe destruction of our country. As a triend of labor and a friend of the Negro, I cannot accept the principle of this bill. Note: Five millicn coins are purchased from the United States Treasury at 50 cenis each and are being sold for $1. Gross profit $2,500,000 less cost of selling. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this bill and urged its defeat. I have listened with un- divide interest to some of the specicus arguments which have been advanced here today in support of this measure and I must confess that Iam amazed at some of the proposals advanced. I sup- pose that certein Membcrs should be congratulated upon their eloqguence—but certainly not on their logic as they have argued for the most fantastic measure ever te come before the Congress. There are many reasons why this measure should not be passed. I have my own bill of particulars—and they are many—and J am also sure that many more valid arguments can and will be cited—but I shall mention only a few— which I belicve are sufficient and should carry weight with reasonable men. First of all, Mr. Chairman, this pro- posed bill is unconstitutional and a viola- tion of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, such a bill, if enacted into law, is totally unenforceable. Sound law is based upon public acceptance and this bill is designed to upset and change the economic and social and moral pat- tern of the lives of our citizens—being unacceptable—it would be unenforceable. Third, such a bill, if enacted, would disrupt the operations of business and creditable labor unions and keep them in a constant state of turmoil, insecurity, and fear. It would result in chaos, social and economic unrest, and perhaps blood- shed. Fourth, Mr. Chairman, this bill would establish a set of intangibles beyond the power of the Government to interpret and administer except by mass coercion and by the total usurpation of the rights of our individual citizens—rights which we have always cherished and main- tained in our country. Beyond these, Mr. Chairman, I think there is an additional argument which 1s not rebuttable and answerable and that is this: If we thus make this body a party to any scheme to give the state—the Fed- 2193 eral Government—power to compel non- discrimination, we have made ourselves @ party to a tyrannical usurpation of freedom by granting the state the power to compel discrimination. If we could legislate legally nondiscrimination in a matter of individual employment, we could pass a bill directing discrimination in favor of a certain class, color, or creed. We would thus be laying the groundwork for totalitarianism of the most complete pattern—and I refuse to be a party to such an unheard of scheme—tyrannical in its inception and purpose. It is a possibility which permits of no compromise, no substitute action—only defeat. We have heard the Bill of Rights cited at every turn and twist of the multitude of the arguments in support of this so- called fair employment practices bill. I deny that such action as this is called for in the Bill of Rights. Rather than fur- thering the Bill of Rights, this measure makes a mockery of our Nation's inher- ent and written fundamental law. The Bill of Rights, as we have come to know it, is the assertion of the purposes set forth in the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. And the one thought and precept paramount in the first 10 amendments of our great Constitution is the strict prohibition—on both the Fed- eral Government and the States—of in- terference with religion, life, liberty, and freedom of our citizens. This was our first and foremost assertion of the right of the individual over the State and throughout our history the same basic and fundamental concept has been re- stated in many different ways—but no more eloquently than by that great Dem- ocrat and great American—Thomas Jef- ferson—-who said over and over again— that the path of progress towards true democracy does not consist in granting more power to the Government—but in vesting more power in the people. I say, therefore, that this plece of legislation which has been brought before us is not only unconstitutional but a mockery of our Bill of Rights. To those who bring into play the Bill of Rights in setting forth the purposes of this legislation—I can only say that it proves the truth of the Shakespearean line that “the devil can quote Scripture to his own purpose.” In emphasizing the unenforceability of this proposal, I would like to cite a statement made not so long ago by Mr. Donald Richberg, of Illinois, who for- merly lent his talents in Government service. Of an FEPC—in any form—Mr. Rich- berg declared: Unless the Government is to destroy eco- nomic system of competitive freedom and social system of free enterprise, it cannot un- dertake to interfere with the selection of one’s associates in work or play. On another occasion—quite recently— Mr. Richberg, who, I remind you, is not a southerner, but a man who speaks from the fullness of legal knowledge and just plain common sense, stated: Under this act, as similar laws have been administered, no employer could exercise his freedom of speech or freedom of the press, even to inquire as to race, color, or religion
