IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 31, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Content Type: OPEN

ase 20008/25 : (C,Ai-Ii~''7-00 848001000050003-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 8357
The PEAK Is there objection to present size and over and above the con-
the re!uest he gentleman from Ken- siderable number of additional immi-
r ntc that-. we have. received and are
g
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
ACT
The SPEAKER. The unfinished busi-
ness is the further consideration of the
veto message of the President of the
United States, on the bill (H. R. 5678) to
revise the laws relating to immigration,
naturalization, and nationality; and for
other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will
the House on reconsideration pass the
bill the objection of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. WAITER] is recognized.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to over-
ride the -veto and pass the bill H. R.
5678, the President's objections notwith-
standing. I have gone very carefully
over the lengthy veto message, and I
have tried very hard to find in this
elaborate opus certain points which
would lend themselves to discussion,
points that would be pertinent to the
provisions of H. R. 5678. Unfortunately,
it is impossible, because of the fictional
and amateurish character of the mes-
sage. Therefore, in discussing the veto
message, I do feel that I am not dis-
cussing the Chief Exectuive's specific ob-
jectiono to the legislative measure now
before us. I feel that I am discussing
certain thoughts propounded by the
President's ghost writers who have
neglected to do one thing-to read the
bill.
More than half of the veto message
deals with the question of whether or
nOt the ' United States needs more im-
..' migrants. The answer to the President's
ghost writers is in the affirmative. They
say that we need more immigrants to
enter our country because our popula-
tion has grown since 1924 when the quota
system was established. In other words,
the authors of this message believe that
the more population a country has the
more people it is able to absorb. This is
a brand new argument and shall run
counter to the internationally accepted
theory, according to which underpopu-
lated and not overpopulated countries
offer resettlement opportunities for new
immigrants.
Without stretching too much the
Presidential ghost writer's argument,
Italy, India, and Japan, and not Brazil,
Canada, and Australia would be best
suited to accept more immigrants.
This extravagant theory, coming to
us right after the President's Commis-
sion found that we were running out of
raw materials, provides for a rather
strange illustration of the working of
the mind of some of the Presidential
advisers. As far as I am concerned, I
have noticed among the American people
very little support for this brand new
theory of overpopulating overpopulated
countries, and I do not know of any
widespread desire of enlarging our im-
migration quotas over and above their
sUl41 rel;rLV111r, um .
enactments of the-postwar years. In any
event, the President's ghost writers'
demographic dissertations have nothing
to do with the legislation before us.
As I pointed out earlier this year on
several occasions, this bill is not another
displaced persons bill. It is designed to
be a permanent statute, codifying and
revising the hodgepodge of our immigra-
tion and nationality laws. Should the'
American people decide that they want
to admit more immigrants, their repre-
sentatives in Congress would act accord-
ing to their wishes, but not in connection
with this particular legislation. Simi-
larly, should the American people desire
to change the time-tested principle of
national origins, from which I believe it
would be very dangerous to depart, they
would so signify to us and we might then
act accordingly. I have not heard any
such demands except those coming from
isolated groups motivated by political
and professional considerations.
The message before us points to many
good and desirable provisions of the
bill. Among them it lists the removal of
racial barriers to immigration and natu-
ralization; the removal of discrimina-
tions between sexes, and other improve-
ments of the existing law. If the Presi-
dent's veto is sustained, none of these
improvements will be written into the
law. The old people of Japanese an-
cestry, 85,000 of them, whose sons cov-
ered themselves with glory on the bat-
tlefield of the last war, fighting and dy-
ing for the United States, these old peo-
ple will not become citizens of the United
States, and they will continue to face
difficulties even in holding to their prop=
erty in the several States. This, despite
the fact that every one of them is legally
in the United States and cannot be
deported.
If the President's veto is sustained,
several thousands of Chinese children of
American citizens would remain strand-
ed in Hong Kong under the constant
threat of being captured by Chinese
Communists and brought up to be our
enemies.
If the President's veto is sustained,
several thousands of Americans of Ital-
ian ancestry who voted in Italian elec-
tions in order to help us defeat the Com-
munists will not see their citizenship
restored.
If the President's veto is sustained, the
American girl who marries an Italian
or a Greek, or an Indian or a Japanese,
will not be able to bring her husband to
the United States.
If the President's veto is sustained, the
GI in Japan or in Korea will not be per-
mitted t9 bring his oriental wife into this
country.
If the President's veto is sustained, the
homeless and abandoned Korean and
Japanese children whose plight has ap-
pealed to the big-hearted American boys
who prompted their families to adopt
them, will be barred from entering the
country of their adoption.
If the President's veto is sustained,
Communist propaganda in the Far East
will be given a new shot in the arm by
being permitted to spread the word that
we intend to keep the orientals out and
that the words of friendship we ad-
dressed to them remain just empty,
slogans.
In that connection I would like to read
a. paragraph from a letter that I re-
ceived from General MacArthur bearing
date May 23, 1949, in which the general
stated:
The gravity of the issue demands that
American policy governing international re-
lationships be raised to the highest moral
plane and attuned realistically to a course
of broad statesmanship and enlightened vis-
ion. * * * The action you advocate is
based upon just that type of statesmanship.
It completes rectification of a past wrong
and gives honor where honor has been well
earned and is due. It renews in peace bonds
of fraternal understanding and mutual con-
fidence welded in the crucible of war and
reaffirms our desire to extend these bonds
to embrace all of the peoples of the earth.
It repudiates the concept which holds to
the superiority of some over the inferiority
of others.
We should not permit this to happen,
and we should not permit the veto to
stand, thus jeopardizing both our do-
mestic and international relations.
As I said in the beginning, I do not
know who the President's ghost writers
are, but I do find in the veto message
most of the statements made by certain
persons and certain groups whose mo-
tives in fighting this legislation are
highly questionable, if not suspicious.
On the other hand, I do know that every
Government agency charged with the
administration of our immigration and
nationality laws, the Department . of
Justice, the Department of State, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Bureau
of Immigration an aturalization, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, have
strongly recommended the enactment of
this bill.
I do know that many patriotic Ameri-
can organizations, including the Ameri-
can Legion, the American Federation of
Labor-and in that connection I would
like to point out that according to an
article that appeared in the Star last
week the CIO branded this legislation as
being antilabor. If this bill is antilabor,
then north is south, and east is west.
The American Federation of Labor
participated in the drafting of the bill,
and they have stated that for the first
time in the history of our immigration
laws steps have been taken to protect
the American worker.
More than that, in this same letter the
CIO said that this legislation could be
used to punish labor leaders. I found a
case reported in the Southeast Reporter
in which there is a very short definition
of punishment:
Punishment in a legal sense is any pain.
penR,lty, suffering, or confinement inflicted
upon a person by the authority of the law,
and the judgment and sentence of a court
for some crime or offense committed by him
or for his omission of a duty enjoined by law.
(State v. Pope (60 S. E. 234, 236 and 79 S. C.
87,).)
What crimes or offenses have labor,
leaders committed that makes them
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
8358' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
falsely brand this legislation as antila-
bor?
In addition to the organizations I have
mentioned, there is the National Catho-
lic Welfare Conference. Please bear
that in mind because there is a Catho-
lic clergyman who has been buttonhol-
ing Members of Congress all days trying
to Influence them improperly, if you
please. But the National Catholic Wel-
fare Conference endorses this particular
bill.
All. associations of our shipping and
airlines, as. well as the Japanese-Ameri-
can Citizens League and the Chinese-
American organizations, have recom-
mended Its enactment.
The main purpose of the strengthen-
ing of our immigration laws was to give
the executive branch a better instrument
to protect the security of our country
and our citizens. The loopholes in our
old' statutes have gradually become
larger and larger, so that while fighting
communism abroad we actually became
powerless in fighting its infiltration Into
our own country, I believe that the
Congress Is under the obligation-under
a mandate-to provide for better protec-
tion of our country from subversives,
gamblers,` narcotic peddlers, stowaways,
ship jumpers, and foreign agents who
know no only too well how to slip into
and remain in our country.
There is no question that under the
Constitution and under hundreds of
court decisions the Congress has the
power to provide for such protection.
Instead of following the presidential
ghost writes' example and indulge in
writing fiction into veto messages, let me
quote in that respect a few court deci-
sions.
The power of Congress to control im-
migration stems from the sovereign au-
thority of the United States as a Nation,
and from the constitutional power of
Congress to regulate commerce with
foreign nations-Chae Chan Ping v.
United States (130_ U. S. 581 (1889));
Edye v. Robertson, Collector (112 U. S.
680 (1884)).
Every sovereign nation has power, In-
herent in sovereignty and essential to
self-preservation, to forbid entrance of
foreigners within its dominions, or to
admit them only in such cases and upon
such conditions as it may see. fit to pre-
scribe-Nishimura Ekiu v. United States
(142 U. S. 651, 659 (1892)),
Congress may exclude aliens alto-
gether or prescribe terms and condi-
tions upon which they may come into
or remain. in this countyy-Fok Young
Yo v. United States (185 U. S. 296
(1902)).
The power and authority of the
United States, as an attribute of sov-
ereignty, either to prohibit or regulate
immigration of aliens,-are plenary and
Congress. may choose such agencies as
it pleases to carry out whatever policy or
-rule of exclusion it may adopt, and, so
long as such agencies do not transcend
limits of authority or abuse discretion
reposed in them, their judgment is not
open to challenge or review by courts-
Kaorn Yamataya v. Fisher .(189 I. $. 86
It, has been settled by repeated deci-
sion that Congress has power to exclude
any and all aliens from the United
States, to prescribe the terms and con-
ditions on which they may come in or
on which they remain after having
been admitted, to establish the regula-
tions for deporting such aliens as have
entered in violation of law or-'Who are
here in violation of law, and to commit
the enforcing of such laws and regula-
tions to executive officers-In re Koso-
pud et al. (272 F. 330 (1920)) .
