NOT VOTING—27 Allen, La. Gilmer Sadowski Arends Harden }./th, Ohio Brehin Heidrick Smith, Wis. Bulwinkle Jones, Mo. Spence Chatham Macy Van Zandt Davies, N.Y. = Marshall Wadsworth, Eaton Mason Whitaker Engle, Calif. Norblad Wolcott Gillette Fatman Woodruff So the House agreed to consider the bill The Clerk announced the following Pairs: On this vote: Mr. Van Zandt for, with Mr. Gilmer against. Mr. Davies of New York for, with Mr. Jones of Missour! against. Mr. Sadowski for, with Mr. Allen of Louisi- ana against. Mr Gillette for, with Mr. Whitaker against. M:. Hedrick for, with Mr Arends against. Mr. Wolcott for, with Mr. Macy against. Mr. Brehm for, with Mr. Wadsworth against Until further notice: Mr. Chatham with Mr. Mason. Mr. Spence with Mr Norblad. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Woodruff Mr. Patman with Mr. Smith of Wisconsin. Mr. Engel of California with Mis Harden. Mr. Bullwinkle with Mr. Eaton. Mr. RicHakDs changed his vote from “aye” to “no.” Mrs. Rocers of Massachusetts and Mr. Corsretr changed their votes from ‘“no’”’ to “aye.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER The House automati- cally resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill (H_ _R. 4453) to pro- hibit discrimination in employment be- cause of race, color, religion, or national origin, with Mr. Water in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, in order to see if we can arrive at an agree- ment as to time on the McConnell amendment and all amendments there- to, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the McConnell amendment and all amendments thereto close at quarter of 2. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Massachusetts |[Mr. HESEL- TON]. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HESELTON. Is this the amend- ment that followed the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama? The CHAIRMAN. This is the amend- ment that the gentleman from Massa- chusetts offered to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. McConne.r], The question is on the amendment to the amendment, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE FEBRUARY 22 The question was taken; and on a di- .error about that, and I do not think I vision (demanded by Mr. HEsELTON) there were—ayes 186, noes 54. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the McConnell amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:30 a. m. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. WILSON of Texas. man, I object. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debaie on the McConnell amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:30 a. m. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. McCor- MACK and Mr. SHAFER. The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 192, noes 64 So the motion was agreed to. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. POWELL. What is the situation now? Will the Chair kindly state what is before the House now? The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hosss]. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be again reported. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? There was no objection. The Hobbs amendment was again re- ported The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Alabama. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr, Javits) there were—ayes 178, noes 81. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr: COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr Co.meEr to the Steed amendment On page 1, line 12, after “labor organizations”, insert “Provided, how- ever, That it shall not constitute discrimi- nation under this act for a contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission to refuse to employ aliens” Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment about which I spoke to you a moment ago. It involves the secu- rity of this country as it may be affect- ed by the employment of aliens in the production of atomic energy and atomic bombs. I am not going to take up your time since limitation has been placed upon debate, and others will want to speak. I ask for an affirmative vote on this amendment, I call your attention to the fact that in spite of what the gentleman from California said, and regardless of what the present law may be, this law would supersede any existing law. If I am in Mr. Chair- am, then let us play on the safe side. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, a par- lMamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The will state it. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, is the Chair disposed to divide the time in view of the fact that it has been limited, and to announce the Members who will be recognized? The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact that one hour and a half remains for de- bate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to determine the number of Mem- bers who were on their fect, I believe it is advisable to follow the strict rule. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I think we all should support this amendment. But I have taken this time to express a few thoughts in connection with the pending bill. I realize at this lale hour not many votes are going to be changed. But you cannot help thinking that the efforts to pass this FEPC bill are predi- cated upon the desire that we frequently see when somebody finds some situation with which they are displeased. They always say, “There ought to be a law against it.” I am sure from the statements made here and elsewhere in many of the north- ern areas there is discrimination in em- ployment in some cases. But from all the information I have received from people in those areas the trouble is not with the employer in most cases but with the employees, who do not wish to work with groups of certain othcr races, or other minorities. Certainly this bill to force employers to hire and fire at the direction of a Federal commission is not going to correct that situation. There is one thing I think should be pointed out here, and that 1s that while you may pass this FEPC bill and you may provide that five commissioners may subpena the books and records of any company in this country and they may drag the officials of such company to Washington or any place else in the country, and while you may say to those men who they must hire and who they must fire, this bill does not and cannot say to the man in business that he has to stay in business, nor can you make him go into business. Gentlemen, unemployment has _ be- come serious in recent weeks. As a re- sult of the present unemployment we see our friends on the other side of the Capitol] and our friends here making every effort to provide capital and to interest people in going into new busi- nesses. We recognize there must be a business establishment if there is to be employment, and there must be new en- terprises, and if you continue, through this type of legislation, to regiment and to bedevil the men who are in business, you will destroy the very thing you seek, and that is employment for the Ameri- can people, whatever the race may be that they belong to. I recognize that those who suffer from this discrimination in the northern areas—and that is where they are—they are not in the South—wish something to be done. Like all those with a cause to carry, they feel that if they could gentleman
1950 just get a Federal law on the subject, if they could get the Federal] Govern- ment behind their cause, they would bring about a correction of those ills. The records of history do not bear that out. This country was settled by people who came from the countries of Europe because by flat or by law the govern- ments in those countries required all people to conform to one pattern. That is the chief reason most of our people came here. They came here so as not to have to follow the state religion, or to avoid various other oppressions by the various countries from which they came, whereby the powers that were tried to make everybody fit a given pattern. Those countries could not do it then. You cannot do it here. I served, and many of you have served, in the capacity of district attorney, for almost 9 years. You cannot prosecute a whole people. If you try to you will not succeed. You may pass this law but if you do you cannot enforce it. If this bill passes you can bedevil business, you can drag men around, you can cause the closing up of some business and prevent the opening of new businesses, but if you pass this law you are not going to make folks hire and fire men whom they do not wish to hire or fire. I say that the President’s action when he responded with an epithet when someone told him what to do is representative of the ac- tion of many men in this country, when the Government tries through five com- missioners to tell them what they have to do. If you get this act, you may say to @ man that he has got to hire or fire somebody, but you cannot say to him that he has got to go in business. You cannot require that he stay in business. After all, the businessman, the employer who has this business, is the only place where these employees are going to find a job. In my judgment, this type of legislation is defeating the chances of employment on the part of our people, and you are killing the goose that lays the golden egg, because it is business that employs labor, and unless there is business there is no job for labor, and that is true, whatever your race, religion, color, or what have you. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wuir- TEN] has expired. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CotmerR] should be defeated, for two reasons. First, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from California, who is a member of the Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee. Second, because the committee bill itself, which is before us, says: (b) The President shall have power to provide for the establishment of regulations to prevent the committing or continuing of any unlawful employment practice as herein defined by any person who makes a contract with any agency or instrumentality of the United States (excluding any State or polit- ical subdivision thereof) or of any Territory or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, in any amount exceed- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ing 610,000. Such regulations shall be en- forced by the Commission according to the procedure hereinbefore provided. As the gentleman is serious about secu- rity in the atomic-energy program, he should want to leave that flexibility in the Commander in Chief. I would like to address myself, too, to this idea which is contained in both the McConnell amendment and the Steed substitutes of omitting any enforcement powers for FEPC. I address myself to those who are for FEPC, particularly those who are from the great industrial areas, in the hope that you will not de- ceive yourselves about the fact that if you vote for the McConnell amendment or the Steed substitute tonight—though I do not believe many will do that—you are voting for the kind of FEPC so many people have been fighting for. FEPC has got to have the backing of penalties to do its full job in the elimination of discrimination in economic opportunity. You do not have to take my word for that, but read what some practical busi- nessmen have to say in a telegram con- tained in the committee hearings. Wil- liam L. Batt, president of SKF Indus- tries; Spyros P. Skouras, president of Twentieth Century Fox; Beardsley Ruml, then chairman of the board of R. H. Macy & Co.; and Henry R. Luce, editor of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines, say as follows: We like the reliance which the bill puts upon education and conciliation. On the other hand, we recognize the necessity of governmental sanctions when conciliation breaks down. We are not dealing with a privilege. We are dealing with a fundamental civil right. Members ought to agree that the dignity of government requires that that fundamental right—not privilege—shall be implemented with the full power to enforce it. When voting tonight on the McConnell substitute, it is not a ques- tion of voting on something that is not as good, or that is a half a loaf instead of a whole loaf, but an “aye” vote on the McConnell substitute is just not giving needed power to do the full job, while a “no” vote shows a determination to give such power. If you believe in the job to be done—and you must if you believe in FEPC—then your vote must be “no” on the McConnell substitute when the Committee votes shortly. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- ance of my time. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this measure so-called FEPC, There is no employment in it and cer- tainly no fairness to the measure, but I am supporting this amendment. Yes- terday, in the Committee on the Armed Services, we reported out a bill which carried a provision to permit aliens who are top-ranking scientists to work when properly cleared in probably one of the most important installations this Gov- ernment has. I am not sure how this legislation would affect it, and I do not believe anyone on the floor knows how it would affect the employment of the 2241 atomic-energy plants. The history of this matter goes back to 1937, but I do not have time to relate it here. At that time we brought a good many aliens to this country who were important scien- tists—men whom we desired, but who have not yet received their citizenship. We brought from Penemunde men to work in a program of wind tunnels, which is one of the most important that we have today in regard to our whole air- plane program, and I fear what might happen if these people were barred. Many of them have already applied for citizenship in this country. I would at the present time hate to see these people barred from employment because I be- lieve them to be essential in carrying forward a program that is necessary. In regard to the atomic-energy pro- gram, it is not clear to me, as the gentle- man from New York stated, as to whether many of the people whom today we are employing for that purpose could be em- ployed under this restrictive bill we have before us tonight. I certainly hope this House will adopt this amendment to clarify this matter at least until this question can be studied to the point where we can be convinced whether or not these people are eligible for employ- ment, and I trust and hope this body will vote down this measure in toto. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIEMILLER. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would like to make a small contribution to our think- ing on this particular subject. There is nothing in this particular bill which will preclude the Atomic Energy Commis- sion or any contractor asked to do so by the Atomic Energy Commission from ex- cluding any individual on_ security grounds. Race, color, and national ori- gin are included in the bill, to be sure, but security matters are not included in this bill, and any individual can be ex- cluded from any facility of a subcon- tractor, contractor, or the Atomic En- ergy Commission on security grounds, if so desired. Mr. BIEMILLER. I thank the gen- tleman from California for his contri- bution. He emphasizes one of the points I wanted to make, that I think we are, as far as this amendment is con- cerned, talking about something that is unnecessary. The Atomic Energy Com- mittee at the present time has full and ample power to cover any security risks under existing legislation. The amend- ment now pending would not affect that at all. I would like in the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, to devote myself to the question of the basic theory be- hind both the Steed and the McConnell amendments. I agree with the gentle- man from New York [Mr. Javits] who spoke a few moments ago, that any leg- islation that is passed which pretends to be FEPC legislation but does not carry enforcement provisions is meaningless and has little value. This is a point that ought to be clearly understood by those
2242 who are favorable to the passage of FEPFC legislation. I would regard the passage of a bill which does not contain governmental authority to enforce the kind of legisla- tion that we want as being a mere shadow cf the substance that we need. For example, I have in my hand a tele- gram from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in which they point out that the kind of legislation contemplated under both the Steed and the McConnell substitutes has been tried out in the city of Cleveland and it has been found wanting. The city of Cleveland has taken steps within recent weeks to change this legislation from the purely voluntary type, as is proposed in the McConnell and Steed amendments, to one that does carry enforcement provisions. Actually our experience has been that where you have enforcement provisions conciliation and similar procedures work much more expeditiously. You do not have to use the enforcement provisions. But unless that authority is given the governmental body which is in charge of carrying out the FEPC legislation you da not get a full and complete chance to eliminate discrimination. There is no point in kidding ourselves. You can have all kinds of voluntary au- thority. That works in many fields. In many cities and in many States we have mayors’ commissions on civil rights, we have governors’ commissions on civil rights. They are doing a fine educa- tional job, but they are not able to see to it that you get good results in terms of eliminating discrimination in employ- ment possibilities. In my own city of Milwaukee during the war we did succeed in breaking some of the bottlenecks that had previously existed in discrimination against certain racial groups in terms of employment. The wartime FEPC with the authority of the Government behind it, did suc- ceed in persuading some of the largest corporations in the city of Milwaukee to employ Negroes for the first time in history. AS a result today Negroes are being employed in those same corpora- tions. There have been no incidents whatsoever, employment is proceeding on an even keel, the work record is good and there has not been the kind of employee discrimination that certain Members of the House have referred to. In general a very beneficial result has been obtained. That is what I think we can do under the Powell bill. Furthermore, we have ample examples in testimony before the committee, par- ticularly the testimony of Mr. Lewis Hines who represented the American Fedcration of Labor, that Negroes and whites can work together in harmony. I trust we will reject the pending amend- ments and adopt the Powell bill. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer gn amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman’s amendment to the McConnell amend- ment? Mr. RIVERS. I have an amendment for any bill the chairman has on the desk. Which bill is under consideration? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. The only amend- ment that can be offered now is to the McConnell amendment. Mr. RIVERS. I have an amendment to that one too. The CHAIRMAN, The Clerk will re- port the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Rivers to the McConnell amendment: Add a new section as follows: “Any State or possession or any territory over which the United States has jurisdic- tion, control, or mandate which by a ma- jority vote of the legislature or its governing body elects to be exempt shall not be covered by the provisions of this act.” Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is on all fours with the amendment we adopted to the Rent Con- trol Act. We permitted each State to terminate rent control when the respec- tive governing bodies having jurisdiction desired to terminate it. This amendment gives the people of the State of California that right, and I disagree with the gentlewoman from California. I do not believe that 90 per- cent of the people out there do not know what they are doing or did not know what they were doing. On the contrary, I believe that 90 percent of the people did not want FEPC. I want to see that Cali- fornia and the other States who wish to outlaw this iniquitous concoction of goodness knows what may do so. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Ran- KIN] has a name forit. Iam in favor of giving those States the opportunity, when they do not want some of these glorious benefactors from afar coming and im- posing something on them which they do not want, to say so. Unless we do have some sort of refer- endum this thing will be kicked into a cocked hat in the other body—and brother, {t will be, you can depend on that, and I do not care what they say over here—it is going to be killed as dead as Job’s turkey, if you catch the point. But, on the other hand, if we have a referendum in these States on which you want to impose—those of you who are shedding crocodile tears now for the FEPC—and I have got a name for that— those of you who are shedding crocodile tears I want to tell you if they have a referendum, and you comc back here after the next election, if you do, you will come back here with a changed attitude. California had an opportunity, and by over 1,000,000 votes they turned this thing down so fast that it would make your head swim. They got it around more ways than a country boy can go to town. I do not believe the California boys like to be talked about, brother, and I want to tell you this: I believe those Cahfornians knew what they were doing, and any other State, if they have the secrecy of a ballot, and they have a refer- endum, will beat this thing so fast you will never know what happened. All I want to do is to give my State, your State, if they do not want to come under this concoction from Moscow, the opportunity tosayso. Whatelsedo youwant? The Supreme Court, of all people, have ruled that the States of North Carolina and Arkansas could have a closed shop. Bvother, when they say you can have a FEBRUARY 22 closed shop, you can have one with the present membership. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yicld? Mr. RIVERS. from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. DoT understand that un- der the gentleman's amendment the law would go into effect in a State unless it took action to exclude itself? Mr. RIVERS. If they take action to exclude them they do not go under it. But I do not want anybody in South Carolina to run a business like Dewey is doing in New York. He is losing all the business in New York. The port of New York is shrinking up like a California prune. That is your FEPC that Dewey signed with 40,000 pens, the Dewey who is now presiding over the liquidation of the Republican Party by his “me, too” attitude. It is driving industry out of New York like rats from @ sunken ship. The Lieutenant Governor of Massachu- setts got up and shed crocodile tears be- cause industry was headed South. Why? Because they got the land of op- portunity. All I want to do, my col- leagues, is to give the people of this Na- tion an opportunity for self-determina- tion, and if you vote for that oppor- tunity, many of you will come back here, if you come back, with a different tune. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. The gentleman from Wisconsin who just addressed the House quoted from Mr. Hines, of the American Federation of Labor, and I should like to quote further from his testimony on this bill: One of the things that has made us fearful at times has been the fact that we have had so much experience with, shall I say, bu- reaucratic agencies. I do not like to use that term. ‘You set up a commission and the commission goes in business, and they have to have something to do, and they sometimes are looking for business I am just a little bit afraid they may overreach themselves and drag us through a lot of court proce- dure. I strongly urge that you put some protective measure in here to prevent these fellows from dragging everybody in before the Board. Conciliatory methods are the best. I know, for instance, from my experience in trade-union work, going back a good many years, 37, to be exact, that there are some fellows in the unions who would just welcome the opportunity to use this Board as a means of venting their spite on some of the officers of some of the unions, Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON, I yield to the gentle- man from California, Mr. HINSHAW. I thank the gentle- man for this opportunity to bring up a question in connection with section 7 (a) of the Powell bill, or any other related section in the bill, for that matter, I find in this bill no limitation of time whatsoever within which a complainant may make a sworn complaint. In other words, he may complain 1 month, 1 week, 3 months, or 3 years later. There may be somewhere a statute of limita- tions that might govern it ultimately, but that complaint can be brought at any distant time so far as this bill is concerned. I believe that the statute that was offered by initiative petition I yield to the gentleman