2194 of applicants for work or of his employees. Under this act, Federal bureaucrats could override an employer’s judgment as to whom he should hire or promote. The employer would be forced to accept this outside, arbi- trary judgment, or clse engage in expensive lawsuit—-not to vindicate his freedom of choice—but to demonstrate that his motives were free from any taint of a politically created !mmorality. This bill does not confine the question of employment strictly to the act of in- itial employment. It follows the em- ployer and his employees throughout all relations of employment. It touches any advancement, transfer, change, or pro- motion that might be made within a bus- iness—it burrows down deep into the most intimate details of a man’s busi- ness and would have the effect of deny- ing to any businessman the right to speak freely about the management of his own affairs. It would provide an ex- cuse for every incompetent and unruly employee to bring Jawsuit—ruinous law- sult—against an employer if he is not advanced in his job according to his own—not his employer’s—estimate of his abilities. I say to you frankly that this measure could be the most completely ruinous thing that could conceivably ap- ply to the economic life of our Nation— and I may add that businessmen every- where—not just in the South—hold this to be a true evaluation of the situation. Mr. Chairman, I think I do not have to delve too deeply into ancient history to cite a most devastating example of the arbitrary attempt to enforce laws that will not be enforced—that are impossible of enforcement. I refer to the tragic era of the reconstruction in the South. Anyone who cares to go back to recon- struction days will see what happened in the South as a whole when it was at- tempted by misguided zealots and by predatory and venial carpetbaggers and opportunists to enforce laws in which the people of the South did not believe. It is simply impossible—and from the time of the ancients it has been the ac- cepted course—to build our statutes and our laws upon the reality of enforcement without public approval and acceptance. I know that many of the proponents of this measure are sincere men espous- ing their honest convictions. I know also that this measure has become a thinly veiled cause around which have rallied many insincere men and women. We of the South who are proud to bear the burden of this fight to kill this meas- ure or any measure like it come with clean hands. We know what is in this bill—we know what it will do—we have studied it—and we feel that anyone else who has studied it closely will recognize in it things which they Nttle dreamed could possibly lie within a bill presented to this Congress. Mr. Chairman, the true answer to the proposition which arises in connection with this legislation lies not in the pas- sage of a force bil] or penalty legisla- tion, but in the influences of religion, tolerance, education, and the processes of culture. No law of human making can provide the answer—and We all know that, whether or not we sit on this side of the aisle or on the other side of the aisle—whether or not we represent the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE North or the South—whether or not our constituents are crowded into city tene- ments or are sparsely settled amid agri- culture lands. This bill will never pass—it should not pass—unless we choose to repudiate the basic freedoms of our forefathers and tear down our house of democracy—de- stroy our basic freedoms and rights— and thus create a situation whereby the disciples of a totalitarian form of Gov- ernment can walk in and pick up the pieces. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that reason will prevail in this body—and I am sure that it will—for I have unbounded faith in the temper and judgment of reasonable men—and as reasonable men we have each been accorded the honor and dijs- tinction of representing reasonable and temperate and just citizens. Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Chairman, this House has a solemn duty to per- form, and in good conscience, it can no longer ignore that duty. FEPC must be enacted into law now. Because the people of this Nation de- manded it, a permanent FEPC as well as other civil-rights measures, were promised by all political parties in their platforms. Definite pledges were made, and I, for one, will keep mine. President Truman, in his state of the Union message delivered to Congress, stated that the surest guide in the days that lie ahead will be the spirit in which this great Republic was founded. He said we must make our decisions in the conviction that all men are created equal, that they are equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the duty of Government is to serve these ends. In other words, he said that discrimination has no place in this country—it is undemocratic and un-American. In his message, he reemphasized the need and urged the Congress to enact the civil-rights proposals he made in February 1948. He stated in his message that— As we go forward in achieving greater eco- nomic security and greater opportunity for all our people, we should make every effort to extend the benefits of our democratic itn- stitutions to every citizen. The religious ideals which we profess, and the heritage of freedom which we have received from the past, clearly place that duty upon us. It is a sad commentary upon the workings of this great legislative body that we have ignored for so long the proposals submitted by our President, and the commitments we have made. We have appropriated many mullions of dollars to reach persons abroad: to feed, clothe, and rehabilitate them. More im- portant, our aim was to sell them our belief 1n democracy as opposed to any other ideology. How incongruous that at the same time