- It has been repeatedly held that the
right to. exclude or to expel all aliens or
any class of aliens, absolutely or upon
certain conditions, in war or in peace, is
an inherent and inalienable right of
every sovereign and independent nation,
essential to its safety, its independence,
and its welfare; that this power to ex-
clude and to expel aliens, being a power
affecting_ international relations, is
vested in the political departments of
the Government, and is to be regulated
by treaty or by act of Congress and to be
executed by the executive authority ac-
cording to the regulations so established,
except so far asthe judicial department
has been authorized by treaty or by
statute, or is required by the paramount
law of the Constitution to intervene-
Colyer v. Skefngton (265 F. 17 (1920) ).
The United States may exclude any
alien for any reason whatsoever, such as
the Government's dislike of the alien's
political or social ideas, or because he be-
longs to groups which are likely to be-
come public charges, or for other similar
reasons-United States v. Parson (22 F.
Supp. 149 (1938)).
Although an alien who had acquired
residence in this country was entitled
to the same protection of life, liberty,
and property as a citizen, he acquired no
vested right to remain and the Govern-
ment has power to deport him if, in the
judgment of Congress, public interests so
required, and such power is not de-
pendent upon the existence of statutory
conditions as to his right to remain at
the time he became a resident-United
States v. Sui Joy (240 F. 392 (1917) ).
An alien resident in the United States
may be deported for any reason which
Congress has determined will make his
residence here inimical to the best inter-
ests of our Government-Skeffington v.
Katzeff (277 F. 129 (1922)).
In the more recent decisions on March
10, 1952-Harisiades against Shaugh-
nessy, Mascitti against McGrath, and
Coleman against McGrath-Justice
Jackson cited 11 Supreme Court deci-
sions sustaining the sovereign nation's
power to terminate its hospitality to an
alien who failed to comply with the laws
of the land of his adoption.
Said Justice Jackson:
It is a weapon of defense and reprisal con-
firmed by international law as a power in-
herent in every sovereign State. Such is
the traditional power of the Nation over the
alien, and we leave the law on the subject
as we find it.
Regarding the President's ghost wrters'
complaint that certain provisions of this
legislation are applicable to the deporta-
tion of subversives, this is what Justice
Jackson had to say:
During all the years since 1920 Congress
has maintained a standing admonition to
aliens, on pain of deportation, not to bec me
members of any organization that advocates
overthrow of the United States by force and
violence, a category repeatedly held to in-
elude the Communist Party. These aliens
violated that prohibition and incurred lia-
bility to deportation. They were not cau4ht
unaFares by a change of law.
Regarding the President's ghost writers'
complaint about the constitutionality of
the other provisions of this bill, Justice
Reed, in delivering the opinion of the
Supreme Court in the case of Carlson
against Landon-March 10, 1952-cited
five Supreme Court decisions to sustain
the following finding:
The power to expell aliens, being essen-
tially a power of the political branches! of
Government, the legislative and executive,
may be exercised entirely through execu ive
officers, "with such opportunity for judiial
review of their action as Congresp may 'pee
fit to authorize or permit." This power: is,
of course, subject to judicial intervention
under the "paramount law of the Constitu-
tion."
This judicial intervention has been
fully preserved in the bill presently $e-
fore us. So have been other rights and
privileges of the alien foreign-born and
native-born citizens.
Notwithstanding the fiction contained
In the veto message, all existing statutes
governing the loss of United States cti-
zenship have been liberalized, and I wont
to stress the words "all of them"-th se
relative to loss of citizenship by dual ria-
tionals as well as those relative to chil-
dren of American citizens born abroad.
The paragraphs of the veto message
which discuss these provisions of the bill
prove once more what I said at the otlt-
set, that the ghost writers simply ne-
glected to acquaint themselves with the
provisions of the proposed law before
they advised the President to disregard
the recommendations of all his executive
agencies and succumb to pressures mo-
tivated by political interests.
After having spent close to 4 years,; in
studying and drafting this law, its au-
thors, supported by every one of the
administrative agencies working in the
field of immigration and naturalization,
recommended the passage of this legis-
lation and now they most sincerely rec-
ommend that it be -passed again, the
Presidential "illadvisers" notwith-
standing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to tale
gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLERI.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, it was riot
my intention to address this group pn
this veto. However, the gentleman frqm
Pennsylvania, having given voice to its
views whereby he took the President to
task for, shall I say, having what might
be deemed the temerity In vetoing this
bill, I feel it incumbent upon myself to
say a few words in support of the Presi-
The President exercised his discretion.
I believe he acted with fortitude, with
integrity, and with wisdom, as he saw
fit. The President's motive in vetoing
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 CIA-RDP57-00384R0010000-550003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
1952
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
theory. I believe that theory is out-
moded and should have been cast into
limbo long since. It stems from a sort
of claustrophobia, xenophobia, or chau-
vinism, popular at the end of the last
century but which seems to animate
many of. the people in this land and a
goodly portion of the membership of
this House. Too many people believe
aliens have horns and that they are
the very embodiment of the devil.
The bill vetoed continues to divide the
immigration pie in a very unfair and
unrealistic manner. We allow something
like a total of 154,000 aliens to come
into this country yearly, and how do we
divide that pie? We give almost half
of it to Great Britain. What does Great
Britain do? It thumbs its nose at us and
says, "We do not want to come to the
United States, we do not want to use
your immigration quota numbers."
Then what do we do? We continue the
hoax. We continue, shall I say, the lie.
We continue the fake, as it were. We say
we give to Britain almost half the quota,
sixty-eight-thousand-odd. They hardly
use any of the numbers, and all those
numbers go down the drain. That is to
the great disadvantage of the aliens who
seek to come here from other lands, par-
ticularly those from southern and east-
ern Europe, from Spain and from Greece
and from Italy. The President said: "Do
not let the British quota numbers go to
waste. Assign unused numbers to aliens
anxious to come to us, but who cannot
because the quotas of their country of
origin are ridiculously if tragically
small."
Why do we discriminate with pitifully
small quotas for those countries in south-
ern and eastern Europe and give to
Germany over 25,000 quota numbers, and
give to Great Britain all those numbers
that I have mentioned, whereas Great
Britain does not want to use them? Why
so generous to Germany? And so parsi-
monious to Italy? Why do we continue
that course? The President wisely
pointed all that out in his veto message.
Names of worthy people from southern
and eastern Europe, who are discrimi-
nated against by the bill vetoed are part
of the warp and woof of American life.
These names are found on baseball ros-
ters, in the lists of Congressmen, and
governors.
I suggest that if you look at the casu-
alty lists coming from Korea you will
see what? Only British or German
names? Indeed no. You will see many
names of those who came from southern
and eastern Europe, Polish names, Hun-
garian names, Croatian names, Italian
names, Greek names, and Turkish names.
These diverse names belong to honored
dead and wounded. Why should their
people be so discriminated against by
virtue of the national origins theory,
against which the President very prop-
erly inveighed, a theory which also flies
in the face of our foreign policy?
In one breath we say we wish to hold
out a helping hand to you people in
Italy, and you people in Greece, and you
people in Spain, and you people in other
parts of southern and eastern Europe.
And in the other breath we do all in our
this bill must be deemed above-reproach.
His views are above suspicion.
Even those of Catholic faith have the
right to present their views for or against
this veto. All faiths have the right to do
this and they should not be castigated.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has
somewhat. offended against the preser-
vation of the right of protest.
I can understand very well the per-
turbation of mind of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. He has labored long and
assiduously on this bill. He feels a keen
rebuff. I do not think that warrants,
however, the severity and the bitterness,
shall I say, of his denunciation of the
President. I think he should take it in
his stride. We cannot win at all times.
In this work with which we are con-
fronted here we meet with many rebuffs
and frustrations, but there come times
when we have victories and it compen-
sates us for all our disappointments. He
is disappointed. His disappointment
should not warp his judgment.
Ghost writing, which he attacks, is
apparently essential in the busy life of
any President. Turn the mirror upon
yourselves. I do not think there is a
Member in this House who has not had
at some time or other a ghost writer. I
venture that there is not a Member of
this House who has not at some time or
other been at least aided and given some
comfort by others in the writing of his
speeches. It may be only a matter of
degree, that is all. But when you take
the multifarious duties of a President,
it is almost impossible for him to write
every speech or every observation that
comes from his pen. He must have the
aid and the counsel of others. Consider
his herculean tasks, his varied pursuits,
the intensity of his work and you readily
see that. continual speech writing re-
quires considerable assistance
The test is: "are the remarks em-
braced to the President." If so, they are
his. The veto is the veto of the Presi-
dent, beyond all doubt. It has been the
practice of many Presidents to have
ghost writers. I just read Judge Rosen-
man's book about 20 years with the Pres-
ident. He spoke of the ghost writing
that was involved in many of the presen-
tations of. President Roosevelt. Even
General Eisenhower has his ghost
writer. President Hoover, President
Coolidge, and President Taft all had
their ghost writers, and they received
such aid and comfort from many of their
counselors in that regard.
The strictures laid on the President
are rather heavy and I think a bit un-
fair. All wisdom does not reside either
in the President or in the gentleman
from Pennsylvania or any Member of
the House, for that matter. We are all
endowed with human frailties. I say
the President is well within his rights to
.veto this bill. The disappointment of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is un-
derstandable, but his. heavy handed criti-
cism of the President is not.
The gravamen of the veto was the ob-
jection to further imbedding in our stat-
utes what is known r.s the national ori-
gins theory. Most of the veto message
is in opposition to the national origins
8359
power to wound their sensibilities, to
curb their spirit and injure their feelings
when it comes to immigration quotas.
The President very properly pointed that
out. In effect he said they are just as
good as. the British or the Germans.
These people who come from those parts
have America born in them-most of
them. I do not ask the question whether
a man was born in America. I ask the
question, "Is America born in you?"
Benedict Arnold was born in this coun-
try, but America was not born in him.
Earl Browder was born in this country,
but America was not born in him. Carl
Schurz was not born in this country, but
America was born in him. Alexander
Hamilton was not born in America.