1950 and referendum of all the people in Cali- fornia did have such a limitation of time for filing complaints, which this bill does not. This bill provides, of course, that the Commission can require the hiring of complainants or the rehiring of dis- charged employees with or without back pay, and allow for the possible interim earnings or amounts that would be earnable in that time, but nobody knows what the ultimate penalty may be. The worst thing about it, as I see it, is that the man who gets the job is never going to know whether that job is his or not until that statute of limitations, if any, may have run upon the filing of the sworn petition of a dissatisfied com- plainant before the Commission. If someone can tell me where there is a limitation of time I would be elad to know where it is. I have searched the bill through and through, and I can find no limitation of time for the filing of a sworn complaint before the Commission. Why, people can be dead and gone or be in one of a hundred other places in the time the people who make these complaints have to make them. In con- sequence of that, the evidence will have been dispersed, if that is the way you want to look at it. Or if you want to look at it the other way, they can bring a@ complaint in 2 or 3 years, and then how can the employer support his posi- tion, if it is an employer that is being complained against? It is just impos- sible. I can see no possibility of it at all. I would like somebody to explain it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Not only that, but how much must the em- ployer pay this man who brings the com- plaint? There is no telling. Mr. HINSHAW. He must pay him his back pay for nobody knows how long less any credit that may go in against it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; but he can wait 10 years or 2 years or in- definitely. Mr. HINSHAW. Whatever the time limit if any there be, he can wait to bring the complaint. In the meantime, perhaps a long time, the person hired has no job security. The Commission some day may order him replaced by a long-forgotten complainant. Mr. MORTON. I mentioned the gen- tleman from Wisconsin. I now yield to him. Mr. BIEMILLER,. I just want, in ad- dition to the part of the testimony of Mr. Lewis Hines of the A. F. or L. which the gentleman from Kentucky read, to call to your attention the very first para- graph in his testimony: I appear before you today on behalf of the American Federation of Labor to urge prompt enactment of H. R. 4453, a bill to pro- hibit discrimination in employment. While I have no quarrel with the part of the testimony that the gentleman read, and it is there in the Recorp, there was a minor amendment adopted by the committee to meet Mr. Hines’ objec- tions. The American Federation of Labor is firmly behind H. R. 4453. I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE should like to have the Recorp make that point. Mr. MORTON. The gentleman has made no point. I will agree with him. At the same time, Mr. Hines did express grave doubts as to the compulsory fea- tures, and favors the conciliatory fea- tures of the bill. Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, again I wish to re- mind the House of Representatives that I have the distinguished honor of repre- senting the district which was formerly represented by one of the gréatest states- men this country has ever produced, a former Vice President, and one of the foremost exponents of the theory and principles of government as enunciated by Thomas Jefferson. I refer to that gentleman and scholar, the Honorable John C. Calhoun. I regret that he is not alive today and that he is not a Mem- ber of this Congress. If he were among us today I am sure that he would exer- cise his best judgment and infinite wis- dom in opposition to the proposed fair employment practice bill. I feel that I am unworthy to loose the latches of his shoes, but I sincerely hope that I have inherited at least some of his polit- ical philosophy and integrity and that God has given me the ability to express an opposition to this measure which will term me as a worthy successor of his. I want to observe at the outset that some of the observations I shall make on the bill now before us have hereto- fore been made, but I want to repeat or express my views as emphatically and as forcibly as it is possible for me to do so. I further wish to observe that I have not seen or heard of anyone with recog- nized great ability who is following in the footsteps of either Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Alexander Hamilton, or Abraham Lincoln, who has. openly espoused or advocated what is known as the civil-rights program. On the contrary, without reflecting upon the personal character or integrity of any individual, I think it will be gen- erally conceded by the American public that the most ardent advocates of these proposals, and especially the FEPC, will be found among those who do not fully subscribe to the political philosophy of either of the great founders and pre- servers of what has been our two great political parties. Mr. Chairman, it is particularly pleas- ing to me to say that it is not necessary to make any apologies or do any beating around the bush or engage in any dem- agoguery in expressing my opposition to H. R. 4453, a bill to create and make permanent what is known as the Fair Employment Practice Commission. This is true because it is my impression and belief that such bill violates every spe- cific concept of our system of govern- ment and is the most unconstitutional proposal ever presented to this Congress. In fact, it is shocking to realize that an American citizen would even entertain the idea of the proposal before us. In order to keep the records correct, let us look into the history of the FEPC. If my review of the history is accurate, the first decree repealing all restrictions and discriminaticns against national 2243 minorities was in Russia on April 2, 1917, after the downfall of the Russian mon- archy. Even with this decree, racial prejudice continued to exist in Russia because in 1921, after a visit to that sec- tion of Russia known as Georgia, Joseph Stalin remarked and complained that na- tionalism had developed and that there were too many anti-Armenian, anti- Tartar, anti-Georgian, anti-Russian, and other such nationalistic expressions to be heard. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Stalin wrote a law known as the all- races law. That law outlawed discrimi- nation because of race, color, or national origin. At this point, I wish to call par- ticular attention to the fact that H. R. 4453, which is now before us for con- sideration, is far more drastic and com- munistic than the original FEPC law as written by Joseph Stalin. That is true because the present measure before us not only prohibits discrimination because of race, color, and national origin, but it also includes religion and ancestry. Thus, with the inclusion of religion and ancestry it is far more iniquitous and offensive to the human rights of Ameri- can citizens. Appreciating that back- ground, how can any sensible and pa- triotic American citizen honestly tolerate the idea of such proposal, much less give support to it? I shall not attempt to refer to all of the provisions of the bill, but I wish to call attention to the following. In sec- tion 5 we find: Sec. 5. (a) It shall be an unlawful em- ployment practice for an employer— (1) to refuse to hire, to discharge, or other- wise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, 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 48 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, religion, or national origin. (c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer or labor organiza- tion to discharge, expel, or otherwise dis- criminate against any person, because he has opposed any unlawful employment practice or has filed a charge, testified, participated, or assisted in any proceeding under this act. The first thing to be noted is that the law will apply to all employers regardless of what their business is. That is, the law will apply to the employer in a textile or industrial plant, the employer in a department store, filling station, grocery store, restaurant, bank, garage, the trus- tees of public schools, including the per- son or board who employs instructors in private schools, parochial schools, hos- pitals, and so forth. Without question from anyone, one of the most cherished
2244 individual] rights guaranteed by our Con- stitution is the freedom of religion. That freedom has been more jealously guarded by our system of government than any other of the guaranteed free- doms which we enjoy. To show how absurd this proposal is, it would be an unfair labor practice for a Lutheran, Baptist, or other Protestant seminary to refuse to hire an individual who is by his religious faith a Catholic priest. Does that not violate every concept of our guaranty of religious freedom by the Constitution of these United States? The proponents of this measure argue that the law would not be enforced to such an extreme. I donot know how far or to what extent the law would be en- forced, but I am sure that there are mil- lions of citizens in this country who will bear me out and testify to the accuracy of the statement that “if you give the Federal Government an inch it will take a mile”; and that is the case regardless of what the intentions of this Congress may have been. In order to show how the law would operate, let us consider a few examples. Suppose John Doe owns a textile mill in any State of the Union and that he has 200 employees and that all of his jobs are filled. Suppose all of the employees of his mill are skilled and experienced craftsmen and that all of them are white persons. Suppose an individual of color approaches Mr. Doe and makes a request for employment and says that he ts able and qualified to fill the job efficiently. If Mr. Doe refuses to employ such individ- ual of color, regardless of what his reason may be, the applicant could then file a complaint alleging that Mr. Doe had re- fused him employment because of his color. Mr. Doe would then be called and directed to appear before the Commission to answer such charge. The Commis- sion could easily and probably would di- rect My. Doe to employ the individual of color because the Commission would probably take the position that in view of the fact that Mr. Doe employed 200 white persons and no person of color that such was a prima facie case of discrimi- nation. How can any reasonable think- ing American subscribe to such a philosophy? Referring to section 5 (a) (2) above, you will note that it will be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to utilize, in the hiring of individuals, any training school which discriminated against individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. I wish to call your attention to the fact that in most of the 48 States in this Union the practice of segregation among races is followed. That is unquestionably so because the States and local au- thorities deem it advisable and for the best interest of all races concerned. Thus, if this measure should be passed, it would mean that it would be an unlawful em- ployment practice for an employer to hire an individual trained under the veterans’ training program if such in- dividual were trained in a high school or college which practiced segregation in accordance with its State laws. How can the American public subject themselves to such an unconstitutional and dicta- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE torial order from the Federal Govern- ment? Mr. Chairman, the purposes of this bill are not only absurd but are ridicu- lously so. The time has come when the people of this country, as individuals, must rise to the situation and not con- tinue to be Julled to sleep by civic in- difference if they expect our cherished institutions to survive. It is time for the people to realize that many of their elected representatives in the Govern- ment, both on a Siate and national level, are promulgating a philosophy of gov- ernment which is either communistic or socialistic under the guise of liberalism. Many of us are liberal in our thoughts and are willing to support and espouse liberal measures for the welfare of all mankind, but not to the extent of violat- ing the original concepts and precepts of our Constitution. The time has come and in fact is far past due when the people of this country must stop, think, and take stock of their own individual political philosophy. It is incumbent upon each of us to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental principles of democracy as enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and other of our found- ing fathers, or else we can only expect to pull the roof in on our own heads by developing a centralized government; a government that would direct and con- trol the individual in his daily actions and enterprise. That is exactly what the Communists desire us to do and that is exactly what the proponents of this measure would have us do, regardless of what they say. We must remember that every indi- vidual in this country has several kinds of rights. Furst, every individual has what is known as constitutional rights, and then he has what js known as legal rights, both of which are guaranteed by our Constitution and enforcible in the courts of law. Then every individual has what is known as civil rights—rights common to all persons—and it has been decided time and time again that the jurisdiction of our Government over civil rights is limited and that no power to regulate them has been granted or given to the Congress. The right to work, the right to establish a business, the right to own property are all civil rights and be- long to every American repardiess of whether he is white or black, Jew or gentile, male or female. It is a civil right for an individual to employ whom he pleases and to run his business as he desires. It is his civil right to employ only bald-headed men, only red-headed women, only colored men, only Chinese, only men with false teeth, only one- legged men, if he so desires, and he vio- lates no law when he exercises his choice and thereby discriminates against all other classes of persons. This Congress has no right nor constitutional author- ity to tell an American citizen whom he shall employ in his own business, how many people he shall employ, or wheth- er he shall employ anyone, or whether any percentage of those he does employ shall be white or colored, or whether any percentage shall adhere to a par- ticular creed or spring from any particu- lar ancestry, or whether any percentage FEBRUARY 22 shall be of any particular national ori- gin. Yet, the intent and purpose of H.R. 4453 is for the Government to com- pel an individual to employ whom the Government says and to run the indi- vidual’s business and leave nothing to the individual himself to say about his own business, If that is not commu- nism, I do not know what is. The operation of this bill, if enacted into law and administered as it 1s writ- ten, can only mean that the man of color, the person of a particular nation- ality, race, or creed will be able to select and demand the job he wants, leaving the average white man to take a job only where he can find it and then con- tent himselt with it because there is nothing in this bill that will assure or guarantee him anything cxcept being required to give his place to someone else Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, at this late hour it is neither my intention nor desire to trespass upon your patience; but the measure before us is so far reaching in its consequences, so momen- tous in its results, that I feel every Mem- ber of this House, and I mean on both sides of the aisle, should procecd most cautiously and carefully in its considera- tion. Four years ago last month, in January 1946, this measure was debated at long length, with great philosophical insight and historical knowledge, and political acumen, I will add, in another body in this Capitol. At that time I read the de- bates as assiduously as I did my Bible. I have reread those debates during the past 24 hours while you were answering roll calls and heckling one another. I read them with profit. I only wish that every Member present could read the intelligent, logical, irrefutable arguments advanced by the junior Senator from Georgia in another body, without rancor, without malice, without envy, and I could say much more. You pess this bill and you strike a death blow at hberty. Oh, I know the hign-sounding titles—fair employment. It is the most unfair thing that was ever concocted in the mind of any man. I am the only Republican left in Missouri. Ferhaps I will not be here next time; but that matters httle. Thank God my father came from Tennessee and my mother from Kentucky. I love the col- ored feople. They understand me and I understand them. We have not hed their votes for 15 years. You all know it, but I have received my share in my own district. Nationally we have re- ceived a small percentage. And if any of you Republicans are silly enough to think you are going to get them by voting for this particular measure, you go jump in the lake. It is not for votes or against votes. The colored people are too good and too intelligent to be misled. You cannot fool them. My _ grandfather fought to free them. Here is a thing that absoiutely places a halter around the neck, tightens the noose around the heads of American business. Jew, gen- tile, white, and colored are bound by it. I do not care whether they are colored or white, Greek, barbarian, Jew, or gen-
1950 tile, you are going to try to tell the people of this country whom they can hire and whom they can fire, and when and how. The board you set up will act as prose- cutor, judge, and jury. None of us want that. You should have had enough ex- perience under OPA and WPA to teach you Democrats a little lesson. But you live so long and learn so little. God help all of us. It is only out of my solicitude for your welfare that I am offering you a little sound advice. Now, do not do this. Do not do this thing. For the sake of us all, do not do it. I know, whether from Mis- souri or Indiana or Mississippi or any other State, if you try to force some- thing upon the people in another State that are outnumbered do you know what you are going to do? You are going to stir up class consciousness and conflict and strife. You are going to get some good people killed. It is safe to bet your dollar against the hole in a doughnut that if any north- erner lived in Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana, he would feel exactly as do the residents of those States. Practically all lynching and violence has been ex- terminated because of patriotic south- erners, and I dare say that the most ardent advocate of this vicious bill— whether he comes from New York, New Jersey, or Wisconsin—would feel exactly as do the citizens of all our Southern States, Georgia, Florida, et cetera, if he lived there. Lincoln once said, in essence, that as long as you keep the Government close to the people the Government will be safe, but when you direct the Govern- ment from afar, we are in grave danger. Mr. Chairman, certainly every Mem- ber of Congress, and I dare say every schoolboy knows that we have a dual form of government: Federal and State. What powers are not granted unto the Federal Government are reserved to the States under our Federal Constitution. Why should we at this hour, after dis- playing such unity and interest of pur- pose, be divided in this most difficult postwar period? There is no reason whatever why Kansas should tell Mis- sissippi what to do any more than Ala- bama should tell New York what to do. Yet, there are Members of this body so unschooled, uneducated, and inex- perienced that they would impose the will of one sovereign State upon another. That is not only absurd and ridiculous, but is contrary to the fundamental law of this land, which is the Constitution under which we live. Mr. Chairman, no good can come from this radical proposal, though it be cloak- ed in the name of humanitarianism and wear the masquerade of civil rights. In many States where the vote has been taken in the State legislatures—with the exception of New York and New Jersey— this proposal has been overwhelmingly defeated. Every Member of this House wants to protect every citizen of our country, but if you pass this bill you are once more going to stir up the strife, bitterness, and hatred that led to a war between ourselves, and, as a friend of the colored people, whose forebears fought to set them free, I dare say you CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE are going to get a lot of people killed. I do not want that to happen. At this particular time, above all others, when we need unity and solidarity among our citizens, I am sure that the colored people, as always, particularly those who think for themselves, will not hesitate to join us to see that this evil thing does not happen. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I realize at this late hour there is very little that can be said that will change votes one way or the other. Like the preceding speaker, I think this measure is very far-reaching and will have such tremendous potential effect upon the economic future and body politic of this country that I do not want to see it passed without saying at least something in reference to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I spent my legislative life on the Committee on the Armed Services, When I look at this or any other far-reaching measure presented to this body for consideration, I think of it, naturally, in terms of the committee on which I have the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives. To- night when I approach this measure I think of it from the standpoint of its ef- fect or possible effect upon the national defense of the United States. The Colmer amendment to date is the only one which in my judgment has brought to the forefront any discussion whatever as to the possible effect this might have upon the defense of our coun- try. I have heard no argument or any discussion whatsoever by either side in reference to the matter; and, yet, Mr. Chairman, I know that not only do we have these atomic-energy contracts throughout the country; but also we have many other contracts covering scientific exploration, covering electronics, and covering other matters such as guided missiles that are extremely secret and extremely vital to the defenses of the United States, and I am wondering— and I should like to hear someone tell me—just how the establishment of a board such as this to preside over the matter of the hiring and firing of men and women in those industries of a pri- vate nature that have these secret con- tracts is going to affect the defenses and the security of the country. I do know that up in the great State of New York where General Electric has so many highly secret and highly confidential contracts that General Electric has had a great deal of trouble getting proper employees who were trustworthy, who could be depended upon and relied upon to be loyal to this country and maintain the secrecy which is naturally imposed upon them when they gain employment in a secret project. It seems to me that is tremendously important the committee and whether you are out at Los Alamos with an atomic-energy contract, whether you are down in Florida with a guided mis- siles contract, whether you are in New York State, or Massachusetts, or Wash- ington, or Oregon, the same problem is coming up: Will this legislation injure 2245 national] defense by making it possible to block our scientific advancement and development, hurting those projects in our national defense which are highly confidential and highly secret and in which complete confidence must be maintained, or will it aggravate the situation which we have seen uncovered in the last few months? Will it lead to a further betrayal of the secrets of this Nation to an alien enemy? I think this Congress ought to think seriously of that matter. I do not believe this feature of the bill has been carefully thought out. I am afraid it has been overlooked and I am concerned that our national safety is being jeopardized. Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEED. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. JACOBS. I would like to call the attention of the gentleman from Cali- fornia who raised the question in regard to limitation to page 12, lines 8, 9, and 10, which read as follows: Any written charge filed pursuant to this section must be filed within 1 year after the commission of the alleged unlawful em- ployment practice. I think that answers his question. Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, . the pending Colmer amendment, in my opin- jon, will be acceptable to my bill and I think it would not take anything away from the McConnell bill. If applied to the original Powell bill, however, it will mean absolutely nothing because section 10 of the Powell bill tries to deal with that subject and I submit to you again that so long as the remainder of the Powell bill is permitted to stand as it does, section 10 does not have any mean- ing at all. Again, I would like to call your atten- tion to subsection (b) of section 2 which says that these rights are to be had for all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States Government. You know, when you have enemy spies, or enemy aliens get into this country, they are within the jurisdiction of this Govern- ment. I call your attention also to sub- section (a) of section 7. Section 5 sets up what is unfair-em- ployment practices and subsection (a) of section 7 says that the power to en- force these provisions against unfair practices is an exclusive power and shall not be affected by any other means that have been or may be effected by agree- ment. So under that language section 10 would not mean a thing. This Com- mission, if it saw fit under the language of section 2 and section 7, could make the Atomic Energy Commission hire anybody that they saw fit if he claimed he was a member of a minority race, even if he were an enemy spy. I do not think anybody can successfully dispute that because the language is very plain. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEED. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr.SHORT. The able and very earn- est gentleman from Oklahoma has put