Federal! funds are spent in this country to maintain colleges and schools which discriminate against stu- dents by reason of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. One of the prime objectives of educa- tion is to promote understanding among men. From our institutions of higher learning come our professional men, statesmen, teachers, and leaders in our communities, Rank discrimination is FEBRUARY 22 practiced when any group has as one of its admission requirements that “mem- bers must be white persons of full Aryan blood.” Such discrimination breeds lack of understanding—even hatred—and man commits crimes against his fellow men because of it. Yet we know that secret clauses such as the one quoted are contained in constitutions of many national fraternities, which have great influence in our colleges and which help mold the thinking of our youth. I was happy to note that Lafayette College of Easton, Pa., decided, after public pres- sure recently, to refuse a bequest of $140,000 left it, because of a clause that would have barred Catholics and Jews from obtaining Lafayette scholarships. Our Federal Government in taking the stand it has abroad, cannot afford to be a party to this discriminatory and un- democratic system. The same is equally true with regard to the practice of dis- crimination in employment against prop- erly qualified persons because of race, religion, color, national origin or an- cestry. In my opinion, such practice has brought shame to our Nation. This prac- tice is rampant—the results of it are tragic. Its victims are forced into sub- standard conditions of living; they are deprived of their equality of opportunity as guaranteed them under our Consti- tution. Since the United States is looked upon by all as the land of opportunity, our entire economic system is based upon the theory that a man shall be allowed to utilize his talents and training, and then reap the rewards of his industry and individual striving. We find that while these promises and assurances are taken for granted by many, and enjoyed by them—thcre are millions in this coun- try whose ambition, training, studies, and qualifications avail them nothing. A young man may graduate at the head of his class and then find that because of the color of his skin—even though he may be a doctor of philosophy and wishes to teach—he is finally forced into menial employment. A young woman, qualified to be a good secretary, answers an ad in the newspaper, but is refused employment because of her religion or ancestry. There are many glaring ex- amples of discrimination in employ- ment—and they have come to the at- tention of all of us. The effect of such discrimination is disastrous. Those who bear the brunt of it are unhappy and resentful, and rightly so. Initiative and ambition are lost, and the worker, refused his right- ful chance to make good at his chosen occupation, becomes dispirited, and lacks that ambition which makes an efficient employee. In turn, production and busi- ness lose potentially valuable people, and the general welfare of the Nation is undermined. For these reasons, I urge that the en- tire civil-rights program of the President be enacted into law during this session of Congress. I am not a newcomer in this fight. As amember of the New York State Legislature, I led in the fight in Albany, to wipe out such disgraceful practices. I have continued my efforts since beccming a Member of the Eighty- first Congress. In January 1949, I in- troduced an anti-Jim Crow travel bill;
1950 an FEPC bill; an antilynching and anti- Jiia Crow armed services bill, I also introduced a bill which would prohibit the use of Federal funds for housing where there is any discrimination against occupants on account of race, religion, color, ancestry, and national origin, as well as a bill providing that no Federal funds could be used for schools which discriminate between students by reason of race, color, religion, ancestry, and national origin. H. R. 4453, the FEPC bill, is now before us for action. This would wipe out the un-American practice of discrimina- tion in employment. Although nothing would have pleased me more than to have the bill under consideration bear my name, because of my deep interest in this problem, 3 am extremely happy to speak in favor of H. R. 4453. At this time, we, as a Nation, are send- ing our emissaries throughout the world to say that our ideology is best, and that our people live under a true democratic system. ‘Those who oppose us in our program of selling democracy to others, have a potent weapc.. sgainst us when they point out how undemocratic we really are in our discriminatory prac- tices, and that this land is indeed not one of equal opportunity. Our Government, engaged in ils present struggle against communism, cannot afford to allow such discrimination to continue, and must take effective steps to end it. Our obli- gation as a signatory of the United Na- tion’s Charter, “To promote universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, lan- guage, or religion” are sacred. We should fulfill those obligations at once, and not be forced to observe them. I quote sgain from the state of the Union message of our President, when he said: The ideal of equal opportunity no longer means simply the opportunity which a man has to advance beyond his fellows. Some of our citizens do achieve greater succcss than others as a reward for individual merit and effort, and this is as it should be. At the same time, our country must be more than a