America was born in him. Vincent Im-
pelliteri, our great mayor of the city of
New York, was born in Italy, but Amer-
ica was born in him. That should be the
test. So many Italians and Greeks de-
spite America being born in them are
kept out. But this immigration bill
which was passed by this House and ve-
toed by the President, flies in the face of
that theory of Americanism.
Those who sponsored this bill, and
many members of the House, are for-
getful that we built our great country be-
cause we siphoned off the best of the
brain and the best of the brawn of all
peoples of Europe everywhere-not from
just a few countries but from all coun-
tries of Europe-as a result of which we
have the highest standards of living that
civilization has ever seen. But this bill
again flies in the face of all that. It
turns the clock backward, and the Presi-
dentin his wisdom very properly points
all that out in his veto message.
What do we do with reference to the
escapees coming out from behind the
iron curtain or from behind the bamboo
curtain? In one breath we say, "Come
in, we want to entice you to come from
behind the iron curtain or the bamboo
curtain." Then when they ask to come
into this country and they go to our
consuls in the far-spread cities of the
world, and when one of them says, "I
have come out of Russia," or another
says "I have come out of Poland," or "I
have come out of Czechoslovakia,, or
Yugoslavia, or Rumania, or Hungary."
What does the consul say: "No soap.
You will have to wait." "How long must
I wait?" "You must wait until- your
quota number is reached." "How long
will that be?" "Maybe 10 years, maybe
20 years." Meanwhile what are they to
do?
Well, in the case of some of the small
countries of Europe, the wait might be
over 100 years. We have mortgaged the
quotas of some countries for so many
years. These are some of the reasons as-
signed for the veto. The President, in-
deed, was well within his rights in veto-
ing this bill.
The praiseworthy provisions of the bill
regarding the naturalization of our Jap-
anese residents and the entry of ori-
ental spouses and children, could be read-
ily and speedily enacted in a separate
measure on which, I am certain, we could
all quickly agree.
Approved' For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-003848001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001-000050003-5
8360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
8362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Members of Congress to support President-
elect Hoover during his term of office on all
legislation that relates to the general wel-
fare and progress of the people.
Mr. DENISON. Mr. Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield there?
Mr. McCoaMACs. Yes.
Mr. DENISON. I hope at some not distant
time the gentleman will inform the House
what the fundamental principles of the
Democratic Party are.
Mr. MCCORMACX. I think those funda-
mental principles are so well known that
the average man knows them, but I shall
be glad to enlighten the gentleman out in
the lobby some time.
The first indication of the unreliability
and uncertainty of the basis of determina-
tion as provided in the national-origins
clause was the postponement of its opera-
tion until July 1, 1927, in order that the
quotas might be established. In order to
regulate immigration up to the going into
effect of the national-origins clause it was
provided in the 1924 act-"that the annual
quota of any nationality shall be 2 percent
of the number of foreign-born individuals of
such nationality resident in continental
United States as determined by the United
States as determined by the United States
census of 1890, but the minimum quota of
.any nationality shall be 100."
This, like the national-origins clause, only
governed quota countries. The practical op-
eration of the present law meant that 164,000
Immigrants constituted 2 percent of our for-
eign-born population as of 1890, and were
allotted among the several European coun-
tries in accordance with the terms of this
provision. Whether one believes it ,the pol-
icy of restrictive immigration or not, there
is no question but what the original pro-
vision is at least definite and certain in its
theory and operation. While the national-
origins clause is certain as to the number of
immigrants admissible each year from Eu-
rope, which is 153,000, every other provision
thereof is unreliable, uncertain, and there-
fore inequitable.
This would be particularly so in its oper-
ation, if it ever goes into effect. I want to
call to the attention of the Members that
in accordance with the provisions of the
'Rational-origins clause the Secretaries of
State, Commerce, and Labor, as a joint board,
each appointed two representatives to try
and perform the impossible task therein pro-
vlded. It is fair to infer from all correspond-
ence made by them that they approached
this task with the realization of its difficulty
of approximate ascertainment, and the fact
that, in the main, they would have to rely'
upon conjecture. The results have clearly
shown that to be the fact. Their work has
bgen tirelessly and unselfishly rendered and
yet their reports and findings are the strong-
est evidence of the human impossibility of
performing such' a task. In their report on
December 16, 1926, will be found the
following:
"We have found our task by no means
simple, but we are carrying it out by meth-
ods which we believe to be statistically cor-
rect, utilizing the data that are available in
accordance with what seems to us to be the
intent and meaning of the law. We have
not completed our work, but the figures
which we are submitting for your informa-
tion, though provisional and subject to re-
vision, indicate approximately what the final
results will be."
What stronger evidence of uncertainty?
Accompanying this report were the quotas
which they 'had determined in accordance
with the law, and which, while not complete
and subject to revision, indicate approxi-
mately what the final results will be. These
are not my words, but the words of Dr. Hill
and his associates.
Thereafter, the operation of the law was
deferred until July 1, 1928, and on Febru-
ary 27, 1926, other quotas were recommended
by Dr. Hill and his associates. Having
in mind the statement above quoted from
report of 1927, that the 1927 quotas "indi-
cated approximately what the final results
will be," a comparison of these two quotas is
very interesting and convincing as showing
further the grave uncertainty of the basis
of determination.
Armenia________________
Australia, Including
Papua, etc------------
Austria-----------------
Belgium ----------------
Czechoslovakia -----__--
Danzig, Free City of____
Denmark_______________
Estonia-----------------
Finland ----------------
France -----------------
__
Germany -----------
Great Britain, North-
ern Ireland -----____-_
Greece__________________
Hungary---------------
Irish Free State ---------
Italy, including-
Rhodes, etc____--__-__
Latvia-------- _ -_..---
Lithuania--------------
Netherlands.---_____.
Norway--- --- ----------
Poland____.____
Portugal ----------------
Rumania____-_______
Russia, European and-
Asiatic -----------Spain--------
Sweden------------------
Switzerland --__________
Syria and the Lebanon
(French)_____________
Turkey- ---------------
Yugoslavia--_----------
Total -------------
(1)
National-
origin
quotas
submit-
ted
Feb. 27,
1928
100
1, 639
1, 328
2, 726
137
1,234
100
'568
3,308
24,908
65, 894
312
1,181
17,427
5,989
243
492
3,083
2,403
6,090
457,
311
3, 540
305
3,399
1, 614
125
233
739
(2)
National-
origin
quotas
submit.
ted
Jan. 7,
1927
100
1,486
410
2, 248
122
1,044
109
559
3,837
23:428
73,039
367
1967
13,862
6,091
184
494
2,421
2,267
4, 978
290
516
4, 781
674
3, 259
1,198
100
233
777
1153,541
(3)
Present
quotas,
based on
1890 for.
eign-born
popula.
tion
121
785
512
3,073
228
2,780
124
471
3,954
51,227
34,007
100
473
28,567
3,845
142
344
1,643
6,453
5,982
503
603
2,248
131
9,561
2,081
100
100
671
I Including 37 minimum quotas of 100 each.
As a further indication of the uncertainty
that existed in the minds of the President's
Commission, I quote a letter to the President
under date of January 3, 1927:
JANUARY 3, 1927.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the
provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Im-
migration Act of 1924, we have the honor
to transmit herewith the report of the sub-
committee appointed by us for the purpose
of determining the quota of each nationality
in accordance with the provisions of said
sections.
The report of the subcommittee is self-
explanatory, and, while it is stated to be a
preliminary report, yet it is believed that fur-
ther investigation will not substantially alter
the conclusions arrived at.
Although this is the best information
we have been able to secure, we wish to
call attention to the reservations made by
the committee and to state that in our
opinion the statistical and historical in-
formation available raises grave doubts as
to the whole value of these computations
as a basis for the purposes intended. We
therefore Cannot assume responsibility for
such conclusions under these circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
FRANK B. KELLOGG,
Secretary of State,
Department of State.
HERBERT HOOVER,
Secretary of Commerce,
Department of Commerce.
JAMES J. DAVIS,
Secretary of Labor,
Department of Labor.
June .~6
Furthermore, on February 25, 1928, the
President's Commission in transmitting the
1928 quotas above referred to said:
"We wish it clear that neither we i di-
vidually nor collectively are expressing ny
opinion on the merits or demerits of this
system of arriving at the quotas. We are
simply transmitting the calculations nlyade
by the departmental committee in accord-
ance with the act."
An analysis of the report of Dr. Hill and
his associates, dated December 16, 1,326,
showing the manner upon which calcla-
tions were determined is further evidence
of the impossibility of a fair determina-
tion, particularly in determining what por-
tion of our white population of 1920 is de-
rived from the "old native stock" of 1790.
The records of immigration giving the nlzm-
ber of immigrants arriving annually fom
each foreign country from 1820 to 1920 teas
in part relied upon. It is a well-known
fact that a good portion of those who came
from southern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and
Ulster came on vessels that started faom
an English port and were listed as emig at-
ing from England. This was particul rly
true prior to 1870. In the case of S ot-
land, Wales, and Ulster it makes no di er-
ence, because their quotas under this . aw
will be combined into one, but this sit4ia-
tion seriously affects the quota that sotth-
ern. Ireland would be entitled to. Suei a
situation is further evidence of the gl1ave
uncertainty of a determination that will
not be discriminatory.
.The above immigration quotas were
printed for the House Committee on Im-
migration and Naturalization, and column
No. 1 is the report for 1928, column 2 the
report for 1927, both made by Doctor T.Iill
and his associates, and column 3 is the
quotas under the present law.
Columns 1 and-2 relate to the national
origins clause andthe marked difference be-
tween them in the short period of 1 ilIear
seems to me to be inescapable evidencq of
the uncertainty of ascertainment.