2246 his finger right on the nailhead. Does he know of any minority group any- where in all this country who is being persecuted or discriminated against? Mr. STEED. I do not. Mr. SHCRT. Does he not know that every minority group anywhere in the world is eager to get into this country? Mr. STEED. That is right. There is one other thing I want to submit to the committee. It is very difficult for me to follow the line of consistency in some minds here. I remind you that about a year ago we had the Lesinski bill up to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act and these same so-called northern liberals were up here pounding against that law. They said that we did not need the power, the injunction power, that collective bar- gaining and public influence would be enough. Yet today these same men say that they have to have the punitive pow- er in the FEPC. You heard the gentleman from New York in a threatening tone say, ‘You vote for this Powell bill or you will get the consequences.” He says that you cannot vote for my bill or the McCon- nell bill that do all these terrible things. Since when has the dependency upon- the sense of fairness, of common sense, and common decency of the American people been something that is so bad? Why can we not here in this program accept mediation, conciliation, and edu- cation and an appeal to the common sense and fairness of the people of this country to get results? The gentleman from Wisconsin said here that you have got to have the power, you have got to have a knife at the throat of the employer before you can make him conciliate, yet, in the next breath he brags about the great progress they have made in Milwaukee without any law or without any force at all. To me, if my understanding of language is correct, the man contradicts himself before he gets the words out of his mouth. Gentlemen, this is a large country and it has problems that are peculiar to dif- ferent sections. We are trying to come here with a program that is fair and reasonable, that has a chance to work, because it has the most potent power in @ democracy that you can get for its enforcement, the power of public opin- jon. The substitute bill that we have pending here sets up the machinery to bring public opinion into force. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, a par- lamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HARRIS. I should like to inquire how many amendments are on the desk to the pending substitute. The CHAIRMAN. According to the latest count, there are 46 amendments, Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, a fur- ther parliamentary inquiry. The pend- ing amendment has been debated now for about 35 minutes. Is there any Indi- cation that there will be a vote on the pending amendment, giving time to other Members who have amendments to have an opportunity to discuss them before the time limitation for debate ends at 2:30? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. If the Committee desires that there be a vote on the amendment, of course, it can express that desire; that is, on the Rivers amendment to the McConnell amend- ment. . The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Rivers) there were—yeas 118, noes 126. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the chair- man appointed as tellers Mr, RIvers and Mr. POWELL. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The lim- itation on time fixed the time at a pre- cise hour rather than so many minutes, The effect of teller votes, then, is simply to take time out of the time allowed for debate? The CHAIRMAN. OT! course, it comes out of the time. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 134, noes 134. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair votes in the negative. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hopss: At the end of the McConnell amendment insert a new section 8 to read as follows: “Nothing in this act shall mean, nor be construed to mean, that any person who lacks the qualification necessary to ft one to perform the duties of the Job for which that person may be applying must be em- ployed 1n spite of his disqualifications.” Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, this is substantially the same amendment that we have already adopted to the Steed amendment, or substitute bill, so I do not care to make an argument on it again, except to simply say that what- ever was said then we want you to con- sider again. And we hope that you will take the same action with regard to amending the McConnell bill that you did with regard to the Steed bill and adopt this amendment. The parliamentarians tell me that I should offer to amend both. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOBBS. Yzs, sir, Gladly. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, a while ago J called attention to the fact that there was no limitation of time for an agerieved person to file a complaint. I find, after listening to the gentleman from Indiana, who said that there was time, namely, 1 year, as contained in line 10 on page 12, that that refers only to the written charges filed by the Com- mission and not to the sworn written charges that have been filed on behalf of the person claiming to be aggrieved. Therefore I was right in the first in- stance. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, HOBBS. Of course, sir. Mr. FEBRUARY 22 Mr. JACOBS. I would like to say to the Members, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California is correct. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE] called it to my attention and I have put an amendment on the Clerk’s desk to strike out the word “written” so that it would apply to both written and sworn charges. Mr. HINSHAW. I thank the gentle- man for his acknowledgment of the sit- uation. Mr. JACOBS. The gentleman {is cor- rect. And I want to express gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin for calling it to my attention. Mr. KEEFE, I, too, thank the gentle- man. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOBBS. Yes, sir, with pleasure, Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there are some 40 amendments pending at the Clerk's desk and the time has been fixed for 2:30, I ask unanimous consent that hereafter those who are recognized to speak on their amendment be limited to 30 seconds. That will give everybody a chance to say something. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota? Mr. SIKES, Mr. TACKETT, and Mr. JENNINGS objected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama IMr. Hosss]. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr, Javits) there were—ayes 149, noes 91. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. The CHAIRMAN. The from Indiana is recognized. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I know there are two of us here who have been trying to get the floor for a few minutes since 3 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. This gentleman has had the floor three or four times. The CHAIRMAN. That is not a par- NWamentary inquiry. Mr. TACKETT. If that is not dis- crimination I do not know what is. We have discrimination right here in this House of Congress. Mr, JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to point out again what I stated earlier, that under the Powell bill the Commis- sion is not empowered to find anyone guilty of a crime at all; that is not cor- rect, according to my understanding, and I have read the bill. The Commis- sion makes a finding as to whether or not there has been an unfair-employ- ment practice. A cease-and-desist or- der is then enforcible by the court and the only way a man can get put in jail under that procedure would be for him to refuse to obey the order of the court. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS I yield to the gentle- man from New Jderscy. gentleman
1950 Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Is not the same procedure provided under many administrative acts, such as the Secu- rities and Exchange Act, the Federal Trade Commission Ac‘, the Labor Rela- tions Act, and many others? Is not that the standard procedure? Mr. JACOBS. Certainly it is. The only criminal provision in this bill—let us get that straight again—is where an individual would resist or interfere with an officer of this Commission, which would then be an offense and there is provided a fine up to $500 or a year in jail, But that is not for an unfair-em- ployment practice. It is for resisting or interfering with an officer of the Gov- ernment. Now, that is the fact of the case, Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. McCONNELL. Of course, the op- portunity to interfere comes from the fact that the Commission under admin- istrative procedure is enabled to put an order on a man which he does not choose to obey. That order may have been put on him without a real opportunity to present all of the necessary evidence. By that process a man is subject to fine or imprisonment, if the courts would s0 hold. Mr. JACOBS. That is quite true, I agree with the gentleman. It is the same as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Case] pointed out a moment ago. This is true in many administrative acts. The truth of the matter is the criminal pro- vision you are talking about would not be triable before this Commission at all. It would be triable before a court. Mr. McCONNELL. But the court fol- lows a commission’s order. Mr. JACOBS. Oh, no, the gentleman is confused on that. Let me straighten him out. Under section 14 1t would pro- ceed to an indictment against a man for interfering with an officer of the United States Government. The Commission would not have a thing to do with that. Mr. McCONNELL. The Commission would start the whole process. Mr. JACOBS. Oh, no. Mr. McCONNELL. Oh, yes, by saying in an administrative order of the Com- mission originally that an employer has to do certain things or cease and desist. Mr. JACOBS. Does not the gentleman undcrstand that under your administra- tive procedure where you get a cease- and-desist order, that may eventuate into a court order and disobedience thereof, then a contempt proceeding. Mr. McCONNELL. But it arises from the Commission’s original order. Mr. JACOBS. Yes, but it does not arise under section 14, the criminal pro- vision. What I am trying to point out is that under section 14 you merely have a provision which is similar to title 18, sections 453 and 454, protecting Federal officers in the discharge of their duty. A man violating section 14 would not come before the Commission at all. He would be indicted, he would have a hearing be- fore a court. It would be triable before a jury. That is the thing I am afraid some Members are confused on. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I understand there are several amend- ments to the Steed amendment pending at the Clerk’s desk. Is it proper to offer amendments to the Steed amendment while the Colmer amendment is still pending before the Committee? The CHAIRMAN. Not until the Col- mer amendment is disposed of. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida {Mr. Rocers]. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Rocers of Florida to the bill, H. R. 6841: Page 1, line 9, after “creed” insert ‘“‘sex.” Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, while I am opposed to this bill be- cause I think it is unconstitutional, un- American, and an infringement upon the freedom of choice in selecting em- ployees, however, I am proposing this amendment so the women of this coun- try will have equal rights with men, should this measure become a law. The only thing my amendment does is to add the word “sex’’ after the word “creed”, so that it will read as follows: That properly qualified persons shall] not be discriminated against by reason of race, creed, sex, or color. That takes care of any discrimination against the women of this Nation. The bill without this amendment is the rank- est kind of discrimination against the women citizens of our Nation. There can be no reason why the feminine seg- ment of our population should not be in- cluded if such a law should be passed, s0 I propose by this amendment to place women on an equality and on the same level with men in the employment field. Here we are supposed to be passing a Fair Employment Practice Act without any discrimination, and you discriminate against the women of this Nation. I might state to those Members of the House who are supporting this bill purely for political purpose~, that in failing to take the rights of the women into con- sideration, you are overlooking the fact that the women cf this Nation consti- tute a majority of the voters. In the general election of 1949 the women cast 51 percent of the votes and in 1944 they cast 53 percent and possibly a larger per- centage than this in 1948. So Iam sure that with this information you can strain your conscience and support this amend- ment. I hope that the membership of this House will take this amendment seri- ously, because I am serious when I pro- pose it. I say “There is nothing too good for our women” as I have heretofore said about our veterans. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WINSTEAD. The gentleman is always sincere, and certainly we should 2247 not exclude the women !f we are going to see that everybody is treated fairly in this bill. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. HESELTON. I trust my gallant friend from Florida is not suggesting that this legislation will accomplish the same purpose as was alleged last June or July with reference to another piece of legis- lation. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We are right now beginning to give equal treat- ment to the women. There is now pend- ing what is known as an equal-rights amendment giving equality of treatment to the feminine sex—and it is high time that they be given such consideration. I might state that nowhere in the Con- stitution of the United States does the feminine gender appear. The nearest approach is when the franchise was granted to the women and even there the amendment read that no one shall be deprived of the right to vote because of sex. I believe we ought to take care Uf the women in this bill and I trust my amend- ment will be adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Rocers]. The amendment was aegrced to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi |Mr. Cotmer]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. CoLmer) there were—ayes 182, noes 105. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr SmitH of Vir- ginia to the amendment offered by Mr. Mc- CONNELL: On page 6, line 25, after “place”, strike out “in the United States or any Ter- ritory or possession thereof, at any designated place of hearing,” and insert in lieu thereof the following: “within the area of the United States District Court in which the hearing fe held” Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McCONNELL. I eonsider this a good amendment, and I accept it. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chai- man, I think perhaps I had better take half a minute to say what the amend- ment is about. Under the bill as drafted this com- mission can drag a witness or a defendant from California to Maine, and make him bring all his books, papers, and witnesses with him. The purpose of this amend- ment is to confine that jurisdiction so that he cannot subpena people outside of the Federal district court area in which the action is pending If they want to have the hearing in California, Jet the Commission go to California, in- stead of all the citizens coming here. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia and all
2248 the other amendments that have been adopied to the McConnell amendment and to the Steed amendment, but pri- marily to the McConnell amendment, accomplish only one thing, and that is the torpedoing of FEPC. I think this has become obvious. The McConnell amendment started out as a bill to nul- lify FEPC. If there were any doubts of it, these amendments that have been added definitely nullify the very objec- tives of FEPC. A vote for the McCon- nell amendment is a vote against FEC. You are only voting for words, that is all, when you vote for the McConnell amendment. You are not voting for FEPC, and you are not going to fool any- body by the title. You are not going to fool the American people by ii. You are not going to fool the American people by just giving us a bare bill, with merely a title. That title is empty. The Mc- Connell bill 1s now being used to sabotage genuine FEPC legislation in this House. I hope you will bear that in mind when you vote on the McConnell amendment. Mr. McCONNELL. Does the gentle- man not admit that we set up an FEPC Commission? Mr MARCANTONIO. You set up an FEPC Commission and then you nullify every principle of FEPC, Mr. McCONNELL. Is not that prog- ress? Mr. MARCANTONIO. No; it is not. This is what you have done to FEPC, you have teken oui the molars, you have taken out all the teeth, you have sawed off the arms and the legs and cut off any- thing that counts in FEPC. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Virginia [Mr. SmitH]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. LESINSKI) there were—ayes 211, noes 116. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which is at the Cierk’s desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Coumer to the amendment offered by Mr. MCCONNELL’ Page 8, line 4, insert u new paragraph as tollows “None of the provisions of this bill shall apply to employment by the Atomic Energy Commission or any contractor or licensee of the Atomic Energy Commission.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Mississippi | Mr. CoLMErR]). The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that those Mem- bers who have amendments at the Clerk's desk at this time and who have not had an opportunity to be recognized for debate, may extend their remarks in the Recorp at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who want to extend their remarks in favor of the McConnell amendment as such may be permitted to do at this point, even though they do not have individual amendments, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? Taoere was no objection. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the Clerk's desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Sixes to the amendment offered by Mr. McCONNELL: Add a new section: “Provided, however, That the mere absence of individuals of a particular race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry in the employ of any person shall not be evidence of discrimination against individuals of such lace, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry.” Mr. SIKES.~ The amendment which I offer, Mr. Chairman, is not a whimsical or time-killing amendment. I read it for full understanding of the member- ship: Provided, however, That the absence of in- dividuals of a particular race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry in the employ of any person shall not be evidence of discrim- ination against individuals of such race, re- ligion, color, national origin, or ancestry. May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that failure to adopt my amendment may leave it in the discretion of some board of the future to hold that the absence of such individuals in the employ of any person is discrimination. Quite obviously such a situation would permit the Nation’s business to be throt- tled by bureaucracy. The courts of the land could be hopelessly clogged with un- warranted evidence of interference with business and trade under the cloak of discrimination. Mr. Chairman, we are secking to avoid that most dangerous of all fovern- ments—government by minority. Ma- jorities have rights, Mr. Chairman, and I fear that we are prone to lose sight of the fact that democracy is government by the majority. The FEPC measure is not a bill for the good of the majoriiy. It seeks to give undue control to a munority—a very small minority. Hitler was a minority product, Mr. Chairman, and ruthlessly using a mi- nority for his own purposes, Hitler forced his will upon the German people. The rest is history. I fear, Mr. Chairman, that if we pass an FEPC measure we shall be treading much too close on Hitler’s heels. My amendment will afford some measure of protection and I hope it will be adopted. Tne CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida |Mr. Srxes). The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, J cffer an amendment to the Mc- Connell amendment, which is at the desk, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Bennerr of Florida to the amendment offered by Mr, McConneL_: On page 1, line 9, after the words ‘‘by reason of", insert “physical dis- ability.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, FEBRUARY 22 Mr, HALE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hare to the amendment offered by Mr. McCoNNELL: On page 1, line 9, after the word “three”, insert “political affiliation.” On page 2, line 5, insert “political affilla- tlon.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Maine to the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is largely noncontroversial. If the intent of this Committee is to enact legislation designed to protect the rights of United States citizens to employment without discrimination, then, I believe it will will- ingly accept this amendment designed to deal with perhaps the greatest employ- ment-discrimination practice of all, the denial of jobs to men and women because of thelr political affiliation. I want to make my position clear upon the bill we are presently considering. If a bill is reported to the House in sub- stantially the same form in which it was reported from the Commitiee on Labor, I shall vote against it. I am strongly op- posed to legislation which would attempt to make men's attitudes rather than their actions a basis for legal penalty. Further than this, however, the origi- nal bill is based upon the false premise apparent in so much legislation offered today—the false premise that we can solve basic problems by dealing with their effects rather than with their cause. Discrimination, and I do not deny that it exists, is an effect, not a cause. Dis- crimination is caused by prejudice, and we will not remove prejudice by legisla- tion which can only excite the passions of men. It seems clear to me that this bill will merely inflame prejudice by forc- ing men to do what they are not prepared to do in their hearts and minds. We have never yet succeeded in curing an ill by passing a law against its symptoms. We could not force men who wanted to drink to stop drinking; we only made their thirst greater. We could not com- mand prices to remain stable as Jong as our money was inflated, supply was short, and demand was heavy; we only raised prices higher by increasing the demand and intensifying the shortage. We can- not deal with causes by passing laws pro- hibiting their cffects. I believe there 1s a chance to deal with the problem of prejudices and the effect of prejudices, employment discrimina- tion, through voluntary means, through education, conciliation, and mediation. It is with that hope that I support this noncontroversial amendment. I need not speak at length concerning the necessity for it. It is sufficient for me to say, I believe, that this Government, your Government and mine, is presently in the process of hiring some 160,000 men for temporary assignment to the 1950 census. On practically every one of those jobs there is an invisible, but very real, qualifying requirement. That re- quirement reads, “Members of the party