land of opportunity for a select few. It must be a land of opportunity for all of us. In such a land, all can grow and prosper to- gether. This is the idea] upon which this Na- tion was founded, and for which our fore- fathers sacrificed so much to achieve. This House should consider it a signal honor that it has the opportunity to pass the bill now before it, which will insure true freedom and equal opportunity to all—but which now is only a myth to countless persons in the United States. Let me make my views clear and un- mistekable. Discrimination cannot be compromised. It must be eliminated. Our duty is obvious and can no longer be shirked; FEPC, demanded by our peo- ple, must be provided at once. Democracy is on trial before the world, and we are being asked to practice what we preach. A vote for FEPC is a vote for democracy. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, L shall vote for H. R. 4453, the fair em- ployment practices bill, because I believe that it is a step toward the elimination CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of discrimination in the economic field of employment. I do not believe that it is a final or perfect answer to prejudices and social taboos, which unfortunately are deeply imbedded in the minds of many of our people. I do believe that it will estab- lish certain legal claims to employment by deserving people, who are now pre- cluded from employment because of their race, color or religion. By the establishment of legal claim to employment, as provided for in H. R. 4453, we do not thereby guarantee that all persons will be employed. We only say that no person shall be refused em- ployment because of his race, color, or religion. There still remains many necessary qualifications for employment such as education, skill, experience, tech- nical knowledge, and so forth. This legislation, if enacted into law, will present many problems of admin- istration because it lies in the uncertain area of human relations. Human relations and attitudes can- not be changed suddenly by the enact- ment of a law. Such reversal or change can only occur gradually. However, the difficult objective of correcting the de- fects in our society—in this case, dis- crimination in the fleld of employment— should not deter us from making an at- tempt to reach a proper goal. The merit of a law, in many instances, depends on the wisdom used in its ad- ministration. This is particularly the case in legislation which seeks to control or influence in the field of human rela- tions, habits and attitudes. Unless great wisdom is used in the administration of this law, the whole purpose of the proponents will be lost. If the intended beneficiaries of this leg- islation rely on legality alone to enforce their rights, I fear they will be griev- ously disappointed. Moderation in the pressing of claims to employment is equally desirable to wisdom in admin- istration. The most important justification in my opinion for passing H. R. 4453 is that it expresses clearly, and for the first time, our desire as a people to erad- icate from our society one of its glaring and undemocratic defects. We, in effect, admit that there has been, and continues to be, a withholding of economic rights which are basic for the full fruition of political democracy. We admit that undemocratic preju- dices, which still remain, are excluding certain groups in our society from part of the benefits of democracy. Because we do believe that all of our citizens should have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness; because we wish to reaffirm our belief in those rights; and because we wish to assure every individual, regard- less of race, color or religion, that he shall have those rights, we, the propo- nents of this legislation, intend to vote, if given the opportunity, for the Fair Employment Practices Act, H. R. 4453. Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, the statements and testimony of the wit- nesses who appeared at the public hear- ings held before the House Subcommit- tee on Education and Labor last May in 2195 support of H. R. 4453 entitled “Federal Fair Employment Practices Act,” bring to my mind vivid recollections of the work of the New York Temporary Com- mission Against Discrimination, which functioned under the chairmanship of Hon. Irvine M. Ives, our distinguished United States Senator from New York. It was my high privilege, as a member of the New York State Senate, to serve as the secretary to this commission, which held hearings in a number of cities throughout the State of New York. In all, a total of approximately 160 wit- nesses were heard from all walks of life. On the basis of the recommendations of the commission, the Ives-Quinn bill pro- hibiting discrimination in employment was approved by the State legislature on March 12, 1945. The act declared that the opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination is a civil right and emphasized education and concilia- tion as a means of remedying discrimi- natory practices. I would lke to refer to the comprehensive provision of this pio- neecr measure later. Now, I wish to refer to certain economic and social aspects of this problem of discrimina- tion in employment. The right to equality of opportunity of each individual to obtain useful employ- ment without regard to race, color, creed, and national origin is essential to the well-being of the individual and to the progress of our society. A witness be- fore a congressional committee recently stated: Discrimination