A comparison will show that under the
quotas that will be established if the
national origins clause goes into effect t'lat
Germany will be reduced from 51,2271 to
24,908; Irish Free State from 28,567! to
17,427; Norway from 6,453 to 2,403; Sweden
from 9,561 to 8,399; Switzerland from 2;081
to 1,614; Denmark from 2,789 to 1,434;
France from 3,954 to 3,308; while Gileat
Britain and northern Ireland will be n-
creased from 34,007 to 65,894; Austria filom
785 to 1,639; Belgium from 512 to 1,828;
Hungary from 473 to 1,181; Italy from 3,845
to 5,989; Netherlands from 1,648 to 3,083;
Russia from 2,248 to 3,540. These are the
most important changes that will oc4Qur.
As I have said before, the strongest evidence
of uncertainty is the difference between he
report of 1927 and 1928.
Another year has gone by since the ast
computation was submitted and which *rill
be the quotas if the national origins clatise
goes into effect,. It is fair to assume that
if a report had been made this year ! by
Dr. Hill and his associates, that further
changes would have been noted.
In passing 'I want it clearly understgod
that I have the greatest of admiration for
Dr. Hill and his associates. They are
performing what must be to them an un-
pleasant task, because of its Impossibility
of performance. They have performed
their work unselfishly and tirelessly. T}ley
are simply trying to carry out the law. It is
clear from their reports, so far as I am con-
cerned, that they realize that the reco ds,
are so lacking that they had to rely upon
conjecture.
It is significant that the only cen us
taken in the United States prior to IP50
was that of 1790. In the 1790 census oply
the heads of families were reported, d
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE' 8361
hand, was to give other countries a much come here each year. The effort to repeal the predate the fact they have the right to
higher quota than the rule of fairness national-origins clause has been character- entertain their views if they are honestly
and equity called for. zed as an attack upon the immigration law arrived at, and naturally every Member of
I apposed the national-origins clause of 1924. It is nothing of the kind. It is, in this House arrives at honest views, so far
fact; an effort to prevent the law from being as my opinion is concerned. I do not use
before it became operative in'law because ridiculous. the above language with the intent that you
I considered it unfair, contrary to Amer- The national-origins clause is a part of the might infer that, I have any feeling to the
ican fairness, and inconsistent with Immigration law of 1924. Nobody seems to contrary, because you, like myself, are ac-
American. ideals. It brought about a know its real parenthood, although one John tuated by a desire to render that degree of
quota system that was an insult to many B. Trevor, of New York City, who was a cap- public service in this body which you feel
racial groups that made up our people. tarn in the Intelligence Department of the the best interests of the country demand and
For we must remember, heretofore and Army, detailed in New York City during the which is in accordance with your conscience.
war, appears to claim the credit for it.
now, Americans are not a race; they are I have heard that the Ku Klux Klan claims lAI also considered it my duty to vote as my
a people. the credit for conceiving it and securing its conscience dictated on any matters which
Any effort to base a quota system adoption an an amendment to the immigra- came before any legislative body of which
upon such a concept as the national- tion law. I am satisfied, however, that their I was a member, and the question of party
origins clause is wrong from the outset. only knowledge of it was after its adoption in affiliation never influenced me unless a
While it must be tolerated and adhered the Senate in 1924, as an amendment to the party principle or responsibility was in-
to as long as It is the law, the fact that bill that passed the House, and that there- volved. In that case I followed; and will
it has been in operation for 32 years after the Su Klux Klan used it as a means of follow, the principles enunciated by the
does not make , right. trying to. carry out its purposes by attracting Democratic Party,'because the incorporation
President Truman has made a ringing rather additional
will be for the best interests
hard for~ me s to believe that anything of the people.
contribution to a restoration of Ameri- that such an organization might sponsor it is my belief that a public servant should
can idealism and justice in relation to would receive the favorable consideration of represent all elements and political creeds
our quota system by his condemnation either or both branches of Congress. In his district. So, in approaching this
. wp and repudiation of the national-origins It appears from the records of the hear- question, let me say that I recognize that
clause, ings of the House Committee on Immigration men in both political parties differ and
The bill. is the result of 4 of study and Naturalization which reported the 1924 differ honestly.
years immigration law that the national-origins i am going to try to impress upon you and effort by the members of the com- clause received little, if any,. consideration fact that the basis of the determination, mittee who considered the same. The from the committee, it is quite' probable- provided in the national origins clause, so-
veto of the President is not a reflection and so far as I can find it is a fact-that called, is almost impossible of ascertain.
on them. The drafting of a codification it was not presented to the committee for meat. It is left to the field of conjecture.
or of a new immigration `law is, a very consideration. In any event, when the bill Mr. DIcKsTMN. Will the gentleman yield?
difficult task. There is much good in was reported to the House it was not. a part Mr. MECOsMACK. I will.
the present bill. thereof, and duripg debate an amendment Mr. DlcxsTEIN. Is it not a fact you. have
However, in addition to the objection- was offered in the House which included in to go back 300 years to determine the statis
substance the provisions of the present law. tics as to national origin?
able national-origins clause there are The amendment was rejected. The House ? Mr. McCoanaAex. Yes.
other provisions of`an objectionable na- later passed the bill and while under consid- Mr. DlcKsTEIN. And is it not a fact we
ture that justifies the action taken. by ' eration in the Senate, Senator Reed of Penn- have not the statistics available?
President Truman in vetoing this bill. sylvania, moved the amendment which in- Mr. McCORMAc , Exactly. That is in part
For the reasons stated by the Presi serted the present national-origins clause correct. The basis prescribed by this clause
dent, his veto should be sustained by the into the bill. Upon its return to the House for the establishing of quotas of countries
it was sent to conference, and the House con- affected has as its object a definite purpose
House of Representatives. ferees recommended the adoption of the which is unfair and discriminatory, and a
I include in my remarks a speech I amendment, which action was taken. reflection upon elements of past immigrants,
made in the House on February 14, 1929', Whether or not it is correct, I am Informed now Americans, some for many generations,
and appearing on pages 3472, 3473, 3474, this amendment was reluctantly accepted by that have contributed so much toward the
3475, 3476, and 3477 of the permanent the House in order that the whole bill might building up and progress of our country.
RECORD Of 1929, not fail of passage. The basis for computation is also uncertain
Mr. McCoRMACx. Mr. Chairman and mem- I have said before, this is to my mind and leaves the calculation, whichever it may
hers of the Committee, the subject that I one of the most important questions that be,. to the field of conjecture. The clause.
aer gofnt to tquite different from confront us today, particularly in view of provided a method of calculation which is
a
the fu m. g it and t able us is quite has just been the fact that we have only a few weeks left incapable of ascertainment without resort
tendered by the speech ehwh ch.Memut been in this session of Congress, and during which to guesswork. Any such basis is bound to
rendered d by has e just uished me and which period it is essential that some affirmative ' result in quotas which will be discrimina-
I rbr) very interesting. I might say in action be taken in order to prevent the op- tory, if not insulting, In their character. A
passing that I have listened to the gentleman eratton of this particular clause. To ere careful examination of testimony presented
on two different occasions and his profound vent its operation affirmative action must to different committees, also books written
knowledge on the o
ccasions and spros and be taken by Congress. There are two ways by some of the proponents, and addresses
subject he -
cussed has made a marked impression upon in which we can take affirmative action, and made on different occasions by some of them
me, when I say "we," of course I refer to both justify the assertion that the underlying
One of the most important questions re- branches of Congress. One is by joint - motive is un-American.
resolution deferring its operation and the If we are going to establish an immigra-
maining to be determined before this session other Is by enacting necessary legislation to tion policy, let it be definite. Let it be cer-
of Congress is over, is what action will be repeal Its provisions. The other, procedure tain. The expression of the principle should
taken from the repeal, deference, or going that we may employ is the passive, inactive be definite and certain, whether it be a
into operation -of the national-origins clause negative, do-nothing method, as a result of closed immigration policy,' a restrictive im-
of the immigration law of 1924. The Interest which, in accordance with the ruling given migration policy, or a partially restrictive
in this question is not confined to any one by the Attorney General, as I understand it, policy as set forth In the 1924 act.
section of our country; neither is it confined the President of the United States is com-
to any one of the so-called nationals that pelled on or before April I of this Let c it be t dey; and nl certain, but not left
y year to, to uncertainty; et both branches of
constitute our inhabitants. The. action of proclaim the provisions of this clause to be be Congress determine le with certainty not only
Congress on thjs question is beingwatched in operation.. This means that the quotas the expression of the principle we believe
closely. established thereunder by the President's In, but with certainty as to the quotas the
At the outset it must be borne in mind commission will become operative July 1, different quota countries shall be entitled to.
that the controversy over the national-ori 1929. Not only does Congress, by permitting the
gins clause of the Immigration Act has That President's commission to which I national-origins clause to go into operation,
been misrepresented so as to be made to refer was made up of the Secretary of State, evade the duty of making the quotas them-
appear a controversy over increasing or de- the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of selves, but it passes the responsibility to the
creasing numerically the number of immi- Commerce (now President-elect Hoover), President's commission, composed of three
grants that can come to this country. This and they in turn each appointed two mem- secretaries, and they in turn pass it on to
misrepresentation is very unfortunate be- bers of their respective departments as a Doctor Hill and his associates.
cause it gives a false statement of facts. joint committee to make a more thorough I might say at this time that I Intend to
The repeal of the national-origins clause has -investigation of the matter. follow the suggestion made by Governor
nothing to do with the question of the I realize that men have different opinions Smith in his statement after the last elec-
number of people that shall be permitted to and different views on this question. I ap- tion, in which he urged the Democratic
No. 118-17
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384RO01000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
8362
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Members of Congress to support President-
elect Hoover during his term of office on all
legislation that relates to the general wel-
fare and progress of the people.
Mr. DENISON, Mr. Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield there?
Mr. McCoRMACIt. Yes.
Mr. DENISON. I hope at some not distant
time the gentleman will inform the House
what the fundamental principles of the
Democratic Party are.
Mr. MCCORMACK. I think those funda-
mental principles are so well known that
the average man knows them, but I shall
be glad to enlighten the gentleman out in
the lobby some time.