1950 in power only. apply.” Those jobs Mr. Chairman, are being let at this very instant, by your Govern- ment and mine, while we sit here and talk, in the abstract, about discrimina- tion, because of man’s belief, if you please, in private employment. Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, some 160,000 jobs are now being filled by your Government and mine, and it is well understood throughout this great Nation that the prime requirement for one of those jobs jis an ability to satisfy the hirer of party regularity. I sincerely hope the Committee will adopt my amendment, and that we can then proceed, in the American way, through voluntary persuasion, to per- suade the party in power of the basic im- morality of this large-scale job dis- crimination. AMENDMENT TO H. R. 4453, THE FEPC Page 1, in the title; page 2, line 1; page 2, line 20; page 6, line 3; page 6, line 9; page 6, line 18 and page 10, line 11, after the word “ancestry”, insert the words “political af- filiation” and a comma, and after paragraph (g) of section 3, add a new paragraph, as follows: “(h) The term ‘political affiliation’ means membership in or affillation with a political party or adherence to or belief in the principles of a political party: Provided, That the term ‘political party’ shall not in- clude the Communist Party or any political organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government by force or any illegal or unconstitutional means.” All others need not Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the substitute amend- ment offered by Mr. STEED. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. REDDEN to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. STEED: On page 1, line 12, after the words “labor organizations”, insert “Provided, however, That the fact of having an individual of a particular race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry in the employ of a person shall create a presumption that such person has not and does not discriminate against persons of that race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Okla- homa. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Battie to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Streep: On page 2, Mine 12, strike out the word “eliminate” and insert “persuaded the per- son charged to eliminate.” Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman, the en- actment of H. R. 4453 would be a serious mistake. Such legislation is unconsti- tutional, unenforcible, and unwise. This is clearly a proposal for too much government. Discrimination of itself is a bad prac- tice, of course. I am not here to defend it. I would like to state why I feel this bill is not the way to attack discrimina- tion in employment. In the first place, H. R. 4453 is unconstitutional. What part of the Constitution gives the Gov- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ernment the right to establish a Federal agency that can bypass the State gov- ernment; that can bypass the local gov- ernment; that can go into a union or business and judge whether or not some- one has been discriminated against? The bill would invade a realm of human activity which is not subject to legisla- tion. Why not enact laws requiring all people to be kind or to like everybody else? They would be just as sensible. How can an agent of the Government peer into a man’s soul and tell whether he acted through discrimination or for a dozen other reasons? Is it the prerog- ative of the Government to decide that an employee was dismissed because of his church affiliation rather than be- cause he was an inferior worker? If Government ever assumes this right, America cannot call her soul her own. The American Bill of Rights guaran- teed certain freedoms to the individual. This bill would deny some of those basic rights. Freedom of contract, freedom to choose those who work with you or for you—these would be destroyed by H. R. 4453. Under this bill you would even be denied the right of trial by jury— as fundamental as any civil right. First then, the bill is unconstitutional. Second, it is unenforcible. Imagine the enormous network of Federal agents required to ferret out and report cases of so-called discrimination throughout the land—to investigate and hold hearings. An army of investigators could never scratch the surface. Business and labor unions would be constantly disrupted by Government investigations; employees would feel insecure and suspicious of each other. Morale would be destroyed. Ac- tually the bill would discriminate against the majority by giving special privilege to the minority. A union or an employer would hesitate to take any action at all involving a member of a minority group for any reason on matter how valid. As was pointed out. in the minority re- port on S 984 of the E:ghtieth Congress, a@ similar bill: In any large establishment employees and applicants for employment are certain to in- clude persons of different races, religions, and color. Any selection and treatment of a par- ticular person can plausibly be complained of as an unlawful discrimination. Small-business men and unions would not have the time nor the money to spend for going to court to appeal unfair deci- sions of the Fair Employment Practice Commission. H. R. 4453 prohibits discrimination against “properly qualified” persons. But who decides whether a person is “properly qualified”? Is the employer no longer to have that right? And who has the final say as to whether an em- ployer or a union acted through discrim- ination? These are intangibles beyond the power of Government to decide. Apart from these arguments, there are certain communities which by tradition and heritage are deeply opposed to enact- ment of this kind of law. In these places such a law could not be enforced except by mass coercion. Mr. Walter Lippmann puts it this way: There are certain kinds of laws which, though enacted, cannot be enforced by any means that the majority is able or willing 2249 to employ. These are laws to which a siz- able region, even though it is numerically a minority in the Nation, is so deeply op- posed that it will resort to nullification, re- sistance, passive and active disobedience, to thwart enforcement—and in the extreme and ultimate cases to insurrection and re- bellion, The cost, the trouble, the futility, and the danger, of trying to enforce laws under these conditions are 80 great that the majority will not, as a matter of fact, insist on enforcing them. If it 1s wise, it will not enact such laws. Of the more than half a million peo- ple who live in my district an overwhelm- ing majority agree with Mr. Lippmann that this type of legislation is unwise. This is not because the majority of our people are unintelligent or uneducated or biased. It is because our people—the wisest and most forward looking—the true leaders of both races—are convinced that the delicate problem of race rela- tions must be met by enlightened action from within—not by coercion from with- out. This is a problem which is exceed- ingly intricate and far reaching—not to be dealt with lightly or with expedience. To understand the problem requires first- hand study over a considerable period. It is something which must be lived with. Only then can a realistic solution be worked out. To be successful, legislation in the field of race relations must be grounded in the good will of the people who are to carry it out. It must be local in origin and spirit. Of course, this implies a responsibility of a community to meet its minority problem squarely with an enlightened program—with constructive action. This we are doing in the South. Sub- stantial progress has been made and is being made—progress which would be seriously retarded by the enactment of legislation such as H. R. 4453. As an ex- ample, in the city of Birmingham we have 41 percent Negroes in our popula- tion. ‘You will probably be surprised to learn that they receive over 41 percent of the funds available for education while contributing perhaps less than 10 percent of the taxes. Some people are more interested in making political cap- ital out of this issue than they are in investigating the facts. As further illus- tration I cite two recent news items which are self-explanatory: {From the Birmingham Post of January 31, 1950) MONUMENT TO GOOD WILL Long overdue and twice postponed in the past year to avoid conflicts with other fund- raising efforts of our community, Jefferson County's campaign to raise $150,000 for the building of a hospital for Negroes will get under way tomorrow. For many years the need for such a hospital has been recognized by everyone familiar with the facts but little of a concrete nature was done about it until the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, a Catholic order widely experi- enced in the operation of hospitals, hecame interested and accepted responsibility for its operation once it is built. A square- block site in the Tuxedo Junction section of Ensley was acquired and by private subscrip- tion $103,000 was raised for building pur- poses. Since then plans have been drawn and a commitment has been made by the Federal Government, under the Hill-Burton Act, to provide $500,000 toward the program when the $150,0°9 now sought is in hand.
2250 That will make a total of $750,000 available for the building and its equipment. It will make available 60 badly needed additional hospital beds and other facilities for Negro patients. Of equal importance and signifi- cance it will provide a suitable place to prac- tice for the 37 Negro doctors in Jefferson County who are without such facilities today. Part of the money to be raised will come from our Negro citizens themselves but most of it must be made up of gifts from among their white friends. It would be a grand thing if every white citizen in the county would give something toward this worthy undertaking. We could ask no better opportunity than, by raising this $150,000 in record time, to make this institution of healing and mercy a monu- ment to the good relations and mutual esteem which exists between the white and colored citizens of our community. [From the Birmingham News of January 31, LET'S BUILD THIS HOSPITAL AS A MONUMENT TO HEALTH AND TO UNDERSTANDING To the People of Birmingham and Jefferson Counties: - Tomorrow is the opening of a campaign to raise $150,000 to build and equip a hospi- tal for Negroes in Birmingham. The humane and economic needs which inspired this campaign are beyond concep- tion until we realize the fact that although 45 percent of Birmingham's population are Negroes, only 348 hospital beds are generally available to them. Medical and public health authorities in Alabama have long reminded our people of a serious shortage in the number of doctors and the pitiful Jack of hospital facilities. Thirty-seven Negro physicians are practicing among their people in Jefferson County, and yet there is no hospital in Jefferson County where they may treat their patients. If they are fortunate enough to find an available bed in any hospital when hospitalization is re- quired, the tmmediate result is that other doctors, surgeons, and hospital technicians must take over for them. From the standpoint of simple humanity, the toll of pain and suffering has been great, There is no way of knowing how many Ne- groes have died or suffered needlessly be- cause these conditions exist. Economically, the citizens of Jefferson County, white and colored alfke, are constantly paying the pen- alty of this lack. Disease, wherever it exists and jn whatever form is not merely a menace to health. Sick men and women cannot work; eventually they must be fed and clothed and housed at public expense—or left to die unheeded, which is unthinkable in the code of humanity. Not only the Negro who works in the con- fines of our homes or public places as cook, nurse, or waitress, but all who ride the busses, walk the streets, or work in plants and shops are in constant contact with the white citizens o: Jefferson County. What threatens their health also threatens ours. In the erection, equipping, and operation of this hospital exclusively for Negroes, we have a common cause for all the people of Jefferson County. It is one which merits the most generous contribution that any of us can aitord. The early work which has made possible the complete project was accomplished by the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, the Cath- olic order which will operate the hospital on a completely nonprofit basis when it is com- pleted. Through their own efforts they have al- re.dy bought and paid for the land, an entire block located in the Tuxedo Junction sec- tion at 1915 Nineteenth Street, Ensley. They have also raised by private subscription, and have in cash for the building and equipment 6103,000. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The building site, together with the $103,- 000 in cash at hand, will be added to the $150,000 which the interdenominational committee will ralse. The project has been submitted under the provisions of the Hill- Burton Act and has been approved for a grant of $515,000 of matching Federal funds. The hospital will provide 60 beds, operat- ing, X-ray, delivery and emergency rooms, and an out-patient clinic. It will be self- supporting, and should any deficit occur, the operating agency will meet the deficiency and guarantee continuous operation. The agency, the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, operates many of the large and succossful hospitals of the Nation. The erection and operation of such a hos- pital in Birmingham will be a distinguished mark of credit to the people of Birming- ham—an answer in part to the sponsors of legislation in Washington who seek so ar- dently to intervene in the affairs of our State. It is an affirmation and a humane answer to the critics who do not believe, or do not wish to believe, that the southern people will act to improve the well-being of the southern Negro. It is an answer to both communism and socialism. Above all, we and countless others of all falths, believe that the people of Birming- ham are both wise and humane. We feel that every contribution, whether it be large or small, is an expression of faith not only in our city but in our way of life Since it is impossible for the committee to call upon everyone, tt is necessary that we call upon many to send or bring their con- tributions to the campaign headquarters. This headquarters has been set up in the offices of the Birmingham Junior Chamber of Commerce in the Hillman Hotel. Checks should be made payable to Walter E. Henley, treasurer. We are confident that the people of Jef- ferson County will be glad and feel privi- leged to share in a project which will live throughout the years to come as a blessing to both races and a monument to our mu- tual destre to make Jefferson County a healthier, a happier, a better place in which to live. Sincerely, DoNALD COMER, Chairman. Louis PiziTz, Cochuirman. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN LAURIE C. BATTLE, JANUARY 17 By strictly political maneuvers the ad- ministration is isolating the South from the rest of the country more every day. If FEPC or so-called civil rights is the is- sue on the pending vote to change the rules, I will definitely vote for the change in order to stop this continued strangulation of the South, However, no one knows at this time wheth- er there will be a show-down vote on FEPC before the proposed rules change is debated— or Just what we will be voting on. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I join the many liberal, realistic thinkers throughout the country who feel that enactment of FEPC would be unwise. To make political sport, as .ome would do, of issues which form the very fabric of life in many States and which affects the day-to-day lives of millions of our people is short-sighted indeed. To en- act such a bill as H. R. 4453 would set back by many years the accomplishments of generations in the ficld of race rela- tions. It would be a sad day for the courageous, high-minded men and women of both races in the South—who FEBRUARY 22 are working against odds, but persever- ing toward the solution of one of the most challenging problems a people were ever called upon to meet. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. STEED: On page 1, line 12, after the words “labor organizations", insert ‘“‘Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall require a church of one religion to employ individuals who adhere to some other religion,” Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, there can be no question in the mind of any person who seeks to be informed that I am unalterably opposed to the estab- lishment of an FEPC in any form. I have made my position clear on so many occasions it is beyond argument. However, the pending amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Oklahoma {Mr. STEED] fails to take into account one of the fundamental concepts of our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution provides in part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That provision puts into words a basic principle our ancestors labored to es- tablish, the separation of church and state. The pending proposal in no way takes that principle into account. My amend- ment will offer some modicum of protec- tion to members of various religious sects to prevent any imposition on them and their organizations. It should be adopted. I regret the necessity for even en- gaging in debate on such an issue as FEPC. It is one of the planks in the President’s civil-rights program, against which I have spoken and opposed on numerous occasions. My sentiments on the most controversial features of that program, including FEPC, were ex- pressed at length on the floor of the House August 2, 1948. I would lke to reiterate them at this point. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the civil-rights program. Ever since I came to Congress I have been one of the most active oppo- nents of the things included in the Presi- dent’s so-called civil-rights program. While there are other points in the civil-rights program, the most contro- versial are: First, the enactment by Con- gress of an antilynching law; second, Federal legislation to abolish the poll tax; third, Federal legislation to eliminate segregation; fourth, passage of a Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, These proposals, first, violate the Con- stitution; second, are an encroachment on States’ rights; third, are wrong in principle; and, fourth, will not work in practice. ORIGIN OF PROGRAM The program was inspired by agitators who want to make the South a political whipping boy. Not all who favor the
1950 civil-rights program are Communists, but it is certainly true that all who are Communists do favor it, They have now set up Henry Wallace as their straw man spokesman, They use him to help create prejudice and confusion for their own ends, PURPOSE OF PROGRAM The program seeks to establish racial and social equality where none was de- creed by the laws of God. Enactment of such proposals into law would add chaos to the already existing confusion in the national picture at a time when all of our energies should be devoted to a solu- tion of problems of the greatest magni- tude, both at home and abroad. All of those proposals have a political inspira- tion, which seeks the votes of the minor- ity groups in the big cities of the North and East in order to perpetuate their sponsors in office. They are an invasion of the principles of States’ rights as con- ceived by that great Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, and followed through the years by those of us who cling to Jeffersonian principles. NO NECESSITY FOR PROGRAM There is no need for such legislation because the history of the progress of ra- cial relationships in the South, where such problems are said to be acute, re- veals that much has been done to solve them. The Negro has no better friend than the southern white man. We give him work to earn his livelihood. We feed and clothe him when he cannot provide for himself. We supply him with medi- cal care and drugs when he is ill. We provide educational! facilities for his chil- dren, contribute to the construction of his churches, advise with him when he is troubled. His progress has been re- markabie in the last 80 years. All of that is contrasted with the treatment the Negro receives in the North, where none save his own kind cares what be- comes of him. HISTORY OF PROGRAM So much controversy has arisen over the Truman civil-rights program that it might shed some light on the subject to review its history briefly. The civil- rights doctrine originated in the minds of a few misguided zealots, whose clamor- ings to get political recognition from cer- tain minority groups resulted in the es- tablishment of a Fair Employment Prac- tice Commission by Executive order in 141. More will be said about that later. The first major step in the formation of the civil-rights program occurred when President Truman appointed a Committee on Civil Rights in December 1946. After more than a year that com- mittee submitted a 178-page document which serves as a basis for the program, In his state-of-the-Union message de- livered to Congress January 7, 1948, the President discussed, among other things, the question of so-called civil rights, and stated he would send a special message to the Congress on that subject. On February 2, 1948, the President sent the special message. The civil-rights program became a major point of controversy at the Demo- cratic National Convention in July 1848, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and split the Democratic Party into seg- ments. Its submission as a subject to be considered by the Congress at this special session has resulted in a situation that has delayed consideration of important legislation in the other body. On February 2, 1948, the President sent the special message. ANTILYNCHING The record of lynchings in the United States during the past 50 years shows in 1900 there were 115; in 1910, 76; in 1920, 61; in 1930, 21; in 1940, 5; 1944, 2; 1945, 1; 1946, 6; 1947, again only 1 lynching. The figures show that lynching has prac- tically disappeared in America without a Federal antilynching law. Therefore, there is no need for such a Federal statute. On the other hand, the vociferous ad- vocates of an antilynching law make no suggestion that there be a Federal stat- ute enacted against murder, rape, rob- bery, theft, burglary, and so forth. In New York City, where a large part of the agitation for a Federal antilynch- ing law comes from, in 1946 there were 325 murders, 14,525 other felonies, and a total of 697,734 crimes reported to the police. That is the record of one city in 1 year. Yet among the 140,000,000 people in the entire United States there were only 6 lynchings. Lynching is another form of murder and is prohibited by statute in every State in the United States. Why do not the advocates of an antilynching law seek Federal legislation to punish the commission of other forms cf murder and other felonies? Obviously, in view of the record of New York City end other metropolitan centers in the United States, the crimes are so commonplace there is no vote-getting glamor in seek- ing Federal statutes for the punishment of crimes generally. Equally obviously, the demand is raised all out of propor- tion to the justification, based on the record that lynching has almost entirely disappeared in this country. Do not those victims of murder,.rob- bery, rape, and so forth, have some civil rights? Certainly. Again, they have no spokesman for their rights seeking the enactment of Federal laws for pun- ishment of the offenders, because there is no political benefit accruing from such @ program. ABOLITION OF TIIE POLL TAX Only 7 States in the 48 levy a poll tax as a means of registration to establish eligibility for voting. In many of them, including Texas, most of the revenue de- rived is devoted to the maintenance and operation of the public schools. If the people of Texas want to abolish the poll tax and substitute some other requisite to vote, that is their business; but I am opposed to the Federal Government tell- ing Texas how and what to do about it. A Jaw enacted by Congress to abolish the poll tax is unconstitutional, in my opinion. The Constitution provides in article 1, section 2: The House of Representatives shall be com- posed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifi- 2251 eations requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. Numerous cases have been decided sustaining my viewpoint. In Breedlove against Suttles, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1937, Mr. Jus~ tice Butler, spzaking for the Court, said: Payment as a prerequisite is not required for the purpose of denying or abridging the privilege of voting. It does not limit the tax to electors; aliens are not there permitted to vote, but the tax is laid upon them ff within the defined class. It is not laid upon persons 60 or more years old, whether electors or not. Exaction of payment before registration un- doubtedly serves to aid collection from elec- tors desiring to vote, but that use of the State's power is not prevented by the Fed- eral Constitution. Other cases have followed the principle announced in that case. Enactment by Congress of a law to abolish the poll tax would be an invasion of the rights of the States to establish their own electoral systems. The poll-tax issue is another one of those that is raised for pure vote-getting purposes by those in the North and East who are agitating for a Federal law on the subject. The issue is politically in- spired to get the votes of a minority group in the big city areas in doubtful States. That is where the cry to abolish the poll tax comes from. I could go on at length discussing this subject, but to do so would unduly burden you. Let me direct your attention to the fact that I led the debate on the floor of the House in opposition to the proposal on July 21, 1847, when that subject was up for consideration. The speech I made on that occasion in opposition to the leg- islation contains a full analysis of my views on the subject and the law in sup- port of my position. FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO ELIMINATE SEGREGATION Segregation is not discrimination. It is a means of affording people of all races an opportunity to be and associate with their own kind. It avoids friction. It promotes harmonious relationships. It prevents discord. It eliminates oppor- tunities for disagreement and strife. What does elimination of segregation by law mean to the average citizen? It means that the American would be pro- hibited from choosing his associates in the church, in the school, in fraternal organizations, in every walk of social life. It means that you and I must ac- cept as associates in our daily lives per- sons of race and color other than our own regardless of our personal feelings in the matter. In order to eliminate segregation and to prevent discrimina-~ tion it would result in the establish- ment of a Federal bureau with gestapo powers. The employees of such an agency would have a right to tell the free American citizen with whom he could associate regardless of the citi- zen’s personal desires in the matter. Carried to its ultimate conclusion, the agents of such a bureau could require the churches to accept membership from those it did not want. It could compel us to send our children to school with companions other than their own seek- ing. It could require us to occupy the