in employment damages lives, both the bodies and the minds, of those discriminated against and those who dis- criminate. It blights and perverts that healthy ambition to improve one's standard of living which we like to say is peculiarly American. It generates insecurity, fear, re- sentment, division, anc tension in our society. In private business, in Government, and in labor unions, the war years saw a marked advance both in hiring policies and in the removal of on-the-job dis- criminatory practices. Several factors contributed to this progress. The short labor market, the sense of security among the people, and the leadership provided by the Government all helped to bring about a lessening of unfair-em- ployment practices. Yet, we did not eliminate discrimination in employment. The final report of the Federal Fair Em- ployment Practice Committee, estab- lished in 1941 by President Roosevelt to eliminate discrimination in both Govern- ment and private employment related to the war effort, makes this clear. Four out of five cases which arose during the life of the Committee concerned Negroes. However, many other minori- ties have suffered from discriminatory employment, practices. The FEPC re- ports show that 8 percent of the com- mittee’s docket involved complaints of discrimination because of creed, and 70 percent of these concerned Jews. A survey conducted by the United States Employment Service reveals that of the total job orders received by the USES offices in 11 selected areas during February 1-15, 1946, 24 percent of the orders were discriminatory. Of 38,195
2196 orders received, 9,171 included specifica- tions with regard to race, citizenship, re- ligion, or some combination of these factors The National Community Relations Advisory Council studied hiring prac- tices since VJ-day. A 1946 survey of the practices of 134 private employment agencies in 10 cities disclosed that 89 percent of these agencies included ques- tions covering religion on their registra- tion forms. A companion study of the help-wanted ads conducted in eight major cities during corresponding weeks in 1945 and 1946 showed that while the total volume of help-wanted advertising had declined, there was an over-all in- crease of 195 percent in discriminatory ads for 1946 over 1945. The minority job seeker often finds that there are fields of employment where application is futile no matter how able or well-trained he is. Many north- ern business concerns have an unwritten rule against appointing Jews to executive positions; railroad management and unions discourage the employment of Negroes as engineers or conductors. If he can get hmself hired, the minority worker often finds that he is being paid less than other workers. This wage dis- crimination is sharply evidenced in studies made of individual cities. A survey by the American Federation of Labor shows that the average weekly income of white veterans ranges from 30 to 78 perccnt above the average weekly income of Negro veterans in 26 commu- nities, 25 of them in the South. While private business provided almost 70 percent of all cases docketed by the FEFC for the fiscal year 1943-44, about a fourth of the complaints were against the Federal Government itself. A case study, conducted in one Government agency by the National Committee on Sogregation in the Nation’s Capital, dem- onstrates a pattern of discrimination ex- isting in Government service. It was found that the white workers had re- ceived 12 grade promotions in a total service of 22 years. This was an average of one promotion for each two man-years of service. The Negro workers had re- ceived two grade promotions in a total service of 28 man-years. This was one promotion for each 14 man-years of service. In other words, of the 503 whites and 292 Negroes inducted into the agency in the fiscal year 1946 from which 40 pairs were found perfectly matched for the variables of age, sex, marital status, educational level, length of service, di- vision in which inducted, and job title and grade at which inducted, it took the average Negro seven times as long as the averege white to get a promotion. F.nally, labor unions are guilty of dis- criminatory labor practices. Six percent of the complaints received by the FEPC were made against unions. It should, however, be noted that great strides have been made in the admission of minorities to unions. Both the A. F. of L. and the CIO have repeatedly condemned discrim- inatory union practices. But the na- tional organizations have not yet fully attained their goals. Some railway unions have Jim Crow auxiliaries into which Neerces, Mexicans, or orientals are shunted, with little or no voice in union CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE affairs. Furthermore, there is a rigid upper limit on the type of job on which these members can be employed. A wit- ness, who testified as recently as last May before the House Subcommittee on Edu- cation and Labor, stated that five major railroad unions bar Negroes, Mexican- Americans, and Japanese-Americans from membership entirely. As pointed out in the report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, economic discrimination prevents full use of all our resources. During the war, when we were called upon to make an all-out productive effort, we found that we lacked skilled laborers. This shortage might not have been so serious if mi- norities had not frequently been denied opportunities for training and experi- ence. In the end, it cost large amounts of money