The first indication of the unreliability
ary 27, 1928, other quotas were recommended
by Dr. Hill and his associates. Having
in mind the statement above quoted from
report of 1927, that the 1927 quotas "indi-
cated approximately what the final results
will be," a comparison of these two quotas is
very interesting and convincing as showing
further the grave uncertainty of the basis
of determination.
(1)
National-
origin
quotas
submit-
ted
Feb. 27,
(2)
National-
origin
quotas
submit-
ted
Jan. 7,
(3)
Present
quotas,
based on
1890 for.
eign-born
popula-
tlon
and uncertainty of the basis of determina-
1928
1927
tional-ori
ins
ti
id
d i
th
n
g
on as prov
e
n
e
a
clause was the postponement of its opera-
Armenia----------------
100
tion until July 1, 1927, in order that the
Australia, Including
Papua
etc-------- ---_
100
100
quotas might be established. In order to
,
---------
Austria
1,639
1,486
regulate immigration up
to the going into
--------
Belgium----------------
1,328
410
effect of the national-orig
ins clause it. was
Czechoslovakia--------_
2,726
2,248
provided in the 1924 act-
"that the annual
Danzig, Free City of ....
137
122
quota of any nationality s
hall be 2 percent
Denmark---------------
Estonia-----------------
1,234
100
1,044
109
of the number of foreign-b
orn individuals of
Finland__________
'568
559
such nationality residen
t in continental
France___________
3,308
3,837
United States as determin
ed by the United
Germany---------------
24,908
23, 428
States as determined by
the United States
Great Britaia, North.
ern Ireland -----------
65, 894
73,039
census of 1890, but the m
inimum quota of
Greece ------------------
312
367
any nationality shall be 1
00."
Hungary---------------
1,181
967
This
like the national-o
rigins clause
only
Irish Free State___-._._
17,427
13, 862
,
governed quota countries.
,
The practical op-
Italy, including
Rhodes, etc-----------
5,989
6,091
eration of the present law
meant that 164,000
Latvia__________________
243
184
immigrants constituted 2 p
ercent of our for-
Lithuania--------------
492
494
ei
n-born
opulation as
of 1890
and were
Netherlands ------------
3,083
%421
g
p
allotted among the severa
,
l European coun-
Norway________________
Poland_________________
2,403
6,090
2,267
4,978
tries in accordance with
the terms of this
Portugal----------------
- 457?;
290
provision. Whether one b
elieves in
the pol-
Rumania ---------------
311
516
icy of restrictive immigra
y
tion or not, there
Russia, European and
Asiatic_______________
3,540
4,781
is no question but what
the original pro-
Spain________________
305
674
vision is at least definite
and certain in its
Sweden_________________
3,399
3,259
theory and operation. W
hile the national-
Switzerland ------- _----
1, 614
1,198
origins clause is certain as
to the number of
Syria and the Lebanon
(French) -------------
125
100
immigrants admissible ea
ch year from Eu-
Turkey-----------------
233
233
rope, which is 153,000, eve
ry other provision
Yugoslavia-------------
739
777
thereof is unreliable,- unc
ertain, and there-
Total
685
1 153
fore inequitable.
-------------
,
This would be particularly so in its oper-
ation, if it ever goes into effect. I want to
call to the attention of the Members that,
in accordance with the provisions of the
national-origins clause the Secretaries of
State, Commerce, and Labor, as a joint board,
each appointed two representatives to try
and perform the impossible task therein pro-
vided. It is fair to infer from all correspond-
ence made by them that they approached
this task with the realization of its difficulty
of approximate ascertainment, and the fact
that, in the main, they would have to rely'
upon conjecture. The results have clearly
shown that to be the fact. Their work has
been tirelessly and unselfishly rendered and
yet their reports and findings are the strong-
est evidence of the human impossibility of
performing such' s, task. In their report on
December 16, 1926, will be found the
following:
"We have found our task by no means
simple, but we are carrying it out by meth-
ods which we believe to bestatistically cor-
rect, utilizing the data that are available in
accordance with what seems to us to be the
intent and meaning of the law. We have
not completed our work, but the figures
which we are submitting for your informa-
tion, though provisional and subject to re-
vision, indicate approximately what thefinal
results will be."
What stronger evidence of uncertainty?
Accompanying this report were the quotas
which they -had determined in accordance
with the law, and which, while not complete
and subject to revision, indicate approxi-
mately what the final results will be. These
are not my words, but the words of Dr. Hill
and his associates. -
Thereafter, the operation of the law was
deferred until July 1, 1928, and on Febru-
121
785
512
3, 073
228
2,789
124
471
3,954
51, 227
34,007
100
473
28, 567
3,845
142
344
1, 648
6, 453
5, 982
503
803
2,248
131
0,561
2,091
100
100
671
3 Including 37 minimum quotas of 100 each.
As a further indication of the uncertainty
that existed in the minds of the President's
Commission, I quote a letter to the President
under date of January 3; 1927:
The White House.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the
provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Im-
migration Act of 1924, we have the honor
to transmit herewith the report of the sub-
committee appointed by us for the purpose
of determining the quota of each nationality
in accordance with the provisions of said
sections.
The report of the subcommittee is self-
explanatory, and, while it is stated to be a
preliminary report, yet it is believed that fur-
ther investigation will not substantially alter
the conclusions arrived at. - -
Although this is the best information
we have been able to secure, we wish to
call attention to the reservations - made by
the committee and to state that in our
opinion the statistical and historical in-
formation available raises grave doubts as
to the whole value of these computations
as a basis for the purposes intended. We
therefore cannot assume responsibility for
such conclusions under these circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
FRANK B. KELLOGG,
Secretary of State,
Department of State.
HERBERT HOOVER,
Secretary of Commerce,
Department of Commerce.
JAMES J. DAVIS,
Secretary of Labor,
Department of Labor.
June 26
Furthermore, on February 25, 1928, the
President's Commission in transmitting the
1928 quotas above referred to said:
"We wish it clear that neither we indi-
vidually nor collectively are expressing any
opinion on the merits or demerits of this --
system of arriving at the quotas, We are
simply transmitting the calculations made
by the departmental committee in accord-
ance with the act."
An analysis of the report of Dr. Hill and
his associates, dated December 16, 1926,
showing the manner upon which calcula-
tions were determined is further evidence
of the impossibility of a fair determina-
tion, particularly in determining what por-
tion of our white population of 1920 Is de-
rived from the "old native stock" of 1790.
The records of immigration giving the num-
ber of immigrants arriving annually from
each foreign country from 1820 to 1920 was
in part relied upon. It is a well-known
fact that a good portion of those who came
from southern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and
Ulster came on vessels that started from
an English port and were listed as emigrat-
ing from England. This was particularly A
true prior to 1870. In the case of Scot-
land, Wales, and Ulster it makes no differ-
ence, because their quotas under this law
will be combined into one, but this situa-
tion seriously affects the quota that south-
ern, Ireland would be entitled to. Such a
situation is further evidence of the grave
uncertainty of a determination that will
not be discriminatory. -
.The above immigration - quotas were
printed for the House committee, on Im-
migration and Naturalization, and column
No. 1 is the report for 1928, column 2 the
report for 1927, both made by Doctor Hill
and his' associates, and column 3 is the
quotas under the present law.
Columns 1 and -2 relate to the national
origins clause and the marked difference be-
tween - them in the short period of 1 year
seems to me to be inescapable evidence of
the uncertainty of ascertainment.
A comparison will show that under the
quotas that will be established - if the
national origins clause goes into effect that
Germany will be reduced from 51,227 to
24,908; Irish Free State from -28,567 to
17,427; Norway from 6,453 to 2,403; Sweden
from 9,561 to 3,399; Switzerland from 2,081
to 1,614; Denmark from 2,789 to 1,234;
France from 3,954 to 3,308; while Great
Britain and northern Ireland will be in-
creased from 34,007 to 65,894; Austria from
785 to 1,639; Belgium from 512 to 1,328;
Hungary from 473 to 1,181; Italy from 3,845
to 5,989; Netherlands from 1,648 to 3,083;
Russia from 2,248 to 3,540. These are the
most important changes that will occur.
As I have said before, the strongest evidence
of uncertainty is the difference between the
report of 1927 and 1928.
Another year has gone by since the last
computation was submitted and which will
be the quotas if the national origins clause
goes into effect,. It is fair to assume that
if a report had been made this year by
Dr. Hill and his associates, that further
changes would have been noted.
In passing I want it clearly understood
that I have the greatest of admiration for
Dr. Hill and his associates. They - are
performing what must be to them an un-
pleasant task, because of its impossibility
of performance. They have performed
their work unselfishly and tirelessly. They
are simply trying to carry out the law. It is
clear from their reports, so far as I am con-
cerned, that they realize that the records
are so lacking that they had to rely upon
conjecture.
It is significant that the only census
taken in the United States prior to 1850
was that of 1790. In the 1790 census only
the - heads of families were reported, and
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R00100005000$-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25, CIA-RDP57-00384R00.1000050003-5
1352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
there was no indication of the land of their countries. He further said that in the
nativity or of their ancestors. event of the names having an origin from
Dr. Hill and his associates deemed England or Scotland or Ireland, the proba-
that they would have to depend in the main , bilities were that because of the predomi-
upon the sounding of names to determine
nativity, and he frankly admitted in the nance of the English of foreign birth and
House hearings held in 1927 that names may descent at that time the census takers
indicate origin from any one of two or more designated them as being of English descent.
8363
The census of 1790 showed the white pop-
ulation of tlw then 17 States was 3,172,444.