2252 same travel accommodations, the same hotels, and eat at the same restaurants in company of persons we did not volun- tarily choose. All of those things could be done in the name of civil rights. To do them would be to disregard the rights of a majority of the people. THE FEPC The establishment of a Federal Fair Employment Practice Commission by law to prohibit discrimination in private employment would be a terrible imposi- tion on the American people. It would simply mean this: that no employer could employ or discharge persons from employment without being supervised by agents of that bureau. It would mean that the employee would be required to work side by side with individuals he would not associate with except by com- pulsion. Assume 75 percent of the popu- lation in a given town were white and 25 percent black. Under such a law every employer would have to accept one- fourth of his employees from among the colored race regardless of the nature and type of employment. If a merchant had four clerks, one of them would have to be a Negro. If a contractor wanted to hire four carpenters, one of them would have to be a Negro. If a board of school trustees wanted to employ four teachers, one of them would have to be a Negro. Illustrations of this nature could be noted in countless numbers. We have a history in the establish- ment of an FEPC. In 1941, by Execu- tive order, the President of the United States established an FEPC. That or- ganization was broadened and enlarged in scope and number of employees dur- ing the ensuing years. In 1944 it em- ployed more Negroes than whites; had Negroes supervising white employees within the agency; paid the Negroes an aggregate salary larger than it paid the white employees; required employees of the agency to use the same rest-room facilities regardless of their race; ordered the railroads of the Nation to employ Negroes indiscriminately as engineers, firemen, and conductors, regardless of qualifications. The activities of that Commission resulted in strikes, riots, and other friction between whites and Nc- groes of this country. MY ACTIVE OPPOSITION That agency existed when I took the oath of office as Congressman in 1945. One of the first things I did as a new Congressman was to call together a group of other new Members to discuss ways and means to eliminate the FEPC. As a result, we set upon a course to do everything possible to prevent further enlargement of that burcau and to elimi- nate it as soon as possible. Those of us who opposed the continuation of the FEPC were continually devising ways and means to destroy it. The chance to kill the FEPC came dur- ing my first term in Congress. H. R&R. 5890, a bill to make appropriations for certain agencies of the Government, was called up on the floor of the House for consideration. The bill provided for money to continue the FEPC to the end of the fiscal year. I made the point of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE order that struck that sum of money from the bill and forced the agency out of existence. It has not been revived since. My record of opposition to the pro- posals in the civil-rights program is well known to all Members of this House and to all others who have been regular read- ers of the newspapers. I have helped arrange and attended many meetings in protest of specific proposals in the civil- rights program. On the numerous oc- caslions when Members of the House, such as Messrs. Marcantonio, Isacson, and Powell, offered amendments to var- jous bills seeking to write into those bills language in keeping with the civil-rights program. I have always been on the floor and active in my opposition to their amendments. I have been instrumental in notifying other Members what was taking place and getting them to vote against those amendments. As a result of our concerted activities, no such pro- posal has been enacted into law in the last 4 years. I was one of the 78 Members of the House who formed an organization to oppose actively the President's civil- rights program after he delivered his message to the Congress on February 2 of this year. I feel that our opposition in the past has been effective in pre- venting enactment into law of any of the legislation sought to be adopted. I ex- pect to continue ry opposition to such a program as long as I am in Congress and afterward so long as I am able to oppose it. Let me call your attention to the slogan of those who foment this civil- rights hysteria, “equality.” Onc of the great purposes of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty so that men could be free to be different and realize their differing ambitions with their differing abilities, not to achieve an impossible equality among unequal human beings. Every proposal seeking to give a man a right to do something which as a freeman he cannot secure for himself results in imposing burdens and restraints on the freedoms of others. We must watch and defeat every effort to create by law the right in one man to compel others to associate with him or accept obligations to him in the realm of private enterprise end private life. We must realize that freedom of associa- tion in work and in leisure is one of our most precious liberties. Let us recall the words of the late Jus- tice of the Supreme Court Mr. Brandeis, whom no one could rightfully accuse of intolerance or prejudice. He wrote: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the signif- icance of man's spiritual nature, of his feel- ings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satis- factions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. CONCLUSION To sum it up, in the name of civil rights the proponents of this program would violate the very fundamentals of FEBRUARY 22 the Bill of Rights and force on the indi- vidual an association with persons and conditions of living not of his own choos- ing. In short, it would deprive the indi- vidual of his right to live under his own vine and fig tree in hisown way. These things he would have to surrender to bureaucratic control and dictation from Washington, where some Government agent could tell him whom he should employ, what he could do, and with whom he must associate. Thus, in the name of civil rights they would destroy the very liberties upon which this Gov- ernment was founded and under which it has grown to be the mightiest nation in the history of the world. I reiterate with all of the emphasis at my command I have opposed the civil-rights program, I am now op- posed to the program. I will continue my opposition to that program. The CHAIRMAN. The queStion is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. The question was taken, and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr, Pickett) there were ayes 197, noes 74. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Harrison to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Steep: On page 1, line 12, after the words “labor organization”, insert “Provided, how- ever, That it shall not constitute discrimina- tion under this act for a religious organiza- tion to refuse to employ an atheist.” Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering at this time represents an effort to curb, in one small but significant area, the disruptive effects this FEPC legislation is certain to have if 1t becomes law. I think the fact such an amendment as mine appears necessary furnishes star- thing proof of the far-reaching and iniq- uitous consequences implicit in this legis- lation. The proponents of the FEPC bill, Mr. Speaker, intend to jettison—finally and completely—the basic American principle of an employer’s free choice of employees. Under the deceptive banner of “civil rights,” the forces of non-American, ceniralist philosophies of government propose to threaten the employers of the Nation with heavy fines and jail terms, if they do not hire and fire in conformity with the edicts of a new Washington bureaucracy. We have before us two ideas of a Fed- eral Fair Employment Practice Commis- sion. One contemplates an agency that would have power to subpena an em- ployer from any part of the Nation to any other place in the Nation to answer a complaint by a disgruntled job-seeker or former employee. It would be authorized to order an employer to hire certain per- sons, or to take back others he had dis- charged for what he considered incom- petence but which the fired worker fancied to be a racial or religious bias, It would give the competent worker nothing he now requires; it would hand the incompetent a club, give him special privileges, assure him a livelihood at the expense of the diligent and ekillful,
1950 The other type of FEPC purports to be all things to all men. It would be a Federal commission without the power to issue cease and desist orders and get them enforced in the Federal courts under threat of fine or imprisonment. This agency would investigate—snoop, in other words—cooperate—interfere, in other words—and make reports on what should be done about the discrim- ination which civil-rights agitators claim Js rampant in the United States. To those of us who still profess some respect for individual rights, this sort of FEPC is held out as something harmless, something innocuous. We are asked to “go along” with it on the argument that it cannot hurt us. To FEPC advocates, it is held out as “a step in the right direction’’—probably the longest step that can be forced at this moment. These two FEPC proposals are of a piece. The voluntary concept is only very slightly less ominous and abhorrent than the compulsory one. I want no part of either. I realize, however, the temper of many of my colleagues. They have heen hypnotized by the civil-rights agitators. In this atmosphere, there would be no purpose in arguing the injustice and in- sensibility of precluding an employer from inquiring into the birthplace of a prospective employee, of prohibiting him, even in these uncertain times, from asking to see the naturalization papers of a foreign-born applicant. It probably is useless to suggest that an employer who wishes to give some preference to veterans of the wars of the United States should be allowed to ask an applicant whether he was in the armed forces—another question that is ver- boten under regulations promulgated where FEPC is in effect. And I do not think those who are con- tending so strongly here for FEPC will be moved to concern for the employees who might like to feel that their employer had some control over the composition of the working force—the selection of those with whom they are to labor. Inasmuch as we have heard much emotional argument uttered by the dev- otees of bureaucratic overseeing of hiring and firing, even the suggestion that a rehgious organization should be per- mitied to select employees of its own faith probably will fall unheard. But I am offering now an amendment to which I beheve even the most rabid exponent of the totalitarian FEPC prin- ciple could bring himself to support. Even if the sponsors of FEPC contend a pastor should not be permitted to ask @ prospective church organist whether he or she is of the same religious persua- sion, they might concede that the pastor need not place himself in the shadow of a jail cell when he asks whether the appli- cant subscribes to any religion. I urge, most earnestly, that our re- ligious organizations be provided an iota of protection from the indignity of being forced to hire an atheist. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia. The amendment was agreed to. XCVI——142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. JENSEN to the amendment offered by Mr. MCCONNELL: Add @ new section at the end of the bill as fol- lows: “Piovided, That any person who is a mem- ber of an organization which has been cited by the Attorney General and/or by the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation as a Commu- nist organization or as a Communist front organization is excluded from the provisions of this bill’”’ The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, in view of the number of ridiculous amendments that have been adopted I ask unanimous consent that the remainder be adopted en masse. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. KEATING to the amendment offered by Mr. MCCONNELL: On page 2, line 15, after the period insert a new sentence reading as follows: *‘Not more than three Commissioners shall be members of the same political party.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from New York. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma |Mr. Strep]. The substitute was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania |Mr. McCon- NELL], as amended. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. TaurIELLo) there were—ayes 236, nocs 63. So the amendment was agreed to Mr. POWELL. Mr, Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and re- port the bill back to the House with an amendment with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. The motion was agreed to Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr, Water, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committce, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, re- ligion, or national origin, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recom- mendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the bill and the amendment to final passage. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment. 2253 Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Speaker, @ parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BARDEN. Do I understand that the vote now is on the McConnell amend- ment? The SPEAKER. That is correct. Mr. BARDEN. And later the vote will be on final passage of the bill? The SPEAKER. That is correct. Mr BIEMILLER. A _ parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentieman will state it. Mr. BIEMILLER' I understand the parliamentary situation to be that if the McConnell amendment is rejected, that then the vote will recur on the original Powell bill. The SPEAKER That is correct. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 222, nays 178, not voting 31, as follows: [Roll No. 63] YEAS—222 Abbitt Engle, Calif McMillan, 8.C. Abernethy Evins Magce Albert Fallon Mahon Allen, Calif Fellows Martin, Iowa Allen, Tl Fenton Martin, Mass. Andersen, Fernandez Merrow H Carl Fisher Meyer Anderson, Calif, Ford Michener Andresen, Frazier Miles August H. Fugate Miller, Md. Andrews Gary Miller, Nebr. Auchincloss GathIings Mills Barden Gavin Monroney Barrett,Wyo Golden Morris Bates Goodwin Morrison Battle Gore Morton Beall Gossett Murdock Beckworth Graham Murray, Tenn, Bennett, Fla Grant Murray, Wis. Bennett, Mich Gregory Nolson Bentsen Gwinn Nicholson Blackney Hugen Nixon Boggs. La Hale Norrell Bolton, Md Halieck O'Hara, Minn, Bonner Hardy Pace Boykin Hue Passman Bramblett Harris Patten Brooks Mariison Peterson Brown, Ga. Ilarvey Phillips, Calif, Brown, Ohio Hays, Ark Phillips, Tenn, Bryson Hébert Pickett Buileson Herlong Poage Burton HW Poulson Byrnes, Wis Hinshaw Preston Camp Hobbs Priest Carly'e Hoeven Rains Case,S Dak Hoffman, Mich Rankin Chelf Hope Redden Chiperficld Horan Reed, Ill Chiistopher Jackson, Calif. Reed, N.Y. Church James Rees Clevenger Jenison Regan Cole, Kans. Jenkins Richards Cole, N Y,. Jennings Rivers Colmer Jensen Rogers, Fla. Combs Johnson St George Cooley Jonas Sanborn Cooper Jones, Ala. Sasscer Cotton Jones, N.C Scrivner Cox Kearns Scudder Ciawfora Keete Shafer Curtis Kerr Short Dague Kilburn Sikes Davis, Ga Kilday Simpson, Il, Davis, Tenn. Kruse Simpson, Pa. Davis, Wis. Lanham Sins Deane Larcade Smith, Kans. DeGraffenried LeCompte Smith, Va. D’Ewart LeFevre Stanley Dolliver Lichtenwalter Steed Dondero Lovre Stefan Doughton Lucas Stigler Durham Lyle Stcckman Ellictt McConnell Sutton Ellsworth McCulioch Taber Elston McDonough Tackett
2254 Talle Vursell Williams Teague Welchel Willis Thompson Werdel Wilson, Ind. Thornberry Wheeler Wilson, Okla. Towe White, Calif. Wilson, Tex, Trimble Whitten Winstead Underwood Whittington Wood Velde Wickersham Worley Vinson Widnall NAYS—178 Addonizio Hall, Moulder Angell Edwin Arthur Multer Aspinall Hall, Murphy Bailey Leonard W. Noland Baring Hand Norton Barrett, Pa. Hart O'Brien, fl Biemiller Havenner O’Brien, Mich. Bishop Hays, Ohio O'Hara, Ill. Blatnik Heffernan O’Konsk) Boggs, Del. Heller O'Neill Bolling Herter O’Sullivan Bolton, Ohio Heselton O’Toole Bosone Hoffman, Ill. Patterson Breen Holifield Perkins Buchanan Holmes Pfeifer, Buckiey, Il. Howell Joseph L, Buckley, N.Y. Huber Pfeiffer, Burdick Hull William L, Burke Irving Philbin Burnside Jackson, Wash. Polk Byrne,N Y. Jacobs Potter Canfield Javits Powell Cannon Judd Price Carnahan Karst Quinn Carroll Karsten Rabaut Case,N J. Kean Ramsay Cavalcante Kearney Rhodes Celler Keating Ribicoff Chesney Kee Rieh]}man Chudoft Kelley, Pa Rodino Clemente Kelly, N Y. Rogers, Mass, Corbett Kenncay Rooney Coudert Keogh Roosevelt Crook King Sabath Crosser Kirwan Sadiak Cunningham Klein Saylor Davenport Kunkel Scott, Hardie Dawson Lane Scott, Delaney Latham HushD, Jr. Denton Lemke Secrest Dingell Lesinski Shelley Dollinger Lind Sheppard Donohue Linehan Staggers Douglas Lodge Sulllvan Doy'e Lynch Tauriello Everharter McCarthy Taylor Engel, Mich. McCormack Tollefson Feighan McGrath Vorys Flood McGregor Wagner Fogarty McGuire Walsh Forand McKinnon Walter Fulton McSweeney Welch Furcolo Mack, Il, White, Idaho Gamble Mack,Wash. Wier Garmats Madden Wigglesworth Gordon Mansfield « Withrow Gorskt Marcantonio Wolverton Granahan Marsalis Woodhouse Granger Miller, Calif. Yates Green Mitchell Young Gross Morgan Zablocki NOT VOTING—31 Allen, La Jones, Mo Smith, Ohio Arends McMillen, 11, Smith, Wis Brehm Macy Spence Bulwinkle Marshall Thomas Chatham Mason Van Zandt Davies, N.Y Norblad Wadsworth Eaton Patman Whitaker Gillette Plumiey Wolcott Gilmer Rich Woodruff Harden Sadowski Hedrick Smathers So the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Wadsworth for, against. Mr. Jones of Missouri for, with Mr. Davies of New York against. Mr. Allen of Louisiana for, with Mr. Sa- dowski against. Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr. Macy against. Mr. Gillette for, with Mr. Brehm against. Until further notice: Mr. Whitaker with Mr. Arends. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Mason. with Mr. Hedrick CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr Smathers with Mr. Plumiey. Mr. Bulwinkle with Mr. Rich. Mr. Patman with Mr. Woodruff. Mr. Spence with Mr. McMillen of Ilinois. Mr. Thomas with Mr. Wolcott. Mr. Chatham with Mrs. Harden. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand a reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted to Mr. Daviss of New York (at the request of Mr. CELLER), for an indefinite period on account of illness in family. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Is a mo- tion to recommit in order at this time? The SPEAKER. Not until after the third reading of the bill. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speakcr, that means the House will have to stay in session until the engrossed copy Is secured? The SPEAKER. It does not, Mr. RANKIN. We cannot take a re- cess on Calendar Wednesday? The SPEAKER. The House can ad- journ. Mr. RANKIN. We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday. The SPEAKER. The previous ques- tion has been ordered and the next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it is the pending busi- ness. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. COLMER. Can the Speaker ad- vise us when the engrossed copy will be available and when the vote will be taken? The SPEAKER. Not until the gentle- man from Massachusetts makes a re- quest about adjournment or offers a mo- tion. The Chair wants all Members to Un- derstand that on the convening of the House at its next session, the final dis- position of this matter is the pending business. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns to- day it adjourn to meet on Friday next at 12 o’clock noon. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. The gentleman cannot do that, As I under- stand it, we must come in at noon today Mr. FEBRUARY 22 for the Thursday session unless unani- mous consent is secured to go over until Friday. Is that the proper parliamen- tary situation? The SPEAKER. makes that point. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I think the gentleman ought to proceed in the regular way. Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, the gentleman is absolutely correct. I was trying to have an adjournment to a defi- nite time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- sent that when the House adjourns to- day it adjourn to meet on Friday next at 12 o'clock. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject. If the gentleman ADJOURNMENT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn untii 12 o’clock today. The motion was agreed to; according- ly (at 3 o’clock and 19 minutes a. m.), the House adjourned until 12 o’clock noon of Thursday, February 28, 1950. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. DURHAM: Committee on Armed Serv- ices. H. R. 6480. A bill to revise title 18, United States Code, entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure’; with an amendment (Rept No. 1676). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. PETERSON: Committee on Public Lands. H R 7278. A bil to provide a civil government for Guam, and for other pur- poses; without amendment (Rept. No. 1677). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. DURHAM. Committee on Armed Serv- ices. H.R 6074. A bill to promote the na- tional defense by authorizing specifically cer- tain functions of the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics necessary to the ef- fective prosecution of aeronautical research, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1685). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R. 6656. A bill for the rellef of Tacko Suzuki; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1678). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr, WALTER: Committee on the Judi- ciliary. H.R. 7054. <A bill for the relief of Mieko Miyazaki Malloy; without amendment (Rept. No. 1679). Referred to the Com- mittee of the Whole House. Mr. GOSSETT: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H. R. 7047. A bill for the rellef of Mrs. Tomo Nonque Rosevear III; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1680). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. CHELF: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7013. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Yae Bennett; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1681). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