and precious time to provide ourselves with trained persons. One of the principal economic prob- Jems facing us and the rest of the world is achieving maximum production and continued prosperity. The loss of a huge, Potential market for goods 1s a airect result of the economic discrimination which is practiced against many of our minority groups A sort of vicious circle is produced. Discrimination depresses the wages and income of minority groups. AS a result, their purchasing power is curtailed and markets are reduced. Re- duced markets result in reduced pro- duction. This cuts down employment, which of course means lower wages and still fewer job opportunities. Rising fear, prejudice, and insecurity aggravate the very discrimination in employment which sets the vicious circle in motion. Minority groups are not the sole vic- tims of this economic waste; its impact is inevitably felt by the entire popula- tion. Eric Johnston, when president of the Dnited States Chamber of Commerce, made this point with vividness and clar- ity: The withholding of jobs and business op- portunities from some people does not make more jobs and business opportunities for others. Such a policy merely tends to drag down the whole economic level You can’t sell an electric refrigerator to a family that can’t afford electricity. Perpetuating pover- ty for some merely guarantees stagnation for all. True economic progress demands that the whole Nation move forward at the same time It demands that all artificial barriers erected by ignorance and intolerance be removed. To put it in the simplest terms, we are all in business together. Intolerance is a species of boycott and any business or Job boycott 1s a cancer in the economic body of the Nation. I repeat, intolerance 1s de- structive; prejudice produces no wealth; dis- crimination is a fool’s economy. Mr. Chairman, there is a danger that some of our wartime gains in the elimina- tion of unfair employment practices will be lost unless prompt action is taken to preserve them. In its final report, the FEPC pointed out that the wartime gains of Negro, Mexican-American, and Jewish workers are being lost through an un- checked revival of discriminatory prac- tices. The committee urged that steps be taken by the Government to meet the evil of unequal opportunity among Amer- icans. Although emphasis was placed upon the cfficacy of informal negotiation, community educational efforts, and pub- FEBRUARY 22 lic hearings in dealing with instances of discrimination, the committee expressed the belief that “no device will solve the problem short of the enactment by Con- gress of fair employment legislation.” On July 29, 1949, H. R. 4453, which em- bodies the administration’s fair employ- ment practices program, was approved by the House Committee on Education and Labor. This bill, which stresses the voluntary compliance and educational approach, prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, color, re- ligion, or national origin, and creates a permanent national commission against discrimination in employment to prevent such discrimination. The bill, which covers agencies of the Federal Govern- ment, employers of 50 or more persons whose operations affect interstate or for- eign commerce, Federal contractors and subcontractors who employ 50 or more persons, and labor unions whose prac- tices affect interstate commerce, extends protection against discrimination in em- ployment to such principal minority groups as 13,000,000 Negroes, 5,000,000 Jews, 20,000,000 Catholics, 3,000,000 Americans of Mexican and Hispanic origin, and 11,000,000 persons of foreign birth. The Commission is empowered to investigate each written sworn charge of discrimination in employment, to con- sider the employer’s or union's explana- tion, and to appraise all the surround- ing circumstances in each case. The burden of proof is on the complainant and not on the party accused. If the Commission believes the charge has merit, it will take steps to adjust it by informal methods of conference, con- ciliation, and persuasion. A feature of the bill provides for the setting up of regional, State, and local conciliation councils to promote fair-employment practices by information, education, and conciliation. Where settlement is not possible by conciliation, the Commis- sion will conduct a full and fair hearing in which the party charged has the right by counsel to present his version of the facts and to cross-examine witnesses, After the hearing, the Commission will issue a decision and order. If the order is not complied with, the Commission will appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce it. Defiance of the court order will subject the re- spondent to penalties for contempt of court. The Commission’s orders are en- forcible only by the courts after full hearing. The bill itself provides no criminal or civil penalties, except a pen- alty from $100 to $500 for refusal to post in work places notices regarding the act, and a fine of up to $500 and imprison- ment up to 1 year for forcibly interfering with a member or employee of the Com- mission in the performance of his duties. The Commission is empowered to dis- miss all groundless charges on its own initiative, without forma] hearings and before there is any contact with the ac- cused employer. The FEPC dismissed two-thirds of all the complaints filed with it. It thus served as a necessary safety valve for persons who thought they were discriminated against. The Commission, likewise, would fill t..8 need.