The following figures show in detail the
population of the several States, with an
estimate of the strength of the various
nationals therein, which, so far as I can
ascertain, is based upon guesswork:
White population in 1790 as classified by nationality in ch. IX of A Century of Population Growth, published by the Bureau
of the Census in 1909
United States
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Nationality as indicated by name
Number
Per.
cent
Number
Per
cent
Number
Per.
cent t
Number
Per-
cent
Number
Per-
cent
Number
Per-
cent
All nationalities---------------------------
3,172, 444
100.0
96,107
100.0
141,112
100.0
85, 072
100.0
373,187
100.0
64, 670
100.0
English-----------------------------------------
2, 605,699
82.1
89, 515
93.1
132, 726
94.1
81,149
95.4
354,528
95.0
62, 079
96.0
Scotch------------------------------------------
221, 562
7. 0
4,154
4.3
6,648
4.7
2,562
3.0
13, 435
3. 6
1, 976
3.1
Irish--------------------------------------------
61, 534
1.9
1, 334
1.4
1,346
1.0
597
.7
3, 732
1.0
459
.7
Dutch-------------------------------------------
78,959
2.5
279
.3
153
.1
428
.5
373
.1
19
(1)
French -------------------- -----...---- .----------
17,619
.6
115
.1
142
.1
153
.3
746
.2
88
.1
G
n
176, 407
5.6
436
.5
35
(1)
75
(1)
33
.1
er ma
------------ ---------------------------
h
Ilo
1 243
421
9
(1)
3
44
230
(1)
2
-
--
48
-----.__
2
67
231
(1)
1
9,
7
(1)
p)
A
er ----------------------------------------
,
.
.
.
.
Connecticut
Now York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
All nationalities ...........................
232,236 I
100.0
3144366
100.0
169,954 I
100.0
423, 373
100.0
46,310 I
100.0
208,649
100.0
En~lish ----- ....................................
223, 437
98.2
245, 901
78.2
98,629
58.0
249, 656
59.0
39,966
473
3
86.3
175,265
84.0
Sep ch_....................................... ............
6,425
1,580
2.8
.7
2, 525
.8
12,099
7.1
8,614
2.0
,
1, 806
3. 9
5,008
2.4
Dutch___
258
,1
50, 600
16.1
21, 581
12.7
2, 623
.6
463
1.0
209
, 1
French
_
512
.2
2, 424
.8
3, 565
2.1
2, 341
.6
232
.6
1, 460
7
Gorman---
--------------------------------------
4
(1)
1,103
.4
15,678
9.2
110,357
26.1
185
.4
12, 310
5.9
Hebrew ---- ^-?----?--?-----?---?----?---
5
(9
385
.1
(1)
--------
21
(1)
(1)
--------
626
.3
A]I other __..----'_.?---------------------------
6
(1)
1,394
.4
5,255
3.1
194
(1)
185
.4
209
.1
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Kentucky
Tennessee
All nationalities ............................
442,117
100.0
289,181
100.0
140, 178?
100.0
52,886
100.0
61,133
100.0
31, 913
100.0
English-----------------------------------------
375,799
85.0
240, 309
83.1
115, 480
82.4
43,048
83.1
50,802
83:1
26,519
83.1
Scotch------------------------------------------
31, 391
7.1
32, 388
11.2
16, 447
11.7
5,923
11.2
6,847
11.2
3, 574
11.2
Irish--------------------------------------------
8,842
2.0
6,651
2.3
3, 576
2.6
1,216
2.3
1, 406
2.3
734
2.3
1
Dutch------------------------------------------
884
.2
578
.2
219
.2
106
.2
122
.2
64
.2
French ------------------------------------------
2,653
.6
868
.3
1,882
1.3
159
.3
183
.3
96
.3
German-----------------------------------------
21, 664
4.9
8, 097
2.8
2,343
1.7
1, 481
2.8
1,712
2.8
894
2.8
Hebrew ......----.-?--??.....---????-??
............
........
1
O
85
.1
(1)
-
(1)
--------
(2)
?----?
All otber----------------------------------------
884
.2
289
.1
146
.1
53
.1
61
.1
32
.1
I Less than 34a of 1 percent.
2 Included in "All other."
As one indication of the uncertainty of
relying on the 1790 census I may mention
that it does not take into consideration the
size of the families and that some national-
ities are quite prone to more productivity
than others.
In determining the quotas under the na-
tional origins clause the white population
of 1920, numbering about 94,0000, were
divided into two groups, one called "old na-
tive stock" and the other "immigrant stock."
The census of 1790 was taken as the basis for
determining what portion of oily population
in 1920 were descended from the population
of 1790. It was determined that 41,000,000
persons in ? the United States in 1920 were
descendents of the "old native stock." Bear-
ing the fact in mind that all persons who
arrived here since 1790, or their descendents,
are described as "immigrant stock," and
looking through the roll of the Members of
Congress It is apparent to me that 80 per-
cent of our membership fall within that
class.
When you consider that the first decennial
census taken in the United States, outside
of the one in 1190, was in 1850; that there
are no official records prior to 1790, together
with the lose, in the Ellis Island fire in 1896,
of records of imriligrations that flowed
through the great city of New York from
1820 on, the destruction of many historical
records by the British; when they occupied
the city of Washington in the War of 1812,
together with many other matters of consid-
eration, we can theri realize the impossi-
bility of establishing quotas which will not
be discriminatory to some of our nationals.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCORMACx. Yes.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. IS it not a fact that Dr.
Hill testified before the Committee on Im-
migration that he could only go back about
100 years?
Mr. MCCORMACK. My impression is that
Dr. Hill testified that the United States de-
cennial censuses could only go back to 1850;
that the records of the ports of entry go
back only to about 1820; that is, the im-
migrants coming into different ports of
entry, as distinguished from the facts re-
vealed in the decennial censuses. My ob-
servation and study further show that thou-
sands and thousands of immigrants coming
from Germany, from Ireland, from Scotland,
and from other places were compelled to
come over on ships owned by English inter-
ests and they were listed as English citizens.
That is not submitted as criticism, but as
a piece of evidence. Everything based on
conjecture is bound to be discriminatory and
offensive to some of our nationals. We are
not an English, or an Irish, or a German,
or a French nation. We do not want any
element to predominate. We are an Amer-
ican Nation. We may have a great feeling
of fondness and regard for the land of our
forbears, as we should, but above every other
consideration we are Americans. The history
of the recent war has evidenced the fact
that Americanism means the same thing to
all of our citizens, irrespective of their'na-
tional origin-that is, love of flag, country,
and that upon which everything that we
possess governmentally stands, the Consti-
tution of the United States.
We want Americans. We want the Im-
migrants who come over here-the same
as my forbears did two generations ago-
to be filled with a love of our institutions.
To a certain extent, undoubtedly, they will
come here seeking material gain, but in
the main they look up to this Government
of ours as a land of opportunity. I recog-
nize that conditions might change our im-
migration policy. That necessity might
arise some day when we might consider the
advisability of a change, but if we are going
to have a change, let it be definite and cer-
tain, not only in principle but definite and
certain In practice.
Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, the fact that this uncertainty
exists is further evidenced by the report
made by the President's commission, com-
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25 CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
8364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 26
prised, as I said before, of the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secre-
tary of Commerce-the then Secretary of
Commerce, President-elect Hoover. Not
only that, but President-elect Hoover in his
acceptance speech said he favored the re-
peal of the national-origins clause. He
recognized the impossibility of human de-
termination in accordance with the basis
provided in that law. He recognized the
offensiveness of it, and he recognized that
this was not bringing Into effect in America
a new policy with reference to the restric-
tion of immigration, because we have it
now. We have it now in the act of 1924.
Two per cent of the foreign born popula-
tion as of 1890 means approximately 164,-
000 immigrants who are entitled to admis-
sion from quota countries in Europe each
year, and in turn the number to which each
country is entitled is simply a matter of
mathematics. That can be arrived at. It
is a definite and certain enunciation of a
principle, and it naturally follows that there
is a definite and certain determination of
the quotas.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield?`,
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Can the gentleman tell
the House how this national origins was
determined, based upon what figures, what
the present quota is as based on the act of
1924, and what would be the quota of all
nationals under the national-origins clause?
Has the gentleman those figures?
Mr. MCCORMACK. As I understand it, the
present law permits one hundred and sixty-
four thousand and a few odd hundred to
come in each year, while the national-
origins clause authorizes one hundred and
fifty-three and some few hundreds to come
in each year. Am I correct?.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is correct.
Mr, MCCORMACK. While the national-
origins clause provides a maximum of 150,-
000, it also provides in addition that cer-
tain countries which had no quota before
or whose computation would be less than
100, are entitled to the admission of a
minimum of 100,. and that is the reason
why it comes to approximately 153,000.
Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. As I under=
stand it, the gentleman is opposed to the
national-origins provision of the present
law?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Precisely.
Mr. RoesroN of Kentucky. Does the gen-
tleman favor the quota based on the 1890
census? The present law is based on the
1890 census, as I understand.
Mr. MCCoRMACK. Yes; and that is definite
and certain.
Mr. RossION of Kentucky. Does the gentle-
man favor the 1890 census as a basis, or some
other census-the 1910 census or the 1920
census?
Mr. MCCORMACK. To be frank with the
gentleman, his question goes into something
that I did not intend to discuss, and I am
equally frank in saying that I am rapidly ap-
proaching a mental state where I realize
that through necessity we must close this
open door and bring about some kind of a
restriction. Whether that should be based
on the 1910 census or,the 1890 census is just
a question of policy, based upon the neces-
sity.
I can see where conditions might change;
where in the years to come through deple-
tion in our population, because of some
great catastrophe, for example-and popu-
lation increases either by a greater number
of births than deaths or by an increase in
immigration over emigration; that is the
only means through which an increase in
population takes place-and I can see where
a principle applicable to one period might
of necessity be changed when applied to con-
ditions in a different period.
Mr. Roesxow of Kentucky. We are legislat-
ing for this period.
Mr. MCCORMACK. I have no objection to
the present quota, based on the 1890 census.
Mr. GARBER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. GARBER. The proposed change would
greatly facilitate the administration of the
law, would it not?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Does the gentleman refer
to the national-origins clause?
Mr. GARBER. Yes.
Mr. MCCORMACK. I do not think so.
Mr. GARBER. I mean that the proposed
change to a definite basis would greatly fa-
cilitate the administration of the law.