1950 Mr. GOSSETT: Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R. 6942. A bill for the relief of Hisako Nakane; without amendment (Rept. No. 1682). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H. R. 6793. A bill for the relief of Fujiko Fukuda; without amendment (Rept. No. 1683). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. FEIGHAN: Committee on the Judi- Clary. H. R. 7094. A bill for the relief of Kazuyo Dohi; without amendment (Rept. No. 1684). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania: H R 7398. A bill to enable the States to make more adcquate provision for spectal services required for the education of physi- cally handicapped children of school age, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor. By Mr. MILLER of California: H.R. 7397. A bill to provide for the pro- motion of postmastets, officeis, and employces in the postal field service in recognition of longevity of service, to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. WHITTINGTON: H R 7398. A bill to amend and supple- ment the Federal-Aid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat 355), as amended and supplemented, to authorize appropriations for continuing the construction of highways, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Public Works. H.R 7399. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, section 104, subsections (a) and (b), to create a Greenville division in the northern district of Mississippi, with terms of court to be held at Greenville, to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. WOOD: H R 7400. A bill to enable the States to make more adequate provision for special services required for the education of physi- cally handicapped children of school age, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor By Mr. SMATHERS: H R 7401. A bill to allow to a retail dealer in gasoline a refund of the Federal tax paid on gasoline which is lost by the retaller through evaporation; to the Committee on Ways and Means By Mr. SPENCE: H.R 7402. A bill to assist cooperative and other nonprofit corporations in the produc- tion of housing for moderate-income fami- lies, to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mrs DOUGLAS: H R 7403. A bill to amend the Social Se- curity Act in order to prohibit the require- ment of support from relatives as a condition of granting old-age assistance or aid to the needy blind, to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. REES: H OR. 7404. A bill to amend section 2 (a) of the Nationel Housing Act, as amended, s0 as to make permanently efiective the provisions of title I of such act; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr, O'NEILL: H R 7405 A bill to provide for the acquisi- tion of a site for, and the construction of, a Federal buliding in Scranton, Pa.; to the Committee on Pubhe Works. By Mr. REGAN: H.R 7406. A bill to provide for the estab- lMishment of a veterans’ hospital ia west Texas, to the Committee on Veterans’ Affalis, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE By Mr. BYRNE of New York: H.R. 7407. A bill to provide for issuance of & postage stamp in commemoration of the one hundred end twenty-fifth anniver- sary of the opening of the Erie Canal in New York State; to the Committee on Post Of- fice and Civil Service By Mr. DURHAM: H Res. 485. Resolution providing for the consideration of H. R. 7058, a bill to amend laws relating to the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Acad- emy, and for other purposes, to the Com- mittee on Rules. H Res 486. Resolution providing for the consideration of H. R. 5074, a bill to promote the national defense by authorizing specifi- cally certain functions of the National Advi- sory Committee for Aeronautics neceesary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical re- search, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Rules. By Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL: H Res 487. Resolution to take off all taxes on bread and butter; to the Committee on Rules. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally re- ferred as follows: Mr. BOGGS of Delaware: H.R 7408 A bill for the relief of Christos Haralmos Marasaglou; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. FERNOS-ISERN: h R 7409 =A bill for the relief of Marfa Rozas Espifeira de Colchero Arrubarrena, Fernando Colchero Rozas, and Fernado Colchero Rozas; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL: H R.7410. A bill for the rellef of Mrs Kanyoko Tanaka Perez; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. HELLER: H.R 7411. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Ingeborg Ruth Sattler McLaughlin, to the Committee on the Judiciary. B, Mr. LYLE: H R.7412 A bill for the relief of Roberto Nicolas Nassor, to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr MCSWEENEY: H.R 7413 A bill for the relief of James T. M Fong, to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr RODINO: H R 7414. A bill for the relief of Teresa Gentile and Galliano Gentile, to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr SIKES. H R.7415. A bill for the relief of Clifford D. Smitherman, to the Committee o the Judiciary. By Mr. WALTER: H.R. 7416. A bill for the relief of Miss Suzuko Takanashi, to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: 1895. By Mr. HESELTON: Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to securing nddi- tional financial aid for the Waltham Watch Co from the Reconstruction Finance Corpo- ration; to the Committce on Banking and Currency. 1896 Also, resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, memorlalizing Congress to remove existing taxes on admissions to high-school athletic contests or athletic contests conducted by 2255 charitable and nonprofit organizations; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1897, By Mr. MACK of Washington: Reso- lution of the South Bend, Wash., Chamber of Commerce, asking immediate action by Congress to stabilize our national economy; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. 1898 By the SPEAKER: Petition of Lewis E. Park, chairman, Industrial Arts Club, Kansas City, Mo., endorsing Federal aid to education; to the Committee on Education and Labor. 1899, Also, petition of Philipp N. Poulleys, president, Pan-Messenian Federation of America, Boston, Mass., relative to the treat- ment being given Greek children from the Province of Messenia, Greece, by the Com- munists; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1900 Also, petition of Dr. Louis Kreshtool, secreiary, Delaware State Dental Society, Wil- mington, Del., requesting that compulsory health insurance be not imposed upon the citizens of this Nation; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1901 Also, petition of Mercedes Mennecke, president, American Legion Auxiliary, Sums mit, Ill, opposing the Hoover reports per-= taining to proposed changes in the Veterans’ Administration and in the Veterans’ Prefer- ence Act of 1944, to the Committee on Vet- erans’ Affairs. 1902 By Mr. MILLER of Maryland: Reso- lution of Queen Annes County Petroleum In- dustries Committee, Centreville, Md , request- ing repeal of the Federal gasoline tax; to the Committee on Ways and Means, SENATE Tuurspay, FEBRUARY 23, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D. offered the following prayer: God our Father, we thank Thee for the unquenchable impulse toward Thee which Thou hast planted within us. Open our eyes to see Thee and our hearts to feel Thee, not just out on the rim of the universe, in some distant star, but in human love which hallows our own lives, which at its best bears witness to Thee and alone can heal the hurt of the world. Conscious of Thy overshadowing pres- ence, we pray for fidelity as we face the issues of these momentous days. Com- mitting our souls unto Thee, who know- est the way we take, bring us forth as gold tried in the fire. In the dear Re- deemer’s name. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unan- imous consent, reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, February 22, 1950, was dispensed with. LEAVE OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. WHERRY, and by unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG was ex- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate today and tomorrow. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
2256 The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hendrickson Magnuson Benton Hickenlooper Malone Brewster Hil Martin Bricker Hoey Maybank Butler Holland Millikin Byrd Humphrey Morse Cain Hunt Mundt Capehart Ives Murray Chapman Jenner Myers Chavez Johnson, Colo, Neely Connally Johnson, Tex. Robertson Cordon Johnston, 8.0. Russell Darby Kefauver Saltonstall Donnell Kem Schoeppel Douglas Kerr Smith, Maine Dworshak Kilgore Smith, N. J. Eastland Knowland Sparkman Ecton Langer Stennis Ellender Leahy Taylor Ferguson Lehman Thomas, Okla. Flanders Lodge Thomas, Utah Frear Long Thye Fulbright Lucas Tobey George McCarran Tydings Gillette McCarthy Watkins Graham McClellan Wherry Green McFarland Wiley Gurney McKellar Williams Hayden McMahon Withers Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor], the Senator from Wyoming lMr. O’'Manonety], and the Senator from Florida |Mr. Prpper] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey! is absent on official business. Mr. SALTONSTALL, I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripces] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr, VANDENBERG] are necessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate be permitted to submit petitions and memorials, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and present routine matters for the Recorp and for printing in the Appendix, without debate and without speeches. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. CLEAR RADIO CHANNEL—RESOLUTION OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER CO- OPERATIVES Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I present for appropriate reference and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a resolution adopted by the National Council of Farmer Coopera- tives, in Chicago, Ill., on January 12, 1950, relating to clear channels for rural radio service. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Crieraz CHANNEL RESOLUTION, NATIONAL CouN- CI. OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, ADOPTED JANU- ABY 12, 1950, Curcaco RURAL RADIO SERVICE Knowing that radio service is vital to our rural population, the National Council of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Farmer Cooperatives hereby expresses its op- position to any legislation which would im- pair or prevent the improvement of rural radio service, which at best ts quite inade- quate. Many of the rural people depend to a large extent upon clear-channel stations for their radio service and such service should be pro- tected and improved. This is even more true now because we realize that television, now available to large metropolitan areas, will not be available to many rural areas for an indefinite period. Therefore, the council requests that no action be taken by the Congress or the Fed- eral Communications Commission which would allow the breaking down of clear chan- nels serving rural areas. On the contrary the council urgently recommends that such clear-channel stations be granted sufficient facilities to serve farm communities and rural areas not presently enjoying the supe- rior radio service available to all metropoli- tan areas. In recent months the United States has been a party to an international radio fre- quency allocation conference with other North American nations. During that con- ference the council vigorously protested the demands of the Cuban Government for broad- casting rights on channels which are 50 es- sential to the people of the United States. The council again requests that the United States Department of State maintain a firm stand against the attempted inroads of for- eign nations on radio channels utilized by stations in the United States. FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID TO LOCAL SCHOOLS—RESOLUTION OF NEBRASKA STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the extent to which public opposition has developed on the principle of Federal financial aid in support of local schools is forcefully pointed up by a resolution adopted February 8 by the Nebraska State School Boards Association, in con- vention at Grand Island, Nebr. I ask unanimous consent that the res- olution be printed in the Recorp, and that it be appropriately referred for the consideration of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: NesraskKa STaTE ScHoot Boarps ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTED IN CONVENTION FEB- RuUARY 8, 1950, aT GRAND ISLAND, NEBR. FEDERAL AID Whereas it is recognized by the conven- tion delegates here gathered that taxes are mushrooming under all kinds of subterfuges, and that the greatest percentage of total taxes are exacted by the Federal Govern- ment; and that the present trend will lead to an impossible burden on farmers, laborers, businessmen and all other citizens; and Whereas it is further recognized that how- ever vital the need may be, in individual cases, further Federal aid for any purpose to any special interest will be only an enter- ing wedge, and that more and more grants will be demanded and allowed. It is recog- nized that there is already alarming dissipa- tion of funds between Federal-tax collec- tions and net productive expenditures for specific projects, with the result that Fed- eral aid to schools will require far more tax collections than will finally arrfve at the local classroom; and Whereas we recognize that further tap- ping of the Federal Treasury for any form of Federal aid to education must necessarily be financed from some form of additional FEBRUARY 23 taxes on all American citi2ens, including those of NebrasKa; and Whereas it is felt that the Nebraska State Legislature had not made full and exhaus- tive use of our own resources to meet the educational crisis within our own bound- aries: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Nebraska State School Boards Association take a strong stand op- posing all new forms of additional Federal aid to education, except in areas disturbed by military installations, and that all human forces of our State be mobilized in a con- centrated effort to focus the attention and action of our State legislature on the finan- cial needs of Nebraska schools, in an effort to keep the Federal Government from forc- ing its way into the schoolrooms of Nebraska to solve our problems for us; be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be mailed to every Member of the United States Congress and the Nebraska State Legislature; and be it finally Resolved, That this association make every possible effort to recruit the coordinated assistance of all educational, community, farm, labor and business associations and social clubs of Nebraska to obtain adequate State financing for our own Nebraska edu- cational program, REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE The following reports of a committee were submitted: By Mr. SALTONSTALL, from the Commit- tee on Armed Services: H.R. 1151. A bill to amend the act estab- Ushing grades of certain retired noncom- missioned officers; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1279). By Mr. BYRD, from the Committee on Armed Services: H.R. 4502. A bill to authorize the Sec- retary of the Army to dispose of a certain easement near Fort Belvoir, Va., in exchange for another easement elsewhere on the same property; without amendment (Rept. No. 1280); and H R. 5503. A bill to authorize the Sec- retary of the Air Force to release and quit- claim a portion of a right-of-way easement to Langley Air Force Base, Va.; without amendment (Rept. No. 1281). By Mr. CHAPMAN, from the Committee on Armed Services: H R 5921. A bill to terminate lump-sum benefits provided by law to certain Reserve officers of the Navy and Air Force; without amendment (Rept. No. 1282). ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, February 23, 1950, he pre- sented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: 8.204. An act for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche; 8.229. An act for the relief of E. W Eaton Coal Co.; 8.309. An act for the relief of Gabe Bud- wee; 8.321. An act for the relief of Lloyd D. Lyles; 58.481. An act for the relief of the legal guardian of Clarence Herbert Hartman, a minor; 8.563. An act for the relief of the P 8. Cook Co.; 8.914. An act for the relief of Gladys Inez Greenwood; 8.1449. An act for the relief of Robert B. Workman; 8.1916. An act for the relief of Edna A. Bauser; 8.1933. An act for the relief of C. L. Lef- fingwell and others; 8.1990. An act to amend section 429, Re- vised Statutes, as amended, and the act of August 5, 1882, as amended, so as to substi- tute for the requirement that detailed an-
1950 nual reports be made to the Congress con- cerning the proceeds of all sales of con- demned naval material a requirement that information as to such proceeds be filed with the Committee on Aimed Services in the Congress; and 8 2520. An act to authorize the sale of certain allotted devised land on the Winne- bago Reservation, Nebr. EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE As in executive session, The following favorable report: of nominations were submitted: By Mr. GEORGE, from the Committee on Finance: Oscar M, Jonas, of Milwaukee, Wis., to be collector of internal revenue for the dis- trict of Wisconsin; Craig Pottinger, of Nogales, Ariz., to be collector of customs for customs collection district No. 26, with headquarters at Nogales, Ariz ; Louls T. Rocheleau, of Woonsocket, R. I., to be collector of customs for customs Col- lection district No. 5, with headquarters at Providence, R. I; and Tlliis Cumpbell, Jr., of Dallas, Tex, to be collector of internal revenue for the second district of Texas, vice John B. Dunlap, re- slgned. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. TYDINGS: S 3104 A bill to protect the National Se- curity of the United Stutes by permitting the summary suspension of employment of civilian officers and employees of varlous de- partments and ngencies of the Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr ROBERTSON introduced Senate bill 8105, to ainend section 10 of the Federal Re- serve Act, and for other purposes, which was referrec| to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and appears under a_ separate heading ) By Mr DWORSHAK: S 3106 A bill to authorize appropriations for the eradication and control of halogeton on public lands; to the Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RESERVE ACT Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend section 10 of the Federal Re- serve Act, and I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement of the bill prepared by me be printed in the REcorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the explanatory statement presented by the Senator from Virginia will be printed in the Recorp. The Chair hears no objection. The bill (S. 3105) to amend section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. RoBErtson, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Banking and Ctr- rency. The explanatory statement presented by Mr. Rosertson is as follows: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF BILL BY SENATOR ROBERTSON In 1947 the Board of Governors brought to the attention of the Congress the need for more adequate building facilities at branches of the Federal Reserve banks, pointing out that this need could not be met because of a provision in the law placing a limit of $250,- 0CO upon the cost of any such building (ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clusive of the cost of vaults, permanent equipment, furnishings, and fixtures). At that time, in order to take care of the most urgent needs for additional construction, Congress provided that this Hmit should not apply as long as the aggregate of such costs thereafter incurred for all branch bank buildings, with the approval of the Board of Governors, was not in excess of $10,000,000. Under that authority, with the approval of the Board, a building has been purchased in Cincinnati, Ohio; construction has been undertaken at Portland, Oreg., Seattle, Wash., and Detroit, Mich.; and funds have been ear- marked for construction at Jacksonville, Fla. However, major additions are badly needed at Los Angeles, Calif, Pittsburgh, Pa. and Omaha, Nebr., to provide satisfactory work- ing conditions, and, on the basis of present estimates, it would not be possible to com- plete these piograms within the existing imitation Most of the buildings occupied by branches of the Federal Reserve banks were acquired or constructed more than 20 years ago, and, in view of expanded activities since that time, additional space is needed at a number of other branches. For that reason, additional construction is contemplated at Buffalo, N Y., Louisville, Ky., San Antonio, Tex, Baltimore, Md, Charlotte, N C, Birmingham, Ala, Nashville, Tenn, Denver, Colo ; Okla- homa City, Okla, El Paso, Tex, Houston, Tex, and Salt Lake City, Utah. It js clear that this additional construction cannot be undertaken within the limitation in the ex- isting law, and for that reason the amend- ment which I am proposing will increase the lumitation to $25,000,000 It should be borne in mind that all ex- penses in connection with the construction and enlargement of Federal Reserve branch bank buildings are met by the Federal Re- serve banks out of their own funds. No ap- propriation of Government tunds 1s involved. Moreover, the Board of Governors, #8 an agency of the Government, is vested with the general supervision of the Federal Re- serve banks, and in the exercise of its super- vision all construction projects with respect to branch bank buildings come before the Board of Governors for its approval. In each case the Board considers the proposal in the light of the needs of the branch, the type of building to be constructed, the reasonnble- ness of the cost, the availability of materials, whether the construction at the time is generally in keeping with the prevailing economic situation, and other pertinent considerations. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOT- MENTS— AMENDMENTS Mr. MALONE submitted an amend- ment »yntended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 398) re- latinc to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which was ordered to le on the table and to be printed. Mr. McCARRAN submitted amend- ments intended to be proposed by him to the amendment of the committee to House Joint Resolution 398, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. WHERRY submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the amendment of the committee to House Joint Resolution 398, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. LINCOLN REPUBLICANISM—ADDRESS BY SENATOR IVES [Mr IVES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp the Lincoln Day ad- 2257 dress entitled “Lincoln Republicanism,” de- livered by him at a meeting held under the auspices of the Republicans of Schenectady County, at Schenectady, N. Y., on February 11, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. | AMERICA, WORLD LEADER AGAINST IM- PERIALISM—ADDRESS BY SENATOR GILLETTE {Mr. HUNT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject America, World Leader Against Im- perialism, delivered by Senator GILLETTE, at the Arlington Jewish Center, February 22, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] MANKIND AT THE CROSSROADS—AD- DRESS BY SENATOR KEFAUVER {Mr. GRAHAM asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an address do- liveied by Senator KEFAuvER at the young Democrats’ rally in Greensboro, N. C., Feb- ruary 11, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix ] WHAT THE REPUBLICAN POLICY STATE- MENT REALLY SAYS ABOUT A BIPARTI- SAN FOREIGN POLICY [Mr MUNDT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “GOP Policy on Bipartisanship,” pub- lished in the Daily Plainsman of Huron, 8. Dak., together with a statement by himself, which appear in the Appendix ] WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED?—ADDRESS BY DAVID LAWRENCE {Mr,. STENNIS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp an address on the subject What Have You Learned? delivered by David Lawrence, at the commencement exercises of Temple University, February 15, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.) NYLONS AND LIPSTICKS RUIN MARSHALL PLAN—ARTICLE FROM KANSAS CITY STAR [Mr KEM asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Nylons and Lipsticks Ruin Marshall Plan,” published in the Kansas City (Mo.) Star of February 17, 1950, which appears in the Appendix | I1HE DANGER TO AMERICA—EDITORIAL COMMENT {Mr. JENNER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “With the World on Fire,” published in the Arizona Republic, the Indianapolis News, and the Muncie (Ind.) Press, which appears in the Appendix | SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE OF POLICE OFFICERS {Mr HENDRICKSON asked and obtained Jeave to have printed in the REcorp a com- munication and statement of Howard J. Devaney, president of the New Jersey State Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Inc., relative to the opposition of the association to H. R. 6000, which appears in the Ap- pendix ] RESCUE OF GREEK CHILDREN—PLEA BY ARCHBISHOP MICHAEL {Mr. GRAHAM asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcorp a plea by Archbishop Michael that Greek children be rescued, which appears in the Appendix.| HOW MUCH OF THE WORLD?—ARTICLE BY LIVINGSTON HARTLEY {Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp an article en- titled “How Much of the World?” written by Livingston Hartley and published in Free- dom and Union for January 1950, which appears in the Appendix.]