Mr. MCCORMACK. The gentleman means
the law as it exists at present?
Mr. GARBER. Yes.
Mr. MCCORMACI. I agree with the gentle-
man. Now, bearing on that, may I call at-
tention to a statement made by the Com-
missioner General of Immigration in his
annual report for 1925, page 29:
"The bureau feels that the present method
of ascertaining the quotas is far more satis-
factory than the proposed determination by
national origin; that it has the advantages
of simplicity and certainty. It is of the
opinion that the proposed change will lead
to great confusion and result in complexi-
ties, and accordingly it is recommended that
the pertinent portions of section 11, provid-
ing for this revision of the quotas as they
now stand, be rescinded."
I am now coming back to 1790. One in-
teresting phase of the evidence about the
1790 census, where it showed a little over
3,000,000 in the 17 States, was in the State
of Pennsylvania, as indicating the uncer-
tainty of the 41,000,000 being even approxi-
mately a fir estimate of the descendants of
the inhabitants as shown in that census.
I do not want to depend upon memory, so
let me quote verbatim from the extract which -
I have here.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentle-
man from Massachusetts has expired.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the
gentleman five additional minutes.
Mr. MCCORMACK. In-an article written in
1789, as to the immigration into Pennsyl-
vania in the period around 1749, it was said
by the writer that-
"In the summer of the year 1749, 25 sail
of large vessels arrived with German passen-
gers alone, which brought about 12,000 souls,
some of the ships about 600 each; and in sev-
eral other years near the same number of
these people arrived annually."
This is for only a limited period around
1746, and it is fair to assume that some came
before and some came afterward, and yet
according to the 1790 census there were only
110,000 Germans in the State of Pennsyl-
vania.
But let us go a step further:
"And in some years nearly as many an-
nually from Ireland."
_
Yet in 1790 there was only an estimated
population of 8,000 in the State of Pennsyl-
vania of either Irish birth or Irish descent.
This is some evidence indicating the un-
certainty we have in the records prior to
1790. We have absolutely none from 1790 to
1820, and from 1820 our records of ports of
entry are entirely unreliable, first, because of
giving their birth in the wrong country, In
some cases because of necessity; a lid, second,
because the records in the city of New York
were destroyed In the Ellis Island fire in 1896.
Furthermore, many historical records of the
colonial days were destroyed when the Brit-
ish occupied the city of Washington during
the War of 1812.
All of these things have brought about an
air of uncertainty so that the basis for the
determination of national origins is inad-
visable, unwise, inequitable, bound to be
discriminatory because in the main it is left
to the field of conjecture .
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield?
- Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Under the present quota
law Ireland receives a quota of 28,000, but
under the national origins law, if it takes
effect, Ireland only gets 8,000, thereby losing
20,000.
Mr. McCoRMACx. I think there have been
two corrections made since that estimate.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Is there anything the gen-
tleman can 'find from his investigation .to
show how they base that loss, upon what
percentage and how far they have gone back?
Mr. McCoRMACx. That basis of 8,330 was
an estimate given by Captain Trevor, who, I
understand, is the parent of this idea, al-
though the Ku Klux Klan claims the credit
for it.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. The parent of this piece of
legislation is Mr. Reed. The House never
passed it at all.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes; in the Senate It was
an amendment offered by Senator Reed, of
Pennsylvania, and right there let me say
that if this law goes into effect It is those
of German birth and descent and those of
Irish birth and descent in Pennsylvania that
in the main can take the blame.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. May I ask the gentleman
another question? Senator Reed takes the
credit for it, but he borrowed it from Senator
Lodge. Does the gentleman know that?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes; this Captain Trevor
consulted Senator Lodge first, who took him
to Senator Reed.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. You will find the date
given in the hearings as of March 6, 1924.
Mr. MCCORMACK, These is just one more
reference I might make. During the past
few days a representative of the American
Legion unfortunately made a reference with
which I am not in accord. I am sorry he
made this reference, because I am a member
of the Legion and the two other members of
my family, two younger brothers, who con-
stitute the whole family, are also members
of the Legion. This representative made a
statement which is offensive to all of our
citizens, and I hope sincerely that the Legion
members throughout the country who might
be offended by it will not go to the, unwise
direction of resigning their membership.
The American Legion is a great body. It
is a much-needed body, the same as the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is another
one of our great veterans' organizations, as
well as all of the minor organizations which
have as their foundation purposes consistent
with the progress of our country in establish-
ing traditions which the future generations
will be proud of; but in this particular re-
spect, by stating that the Legion is in,favor
of the national-origins provision, they have
taken a position which, if a referendum were
submitted to the members of the Legion,
would undoubtedly amaze the Members of
Congress as to the vote to the contrary in
the Legion.
Mr. CoNNERY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. CONNERY. May I say to my colleague
that I have just received three telegrams
from three Legion posts in Lawrence, Pea-
body, and Lynn, Mass., saying that the senti.
ments which the representatives of the Le-
gion gave before the committee are not in
accord with the 'sentiment of the member-
ship of those posts?
Mr. MCCORMACK. I thank the gentleman
for his observation. May I say at this time
that Mr. Connery recently displayed the fin-
est act of courage that I have ever seen on
the part of any legislator when he voted for
the reapportionment bill. I hope that his
constituents appreciate his type of repre-
sentation.
May I add the danger of this, Mr. Chair-
man, is that we are going back 300 years
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25 CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 8365
and making you and me, who are Americans, what elements of our citizenry were insidi- a British ascendancy in order that our in-
and consider ourselves Americans, take a ously offended and insulted by this argument. stitutions of Government might be pre-
position which would destroy the assimila- The, French, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegians, served. They say that the operation of the
tion which all elements and all races have Danish, Irish, and Germans. All elements national-origins clause will bring that situ-
undergone during the past 300 years, and representing our best blood, the equal of ation about. Since when has the United
making not only the foreign born of 1920 any other and second to none: In every States had to depend upon any other coun-
take a position on this but every one of us, great crisis their descendants have proven try for its existence? The last time that were no matter what the origin of our common their setflforth and no the Constitution, ofs England recorwasds
prior weto 1776. dYorktown,
have who first came to America may government as
have been? In the Revolutionary War their represents- with its victory, brought about the consum-
But going back to the American Legion, tion was outstanding, particularly the Irish mation of our independence. In that con-
it has taken a position on quotas. When and the. Germans, and the French Govern- flict for independence, 10,000 men of Irish
they take a position favoring the underly- ment showed its friendship in a way that blood served from Massachusetts alone.
the quotas, occupies one sforemost lackers? pages our Those of German descent, Pennsylvania, howed their l) veiforlthe
ing principle of the national-origins
they cause
thetake ke a a posthat n upon the quotas, and history. Are they
so, but history records otherwise. of freedom. Likewise, those of Swiss,
gani - think During the Civil War alone the Irish and Swedish, French, Scotch, and other nativi-
do a and when e they yey exceed th the e they purposes of make their organs- mistake
zation. the Germans in the service outnumbered ties, rendered yeoman service. No one ex-
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman the whole army of the South, and each ele- celled the other. They fought inspired.
from Massachusetts has again expired. ment, as we are compelled to refer to them We cannot deny, and would not want to
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the under this law, had more men In service deny it, that those of English blood and
gentleman five additional minutes. than any other element of our citizenry. extraction have contributed in every way
Mr. SCHAF'ER. Will, the gentleman yield? And, yes; after the war was over, and when in the settling of the Colonies, in the war for
Mr. MCCORMACK. i will. the men of the South had laid down their independence, and in building up our coun-
Mr. SCHAFER. Has the American Legion In arms, and after the death of the great Presi- try and protecting it in time of danger, but
convention assembled gone on record in fa- dent, which was an unfortunate event for we should not discriminate against others
vor of the national-origins scheme for deter- the South at that time, an unthinking who have likewise done their duty.
pining the immigration quotas? North Imposed conditions upon the South The operation of .the national-origins
/ Mr. MCCoRMACH. i understand they have, that were unbearable and inhuman. in the clause is an affirmative statement by the
yes; but it was very peculiarly worded: dark days of the carpet-bagging period of Congress of the United States that the con-
the days of reconstruction following the war nttit of our Government is dependent
"on in be n ion ass bbled, Ahaticae the only voice raised in Congress for the y
Legion in convention assembled, of y upon England. Such a declaration of sub-
favor and recommended continuance e of the he South were the Representatives in Congress servience should be abhorrent to all who
from the city of New York, all of Irish Consider themselves Americans.
That is of mtry part, pon they may descent, and Charles Francis Adams, of Mr Chairman, both erican through their
That g a primary parand ould may have Massachusetts. It was their voices that
the ord right to dot los. They open or could restricted go on c- finally brought about some degree of reason. standard bearers in the recent campaign
immigration. n favor of closed or dispute their Mr. SCHAFER. Will the gentleman yield? went on record as favoring the repeal of the
mor I do not ditute shear onthor- Mr. MCCoRMACK. I yield, national-origins clause. Between now and
sty e : that; of then the resolution con Mr. SCHAFER, Then the American Legion March 4 action will have to be taken in
to do tinu
tinuance "that the favor dud recommend con- did not go on record in favor of the national- order to prevent its operation. While both
immigration of the method of mrestriction mig a o law upon origins clause? parties have responsibilities, the party in
the 19 national- lMr. MCCORMACK. All I know is what it says the majority will be directly responsible for
with its fundamental
with ts that American izens ip origins eco- in this statement, and from that I draw cer- this iniquitous, discriminatory law unless
vision, so nomic prosperity that Ammay citizenship and "the tain inferences. The gentleman's inferences proper action is taken to repeal or defer its
nomic p possible level" be maintained at the are as good as mine. I am going to rely on operation. [Applause from both sides of
highest pat my inference and I do not think the gentle- the aisle.]