2258 WHAT DEMOCRACY MEANS TO ME— AMERICAN DAY CONTEST ADDRESS BY ANNE PINKNEY [Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp a prize-winning address. by Anne Pinkney, of Trinidad, Colo., in the 1950 I Am An American Day contest, which appears in the Appendix.] THE COAL SITUATION—EDITORIAL FROM THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER [Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “The Miners’ Rebellion,” from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of February 21, 1960, which appears in the Appendix.] PRAYER FOR PEACE—POEM BY JAMES PATRICK McGOVERN [Mr. THOMAS of Utah asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a poem entitled “Prayer for Peace,” composed by James Patrick McGovern, which appears in the Appendix.] THESE DAYS—ARTICLE BY GEORGE SOKOLSKY [Mr. CHAPMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an editorial entitled ‘These Days,” by George Sokolsky, published in the Washington Times-Herald of February 23, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] DISPLACED PERSONS — EDITORIALS, NEWSPAPER COMMENT, AND LETTERS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp editorials, newspaper articles, and letters from re- sponsible persons in the United States bearing on the subject of displaced persons. There being no objection, the matters referred to were ordered to be printed in the RrEcorp, as follows: [From the Washington Star of February 20, 1960] DP’s Ane Apt To LEAvE SUDDENLY, FARMERS IN Nearsy STATES FIND (By William A. Millen) An up-to-date version of How You Gonna Kee> Em Down on the Farm? 1s plaguing Maryland and Virginia farmers who have em- ployed displaced persons. A tendency of the recently arrived Euro- peans to move out without warning was cited by area farmers as probably their greatest fault. L. M. Walker, Jr., Virginia commissioner of agriculture and State DP committee chair- man, put it this way: “The biggest all-around objection is that the DP’s leave suddenly, and the farmers are left high and dry. The farmer provides a house and some furniture. But he still is worried whether the DP will be there next week or will move to the big cities—Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington.” He blamed the screening of DP applicants in Europe—an apparent failure to select farm people for farm work, Virginia has about 120 DP families now. About 40 percent of these originally em- ployed on farms have switched to other occu- pations. More than half the Virginia DP’s are Ukrainians, with Lithuanians and Poles making up most of the others. Dr, T. B. Symons, dean of the School of Agriculture at the University of Maryland, figures Maryland has between 400 and 600 DP’s. In addition to a need for screening, Dr. Symons believes the DP program would be improved by a follow-up check on perform- ances, a requirement that DP farmers remain CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE on farms for a reasonable time, and that they be registered for a reasonable period. Anne Arundel County’s members resigned recently from the Governor's Committees for the Resettlement of Displaced Persons. They charged the DP program has been haphazard. Anne Arundel County Agent Stanley E. Day said that often farmers turn out to be tailors, beekeepers or florists. To illustrate, he told how one DP family, given s chicken by 4 farmer, had to ask him to kill it for them. Other difficulties arise from the difference in languages. Some farmers, believing they were more than generous in wages and living quarters, were amazed to find DP’s walking out on them at a minute’s notice, Mr. Day sald. At Joyce Lane, Md., Dr. Charles E. Iliff, a Baltimore eye specialist, invited a young Ukrainian family to work on his farm last May. The DP’s were given a third-floor apartment in the large farmhouse, with their own bath, radio, and a Jarge fan to keep cool in the summer. The Ukrainian woman did not know how to cook, so Mrs, Iliff patiently coached her. The immigrant often talked about how nice things were back home and said that some- day, when the Russians left, they would move back. Almost without warning last month, the Ukrainians left the Iliff farm. On the Arnold, Md., Angus cattle farm of Charles B. Lynch, there's an empty house. It was prepared for another Ukrainian family last April, Last month the tenants shoved off for parts unknown. In Montgomery County, where some of the first DP’s landed, there has not been a request for a DP farm family in 10 months. 8. Gilbert Brown, manager of the Silver Spring office of the Maryland Employment Security Department, said, “they went sour on us and the word spread like wildfire.” Now, instead of the 14 DP families in the county, there are four such groups, all Lithuanians, he said. Montgomery County Agent O. W. Anderson said the DP’s “showed they were interested only in getting into this country and then going their own way.” Dissatisfaction also was expressed by Agent P, E. Clark of Prince Georges County, where 80 foreign families still reaide on farms. “They should be called in many cases mis- placed persons instead of DP's,”’ he said, “They are chosen like picking a pig out of a bag. They land in Baltimore and the farmer 1s told to meet them there. The DP’s have pictured to them that this is a land of milk and honey, and somebody will take care of them.” But not all the criticism of DP farm fam- ilies is derogatory. Many hard-working groups have proved satisfactory, as tomor- row’s concluding article will describe. PHILADELPHIA, February 7, 1950. Benator McCarran: Please note editorial herewith from the Philadelphia, Pa., Bulletin of February 4, 1950. Then eye front-page story of today (Feb. 7) Philadelphia, Pa., Inquirer on sub- ject DP’s. In the light of almost 4,500,000 unemployed in the United States of Ameri- ca, why admit DP’s. Also, I think our over-all population in the United States of America is 150,000,000 and there is no need of any folk from Eu- rope or Asia. With this four million and a half unem- ployed, many of whom are GI's, let's try to help them. I’m looking at it from a purely American angie. Do not listen to pressure groups—iet’s help our own American born. We owe it to them as do our Congressmen and Senators. I hope you agree. Yours truly, J. P. Devi. FEBRUARY 23 [From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of February 4, 1950) A New BLow at DP's When Senator Pat McCarran assented to release of the DP bill from the Judiciary Committee, where it had so long been kept in pickle, it was assumed that he was ready to see the measure passed in the form that the committee had given it. But he has now shown his invincible opposition to re- lef for these unfortunate people by propos- ing a strangling amendment. He would prohibit further admissions un- der the act if the country’s unemployment total should exceed 4,000,000, or if the num- ber of married couples doubled up with oth- ers in dwelling units should be above 2,000,- 000. Unemployment in December was esti- mated at 3,500,000. The number of doubled- up persons was reported to be 2,040,000 in April last. Now that the bill 1s before the Senate the mischicf which the Nevada Senator can do would be limited to the number he can mus- ter in support of the amendment. A bill for removal of discriminating features of the present act has passed the House, and 1s ex- pected to be approved in some form by the upper branch of Congress. Relief of the displaced persons is backed by the administration, and has been sup- ported by national leaders of both parties. It is now the responsibility of the Senate to see that a measure is passed that fulfills all reasonable requirements. The measure approved by the Judiciary Committee still retains restrictions that limit the effective- ness of the relief sought. The Senate com- mittee bill 1s some improvement on the present law, but 1t would be better to bring it more into line with the House measure. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer of February 7, 1950) Four MILLI0on Four HUNpRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND IDLE In UNITED StTaTrs; HIGHEST Tota BINcE War WASHINGTON, February 6.—The Census Bu- reau reported today that unemployment rose to a postwar high of 4,480,000 in mid-Janu- ary. Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer said it was due largely to seasonal lay-offs, The estimated number of jobless on Janu- ary 14 was 991,000 greater than on December 10, and 1,816,000 greater than January 1949. Sawyer stressed the fact that industrial employment did not appear to be materially affected. INCREASE EXPECTED He said an increase in joblessness was expected between December and January because of curtailment in seasonal indus- tries, and bad weather in many parts of the country which caused lay-offs of construc- tion and farm workers. Total employment was estimated at 56,- 947,000 persons, down 1,609,000 from Decem- ber. (The drop in employment was greater than the rise in unemployment because some part-time workers left the labor market.) Employment last year at this time was 67,414,000 persons. INDUSTRIAL LAY-OFFS Sawyer pointed out that unemployment figures rose similarly between December 1943 and January 1949. That rise was more se- rious than the present one, he indicated, because industrial lay-offs were an important factor, Unemployment, fed by continuing indus- trial lay-offs, rose steadily throughout the winter and spring of 1949 to reach a peak of just over 4,000,000 in last summer’s re- cession. PREDICTED PROGPERITY The jobless total dropped last fall to about 3,700,000 and most economists began the mew year with optimistic statements that
1950 the country had snapped back from the re- cession and was due for a relatively pros- Perous 1950. The Census Bureau broke down its total employment figures into 50,749,000 in non- agricultural work and 6,198,000 agricultural jobs. The comparable figures for December 10 were 61,783,000 and 6,773,000. SWANTON, Vr., January 25, 1950. Senator Patrick McCarran, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator McCarran: Recently re- ceived your “Displaced Persons: Facts Ver- 6us Fiction” and am very glad to know that there are some people in Washington, D. C., that are not afraid to call a spade a spade. I am a member of the Memorial Methodist Church of Swanton, Vermont, holding the position of Charge Lay Leader, a member of Memphremagog Lodge, No. 65, F. & A. M., Newport, Vermont, a member of the Frank- lin County Farm Bureau, Franklin County Vermont, a member of the Vermont Society of Mayflower Descendants, member of the Vermont Society, Sons of the American Rev- olution, member of the Swanton Board of Trade. With the unemployment situation as bad as it 18 I believe that it is the height of tolly to admit so many displaced persons Iam very well acquainted with the unem- ployment situation—Robert W Shaw was graduated from the Swanton High School last June. The only work that he could find was working for the State of Vermont paint- ing bridges and cutting grass for 75 cents per hour. Wonder what Robert thinks of the American Way of Life. However, Robert is taking a course of study with the Franklin Institute of Rochester, New York, and hopes eventually to land a job working for the Government. Very sincerely, ALDEN K SHaAw, VETERANS OF FOREIGN Wars, Kansas City, Mo., January 11, 1950. Mrs. C. WALTERs, Chicago, Ill, DFAR MRS, WALTERS: This will acknowledge your letter of January 7, 1950, tu the com- mander in chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, regarding the displaced persons’ situation. This organization has consistently fought Against displaced persons being brought into the country and have testified in Congress on the present bill which would allow 200,000 more of Europe's displaced persons to enter the United States over and above the regular Immigration quota. Very truly yours, JAMES K, Fry, Assistant, (For George L. MacElcoy, Chief, Division of Employment.) New York City COLony, NaTIONAL Society NEw ENGLAND WOMEN, Douglas Manor, N. Y., January 21, 1950. Jon. Par McCaRRAN, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR: Thank you so much for your statement before the Senate on Jan- uary 6, 1950, on displaced persons, copy of which I received yesterday. For a Jong time I have been tn favor of a reduction in immigration quotas and a cessa- tion of all immigration for at least 5 years, increased patrol of our Mexican border and the Gulf of Mexico shore line through which countless immigrants enter the United States. I could make good use of 25 extra copies of your statement and hope I am not asking too many. Wil you be good enough to have your secretary send them to me? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE With appreciation of your effort to control the displaced persons matter, including im- migration to the United States, which really means “conquest by immigration,” I am, Sincerely yours, JOSEPHINE W. OTTMAN, Chairman, Nattonal Defense, New York City Colony, NSNEW, P. 8.—Please keep up your good work. H. R. 4567 should bo defeated. Cuicaco, Iuu., January 17, 1950. Senator Pat McCarran, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C. Drak SENATOR McCaARRAN: Congratulations on your splendid opposition to the DP advo- cates who would deliberately or thoughtlessly intensify our domestic unemployment sit- uation. Personally I fecl that our obligation to the 60,000,000 American children, rapidly grow- ing up and entering the job market, is in it- self an overwhelming argument not only to stop the DP movement but to halt all immi- gration indefinitely if not permanently. You will note from the enclosed clipping that my views on this subject recently ap- peared in the Chicago Tribune. May your good work continue. Sincerely yours, Rosert W. ROGERS. [From the Chicago Dally Tribune of January 18, 1950] DP’s AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES Cu1rcaco, December 27.—Every few days we read that two or three thousand more DP's are arriving in this country. At the same time our unemployment problem is becoming more acute. Government and AFL figures show there are now more than 5,000,000 Americans seeking employment. Any sug- gestion that still more DP's or other immi- grants be admitted is preposterous, if not an uctual crime against American labor. It’s time to wake up and stamp out this DP racket and also crack down on the thousands of aliens being smuggled into our country. The unemployment situation alone justi- fies the complete stoppage of all immigration, but there is another reason vastly more im- portant. I refer to our obligation to the 60,000,000 American children (50,000,000 un- der 16), most of whom will be in the Job mar- ket during the next two decades. That’s twice the number of adults who will die or retire during the same period and never be- fore have we faced such an awesome chal- lenge. The least we can do 1s preserve every job opportunity for our own progeny. The Truman administration claims to be a friend of American labor and the American family. Now jis their chance to prove It. R. W. Roaers. LAFAYETTE COUNCIL, No. 59, OrpER OF INDEPENDENT AMERICANS, Hazleton, Pa., February 1, 1950. Hon. Par McCarran, Senator from Nevada, . Washington, D.C. My Dear Sin: Have recelved one of your phamphlets of your talk on immigration and displaced persons and those who have unlawfully come into our country, which was a good article anc very interesting. We being considered & small country along side of some of the European countries, and with all of these people coming into our country unlawfully and otherwise, and when here we will have to care for them along with all the unemployed that we have to care for, it will be coming to a point where it will be creating ches for us. I have written to both Senator MARTIN and Senator MYERs, from Pennsylvania, ask< 2259 ing them to use their support and influence against this bill H. R. 4567, and also asking them to use their influence toward appro- priating enough money to deport all these aliens to the countries of their origin, A copy of what was sent to the other Senators: At a regular stated meeting of Lafayette Council, No. 59, Order of Independent Ameri- cans, held January 31, 1950, the following resolution was adopted: “Resolved, We advocate that the Displaced Persons Act be strictly enforced. And that bill 4567 be defeated in its entirety: Be it further “Resolved, That Congress appropriate suf- ficient money to deport the 3,000,000 or more people who have come into our country un- lawfully back into the country of their own origin.” I trust that you can muster enough votes to hold the lines and defeat these people who are for everlastingly trying to force this jesue for personal gains more than anything else. Very truly yours, Justice C. SCHATZ. FREDERICK, Mp., February 3, 1950. Senator PAr McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR McCarRAN: Please accept my thanks for your kindness and courtesy in sending me a copy of your remarks on dis- placed persons, which, I am happy to say, I heartily approve and concur in. As a mat- ter of fact, I would go even a step further and stop all immigration for the next 50 years. If we ever have another recession in this country (which I hope and pray we will not, but I fear that we will) it will simply mean that we will Just have so many more people to take care of. Sooner or later we aro going to realize we just can’t take care of the entire world, and we must stop some- where along the line. I am sending you a clipping from the local paper that I feel sure you will appreciate. What is our country coming to? I am just an old retired soldier, one who loves his coun- try dearly, but it makes me wonder some- times as to just where are we headed for? It was especially pleasing to me to see on your folder (not printed at Government ex- pense). Would that more and more of our leaders would do likewise. Again my thanks for your courtesy. Sincerely yours, JouHN R. Hott, Colonel, United States Army, Retired, [From the Frederick (Md.) News of February 1, 1950} A Sociauistic U. 8. A.? Would you like to live in a Socialist Amer- ica? Most Americans wouldn't. But there’s a real danger that we will—whether we want it or not, One of the main roads to socialism is gov- ernment ownership and control of important businesses. The electric Nght and power busineas is one—and this map shows how far the Government is in it already. Every white dot—209 of them—on the map marks an electric power plant now operated or financed by our Federal Government, Every black dot shows where another Govern- ment power plant is being bullt, expanded, or proposed. In all, over 700 places in 44 erates And a long step toward a soclalistic . B.A. Most of the people who speak for more Government control over American life don’t want a socialistic nation. They have other reasons for Government control. But when Government, moving step by step. controls enough things, we'll have a
2260 Socialist government, whether we want it or not. And, instead of our freedom, we'll have Government control, not only over business but over churches, schools, homes—our whole lives, THE Potomac EDISON Co. [From the Christian Science Monitor of February 14, 1950] DP RAcKErT BaRED To ENTER UNITED STATES ON FALSIFIED RECORDS (By Josephine Ripley) Many displaced persons have been at- tempting to enter the United States illegally under fraudulent documents, and some have succeeded, Congress has been told. This is reported to be part of a fairly wide- spread racket omong the DP’s who have been bribing German police officers to falsify resi- Cence documents in order to establish eligi- bility for United States emigration. About 500 fraudulent registrations have been uncovered in the Munich area alone, Loncld W. Main, senior officer for the Dis- flaced Persons Commission in Munich, in- formed a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Of these, probably 100 slipped into the United States before this illegal activity was discloscd, Mr. Main estimated. ELIGIBILITY DATE FRAUD Purpose of this fraud, it was explained, was to establish record of a German residence prior to December 22, 1945. This is the date after which displaced persons secking sanc- tuary are ineligible for emigration to the United States. It 1s a cut-off date which has birred many who are eligible in every other way Under the new displaced-persons bill Just reported out by the Senate Judiciary Com- mi:tee, the eligibility date is moved up to January 1, 1949. The only bribe of which Mr. Main knew per-onally was one involving a sult of clothes which was promir2:d to a German police of- ficer in exchange for the false residence paper The Counter Intellivence Corps of the Army and the Displaced Fersons Commission became suspicious of this racket with the sudden influx of some 300 applications giv- ing Schneitse, Germany, as the place of resi- dence Prosecutions by the military govern- ment in these cases are now in process, Mr. Main informed the committee. Fraudulent registrations also have been re- ported by CIC tn nine other towns, he stated. Mr. Main indicated that the CIC had only scratched the surface of this practice. He raid he had been told by the CIC in the Munich area that if it had the authority to eheck police revistrations in every locality within its jurisdiction, which covers about half of Bavaria, it felt fraudulent records would be uncovered in 80 percent of these towns. There was no evidence given before the subcommittee to indicate that these fraudu- lent records involved the efforts of Commu- nists or other subversives to gain entry to the United States When questioned as to how many Communists may have come in as dis- placed persons, Mr. Main said he had no knowledge or opinion He did assert, how- ever, that it would be possible for spies or Communists to enter under the displaced- persons law or as regular immigrants. It is impossible, he said, to frame a law which will positively screen them out. Mr. Main spoke somewhat critically of the policies of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion, with which he frequently disagreed, He reported that on cuses which he recom- mended be turned down, he frequently was reversed by higher-ups in the Frankfurt headquarters. Mr. Main estimated that in about 10 percent of the cases which he had handled, his recommendation for nonadmis- sion had been reversed by higher authorities. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE He reported, however, that in 9 percent of these eplit-decision cases he had been upheld by the United States consulate, the office is- suing the final visa under the regular immi- gration laws. It was apparent from Mr. Main’s testimony that the dispute arose over an interpretation of the law. The Commission took upon itself authority to pass on the eligibility of the ap- plicant only with relation to the require- ments of the displeced-persons law, and not with relation to immigration regulations which it left to immigration authorities. Mr. Main, an immigration officer on loan to the Displaced Persons Commission, construed it as his duty to consider the record of the applicant from both aspects. OFFENDERS TURNED DOWN Most of those which he had questioned, he said, had records which he felt would make them inadmissible on the grounds of moral turpitude. He spoke of two cases of minor thefts, one involving six shoestrings, and another a can of spam. In both cases the offender had been convicted and so had a record. In both cases the displaced persons were turned down by the consulate. Mr. Main testified that he was never over- ruled by the Displaced Persons Commission authorities on cases involving previous in- volvement of the applicant with Fascist or Communist organizations, although the Dis- placed Persons Commissoin had ruled that membership in the VVN—an organization of persecuted displaced persons—did not neces- sarily bar the applicant from emigration to the United States even though the organiza- tion of persecuted displaced persons was 40 percent Communist. The purpose of the Senate subcommittee in investigating this situation is to find out whether subversives are entering the United States as displaced persons, and in what way the displaced-persons law or the regular immigration law may be tightened to pre- vent such infiltration. THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF UTAH, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 25, 1950. Hon. Pat McCarran, Senator from the State of Nevada, Washington, D.C. DeEAR SENATOR: We received your letter of January 19, setting forth the resolution that was passed at our national convention held in Philadelphia, in August last year. Be assured that the department Officers of the American Legion from Utah concur with this resolution. The pamphlets you mailed to this office have been received and a thorough distribu- tion of your statement will be made to all post commanders and adjutants in the de- partment. We commend you for the attitude you have taken relative to our immigration laws and we wish to encourage you in your Official ca- pacity as chairman of this committee for the stand you are taking. The American Legion is cognizant of the reactions that can come should our immigration laws be modi- fied in favor of foreign emigration. The dis- placed persons coming to the United States are a positive Mability; some adjust them- selves immediately, but most of them never become adjusted. The group in the latter category can reasonably be referred to as undesirables and they are a fertile field for the alien propagandists to cultivate under- currents of un-Americanism. We are always happy to cooperate with you in promoting anything which will have a tendency to strengthen us as a nation, and we wish you continued success in your en- deavors. Respectfully yours, Gezorce E. Larsen, Department Adjutant. FEBRUARY 23 COLoraDo Springs, COLO., February 10, 1950. Senator Par McCarran, Senate Office Butiding, Washington, D.C. DraR HONORABLE MCCaRRAN: I have ob- served with interest various news items given by you, as well as your statement before the Senate on Friday, January 6, regarding dis- placed persons, Facts Versus Fiction, and I want to compliment you on your stand, I think it is way past the time that other Members of Congress should become fa- miliar with the fact that various illegal entries of subversives and others are being made by way of Canada, Cuba, Mexico, etc., into our country. As a matter of fact many entries are being made by members of a sinister cult, the majority of whom are un- assimilatory and a danger to our way of life and of a Socialist-Communist variety, re- gardless of the screening through which some of them go but many of whom avoid. Some are slipped into our country for a mere thousand dollars. I would like to call your attention, al- though you may have seen it, to the item in the October 6 ConGrrssIonaL RECORD by Representatives Yates, of Illinois, Subversive Activities of Hate Groups. Sincerely yours, Rosert DoNNER. CIIARLOTYESVILLE, VA, February 16, 1950. Senator PaTRick A McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR McCarran: Although not a constituent of yours, I am taking the liberty of sending you herewith a copy of a letter which ts self-explanatory and which may be of interest to you. May I take this opportunity to congratu- late you on the splendid fight you have made and are making to keep undesirable aliens out of our country? With all good wishes for your continued success, I am, Very sincerely yours, Homer G. RICHEY. CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., February 16, 1950. Eprror, RICHMOND TIMES DISPATCH, Richmond, Va. (Attention Voice of the People) Sir: I should first like to acknowledge Mrs. Virginia Hurt’s gracious and courageous re- marks in her letter to the VOP of February 7. In view of a spate of letters in the VOP of February 16 concerning the DP problem, I should like to point to some ramifications of this problem which have received but little public attention. It is often argued that present DP legisla- tion discriminates agatnst Jews and Catho- lics I fail to see that it discriminates against Catholics at all. Nor does it dis- criminate against Jews as such, although it is intended to preclude, and properly so, the entry of large numbers of Polish Jews into this country who voluntarily left Poland for Germany in 1946—long after Hitler’s forced deportation of DP’s had come to an end. A dispatch of February 13 from Munich in the Chicago Tribune tells some interest- ing things about the International Refugee Organization, the international group in charge of DP resettlement. A DP in Vienna from one of the Baltic countries insisted that “the Russians have some way of getting information from the IRO. Several times after someone has admitted his anti-Com- munist feelings * * * it would filter through some place and get into Russian hands.” The dispatch goes on to say, “Most dis- laced persons will tell you that, although t would be hard to prove that there are
1950 Communist sympathizers among the IRO, it definitely was a disadvantage in getting cleared for United States immigration if one were known as an anti-Communist” (sic). Instead of passing a liberalized DP bill, Congress ought to start an investigation of the IRO This organization is supported principally by United States funds and the American taxpayer has a right to know whether he is subsidizing a group composed largely of fellow travelers whose chief mis- sion is to get subversive aliens into the United States. If Congress is in an econo- mizing mood, I can think of no better place to start than the IRO Homre GILMER RICHEY, VRFTFRANS OF ForEIGN Wars, WaTIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, February 7, 1950. Hon Pat McCarran, Member of the Untted States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D C. Dear SENATOR McCarran’ As a member and vice chairman of the national legisia- tive committee of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I was very much interested 1n your statement made in the Senate of the United States on Friday, January 6, 1950, copy of which I received recently in the mail As you know, our organization has con- sistently maintained the stand, which has been well expressed by you in this state- ment The statement furnishes us with very valuuble information which will be of assistance in the drafting of our legislative program The entire membership of the second dis- trict of the ViiW, comprising representa- tives of all the VFW posts in the second district, city of Seattle, State of Washington, has requested that I write to you reaffirming our position on this matter of displaced per- sons. Sincerely yours, Rosrrt A. YOTHERS, Vice Chairman, National Legislative Committee, VFW. TASKER L ODDIE, OF NEVADA Mr. MALONE Mr. President, former United States Senator Tasker L Oddie, of Nevada, died on February 17. The story of his political and professional life 1s parallel to and an integral part of the history of our State of Nevada durlug the early part of this century. He dedicated the greater part of his active life to public service. Tasker L. Oddie served with great distinction one term as Governor of Nevada, from 1911 to 1914, and two terms as United States Senator, from 1921 to 1933. He was closely associated with Jim Butler, who discovered the great silver mines of Tonopah, Nev., early in this century and continued his interest in mining to the end of his distinguished career. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada, was very close to Senator Oddie during the period from 1927 to 1932, including the period of the development of Boulder Dam, now Hoover Dam, and other public projects affecting the State of Nevada and the other Western States and understood his keen interest in the development of worthy projects. Senator Oddie played an important part in perfecting the legislation pro- viding for Federal aid to the States in the construction of public roads during the early part of his first term in the Senaie. He was also closely connected CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE with and had a very active part in se- curing the naval ammunition depot at Hawthorne, Nev., together with Samuel S. Arentz, the Congressman from Ne- vada, Gov. Fred B. Balzar, and State Senator John H. Miller. Throughout his long period of service his integrity and ability were unques- tioned, and his long record in active pub- lic service demonstrated his loyalty and devotion to his State and his country. Senator Oddie’s loss will be decply felt in our State of Nevada, and throughout the Western States, where he was active both professionally and politically for more than a third of a century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that there be printed in the Recorp at this point a news item entitled “Death Takes Tasker Oddie,” which appeared in the Reno Evening Gazette on February 18. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: DEATH TAKES TASKER ODDIE, ForMER Gov- ERNOR, UNITED STATES SENATOR—RITES Monpbay Tasker L Oddie, whose political career in Nevada spanned the first third of the century, died at his San Francisco homo late Friday afternoon at the age of 79 He was Nevada's twelfth governor, the eleventh man to represent this State in the United States Senate, and he had also served in the State senate and as district attorney of Nye County Playing an important part in Nevada mining development during the Tonopah boom days he also contributed to the progress of his adopted State in many other ways. Senator Oddie was one of the men respon- sible for the Hoover Dam project. As amem- ber of the Senate Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads he succeeded in securing Federal highway money for Nevada. He was prominent in the fight to raise the price of silver to a basis profitable to Nevada mining enterprises Jt was also largely through his efforts that Hawthorne was selected ap the site for the naval ammunition Cepot in 1926 SUCCESSFUL GOVERNOR Regarded as one of Nevada's most success- ful governors, he took office January 1, 1911, the first Republican to occupy the chief executive’s chair in 16 years, and with the ald of va split in the Democratic Paity., Al- ways an advocate of good government, he placed public duty albove political considera- tious, tusisted on strict economy, and ad- mumistirative efficiency. He secured the pro- vision of a State tux commission, and sought to abolish numerous boards and offices he thought wele unn¢cessary Oddie belleved that public expenditures should be governed by the 1ule of whether or not the State would derive benefits therefrom in ¢..ccss of cost. He was long an advocate of good roads and he also held the office of State engineer to be the most important in the State. Too, he thought the State should interest itself in reclamation projects. Just before he took office an act prohibit- ing gambling had gone into efiect and he insisted on its strict enforcement During his term, too, the legislature in 1911 passed a workmen's compensation act. Legislation was also enacted for protection of miners from injury and death underground by re- quiring modern safety and fire-fighting ap- pliances. During his term, too, the legisla- ture ratified the sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, authorizing im- position of Federal income taxes As Gov- ernor he directed a reform of the old methods of assessing property for taxation, In Feb- 2261 ruary of 1912 he called the legislature into session to authorize the State to borrow from the State school fund a sufficient amount to enable the State to transact busi- noss on a cash basis. BROOKLYN BOAN Tasker Lownes Oddie was born at Brook- lyn, N. Y., October 20, 1870. He was edu- cated at East Orange, N. J., and at the age of 16 came west to ride the range. Return- ing east he clerked in a wholesale grocery house and studied law, receiving his diploma trom New York University in 1885. He came to Nevada in the employ of Anson Phelps Stokes in 1898, intending to stay for a short time to inspect certain min- ing claims and railrond interests. He elected to remain and grow up with the country, making his headquarters at Austin. The de- ctsion led him on the trail of fortunes, which he made, lost, and made again, although at his death he was not regarded as a wealthy man. From Austin he went to Tonopah with Jim Butler, who was that district's original dis- coverer. Oddie was Butler's close legal and financial adviser in the pionecring days when a lJarge portion of the mining world flocked to Tonopah, and later swarmed to Goldfield, and the two were associated with Wilson Brougher He was a conspicuous figure in the camps but a large part of the fortune he accumulated was expended in grub stakes and in subsequent developments which turned out to be unprofitable He always be- Meved 1n Nevada’s mining possibilities, and aiter he left the United State Senate in 1933 he went to look for another fortune in the gold and silver districts, spurning a possible political comeback He had faith, too, jn the agricultural and Mvestock possibilities of the State. Admitted to the State bar of Nevada in 1898 he did some law practice in Tonopah and served as Nye district attorney from 1900 to 1902 While serving in the State Senate from 1904 to 1908 he was a proponent of labor legislation and supported the 8-hour law for railroaders and the tull crew law. Later as governor nearly all the acts on the statute books in the interests of ratlroad workers -vcre passed and signed by him. POLITICAL CAREER He was elected governor in 1910 after a strenuous campaign, and was defeated for reelection by Emmet D. Boyle in 1914. He agalu opposed Boyle for the governorship in 1918 In 1920 he was elected to the United Stutes Senate, serving two terms. Between 1921 and 1933 he served on numerous influ- ential committees and was chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, was on the Committees on Mines and Mining. Naval Affairs, Reclamation, Public Lands and Appropriations, Aiter he went down during the Demo- cratic landslide in 1932 he was appointed special advicor to the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation on mining loans, Then he came hack to mining in Nevada. More re- cently he had lived in San Francisco, spend- ing his summers at Lake Tahoe and still ealling Nevada home. His funeral will be private, and will be held at Gray’s Parlor on Divisidero Street, Monday at 1 30 p.m. The request has been mace that no flowers be sent. Senator Oddie married Daisy Rendall, of Los Angeles, November 30, 1916. She survives him as does a brother, Clarence M Oddie of San Francisco, and a sister, Mrs. Frederick Siebert of Palo Alto He was a member of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, was a Knight Templar Mason and Shriner and a member of Reno Lodge, No. 597, BPO Elks. He was a member of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. Durlng World War I he was chairman of the highways transportation committee in the