And in a statement t the Senate Commit- man and I will have any dispute. May I I have received the following telegrams
tee on Immigration they said: further say to the gentleman that the great from American Legion posts:
"We emphatically uphold the theory agricultural districts of the country have SOUTH BOSTON, MASS., February 14, 1929.
underlying the national-origins provision, been brought to their present high level by Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
which is that immigration quotas based upon that class of immigrants which the national- House of Representatives,
entire population of the Nation is not only origins scheme will discriminate against, Washington, D. C.:
the fairest method for selecting immigrants, and I hope it will be brought to a higher Post opposed to statement of Legion rep-
but is the most certain method," mark this state by the enactment of legislation which resentatives., Do not know of any slackers
and language, "the most certain method of main- will be carrying out the platforms of both
taining in the future the blend of population parties. in this district of nationals mentioned.
District predominantly Irish. Exceeded
and the racial mixtures as they exist in Mr. SCHAF'ER. I will state that the people quota in every Instance. * *
America today." - - of the great State of Wisconsin are abso-
In convention assembled they went on rec- COLUMBIA POST, No. Ev, AMERICAN
lutely opposed to the national-origins LECION,
ord in favor of that because it was the best clause, and so are the members of the JAMES N, VAUGHAN, Commander.
means "by which prosperity may be main- American Legion in my State. I am not
tamed at the present time," the resolution talking about the few officers who may claim -
read. to speak for the Legion. The national-orl- BOSTON, MASS., February 11, 1929.
It must be borne distinctly in mind that gins clause should be repealed. The gentle- Hon. JOHN W. McCoRMACK,
the quotas cannot be disassociated from man is making a fine argument for its repeal. Congressman, Washington, D. C.:
the principle itself. The going into effect Mr. MCCORMACK. Some argument has been Michael J. Perkins Post, American Legion,
of the clause automatically established the advanced on the question of certain na- resents any individual attempting to repre-
quotas, and when the Legion takes a posi- tionals failing to assimilate. What is the sent- the thought of the American Legion
tion on the principle they take a position best test of assimilation? To me it is what when he says that our neighbors in Europe,
on the quotas established thereunder, percentage of immigrants from different whether they be Scandinavian, Jews, English,
What,those quotas will be are a matter of countries indicate their permanence and Greek, Polish, or- Irish, are alien slackers.
record. Furthermore, the representative said love for America by becoming & citizen. The Fortunately our allies and ourselves united
that it was a question between patriotism records of the census of 1920 are interesting as one people. " * "
and slackerism. I also deny such a question in this respect. I will simply read it and JoSx J. LYDON, Commander.
is involved. In support of this argument he allow you to draw your own conclusions:
cited the number of aliens that claimed ex- "The census of 1920 shows that the foreign Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I
emption in the late war. In the first place, born from England proper, who were here voted against the McCarran-Walter
the figures do not present the facts correctly. when that census was taken and who were omnibus immigration bill when it came
In the second place, the only inferences to naturalized, is 64.8; Scotland, 65.6; Wales, before the House, and I am happy to
draw therefrom is that the nationals of those 73.5; Ireland, 72.3; Norway, 67.3; Sweden, have the opportunity to vote to sustain
countries which will receive a reduced quota 69.5; Denmark, 69.8; Netherlands, which has
by the operation of the national origins were a marked gain, 58.1; Belgium, which has a the President's veto of the measure at
the slackers in the late war, This is not gain, 55.3; Switzerland, 64.9; France, 60.1; this time.
only vicious and unwarranted but false. Germany, 73.3; Canada, French, 47.0; Can- Inasmuch as we have had no good,
Such an argument Is an attack not only on ada, others, 68; and other countries, ranging constructive legislation on immigration
those foreign-born who were here in 1917-18 from 44.7 down to 8.9, every one of the latter for 27 years, it was hoped that.. the bill
but upon all generations of Americans of the of which, under national origins, will gain, action would be rea-
same blood or descent. Let us see who they with the exception of Rumania.". presented to and us s for practicable act? that it be rea
are that will suffer by the operation of the The argument has also been advanced by sonable '
national-origins clause and then we can see certain people that America must maintain cure the basic prejudices and discrimi-
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
8366
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
natory ills found in the laws now in of
feet. This was not our good fortune.
It is essentially an exclusionist bill; as
the President puts it:
None of the crying hums} needs of this
time of trouble is recognized in this bill.
It is a bill which ignores elementary
standards of fairness in dealing with
aliens; in the President's words:
Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust
evidenced here for citizens and aliens alike,
at a time when we need unity at home and
the confidence of our friends abroad.
The McCarran-Walter bill, in my opin-
ion, contains more inequities ,than any
immigration bill ever passed by Con-
gress, instead of allowing us to show a
more humane attitude toward immigra-
tion, it threatens to close our doors
tighter than ever. It perpetrates a
grave injustice upon the peoples of
-Southern and Eastern Europe. The
National Origins. formula adopted in
1929 discriminates against them and the
bill before us makes the National Origins
legislation even more rigid and exclusive.
It will reduce to a minimum the number
of those admitted from Italy, Greece,
Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Yugo-
slavia.
As for nations like Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania, now behind the iron curtain,
the excuse is made that there is no need
for immigration legislation in their favor,
but I am concerned about refugees from
those countries and that in the dis-
placed-persons legislation their quotas
have been frozen for years to come. Our
regular immigration legislation prevents
even a single Austrian from coming here
before 1955; any Latvian before 2074; no
Lithuanians can be admitted before 2087,
and not one Pole before 1999. The only
hope refugees from those countries have
in gaining entrance to the United States
is by special legislation which would re-
move immigration restrictions; the Mc-
Carran bill continues to freeze all quotas
originally included in the Displaced
Persons Act.
As the leading nation- of the world,
we have held. ourselves out to be demo- .
cratic, generous, and in sympathy with
the oppressed peoples of other nations
who seek shelter within our boundaries.
Passage of the Displaced Persons Act
and Its,amendments bore out our kindly
intentions. Enactment of the McCarran-
Walter bill, with its glaring inequities
and prejudices, will greatly jeopardize
our standing among nations, and our
international relations are bound to
suffer.
This omnibus immigration bill also
fails to provide adequate protection to
those threatened with deportation; there
is not effective provision for hearings
held in deportation cases, It makes it
far too easy for the Immigration Bureau
to deport people; it would pave the way
for the Attorney Genera, to deport an
alien for any one of a variety of causes,
or to denaturalize a person who may have
been a United States citizen for years.
The persons affected and being proceed-
ed against are entitled to a fair hearing;
and necessary protection should be given
them under the law.
Our country became great because we
opened wide the doors to all who wished
to come. 'Peoples from every country
have contributed to our growth, culture,
and strength. There should be equality
for all in the immigration laws we pass-
one nation should not be placed above
another.
We can afford to continue to be gen-
erous. Certainly, our aim should be to
eliminate the inequities and prejudices
in our present immigration laws-not to
enhance them.
Enactment of this bill will damage our
standing as a nation; it will saddle us
with poor, unfair, discriminatory laws;
it will cause untold hardship to count-
less persons. Indeed, the bill, consider-
ing all its provisions, would be a step
backward and not a step forward.
We should sustain the President's veto
and work for a measure we can be
proud of.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to
add my voice in support of the Presi-
dent's action in vetoing the McCarran-
Walter immigration bill, The President
acted bravely and humanely. He acted
in the best American traditions and in
the ' best interests of the American
people.
While the aim of the McCarran-Wal-
ter measure was to codify'and revise our
immigration and naturalization laws, the
bill as it` was actually presented to us
proposes to write into basic legislation
the most discriminatory and restrictive
immigration policy this country has ever
known. The bill also contains major
threats to our civil liberties, to the pro-
mulgation of our foreign policy, and to
oul; democratic way of life.
For these reasons I voted against this
measure when it first came up in the
House last April, and I shall vote to sus-
tain the President's veto.
This bjil is a dangerous piece of leg-
islation and a threat to the future of our
country because the system it prescribes
and the methods it proposes are those of
the totalitarian and Communist state, or
police-state methods. In these crucial
days, it is worth while to stop for a mo-
ment and reflect upon the direction in
which we are heading. Let us remember
that even in the worst crisis faced by the
American people in the past, they never
backed down on their democratic prin-
ciples and beliefs.
Ours is a government of laws, rather
than of men. Our liberties and our way
of life must be protected through laws,
rather than by dictators.
The McCarran-Walter immigration
bill is a step in the direction of dictator-
ship and police methods. As such, it is
contrary to American ideals, principles
and traditions. I am happy once again
to cast my vote against this bill and I
urge all my colleagues to uphold the
President's action.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER, The question is, Will
the House on reconsideration pass the
bill, the objections of the President to
the contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution this vote must
be determined by the yeas and nays.
Jun26
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 278, nays 113, not voting 40.
as follows:
[Roll No. 1191
YEAS-278
Abbitt
Fernandez Mills
Adair
Fisher Mumma
Allen, Calif.
Ford Murdock
Allen, Iil.
Forrester Murray
Andersen,
Fugate Nelson
H. Carl
Gamble Nicholson
Anderson, Calif, Gary Norblad
Andresen, Gathings Norrell
August H. Gavin O'Hara
Andrews George O'Konski
Angell Golden Passman
Arends Goodwin Patman
Armstrong Graham Patten
Auchincloss Granger Perkins.
Bailey Grant Phillips
Baker Greenwood Poage
Barden Gregory Polk
Baring Gross Potter
Bates, Mass. Gwinn Poulson
Battle Hagen Preston
Beall Hale Priest
Beamer Hall, Prouty
Belcher Leonard W. Rains
Bender Halleck Reams
Bennett, Fla. Harden Redden
Bennett, Mich. Hardy Reed, Ill.
Bentsen Harris Reed, N. Y
Berry Harrison, Nebr, Rees, Kans.
Betts Harrison, Va, Regan
Bishop Harrison, Wyo. Riehlman
Blackney Harvey Riley
Boggs, Del. Hays, Ark. Rivers
Boggs,. La. Hebert Roberts
Bolton Hedrick Robeson
Bonner Herlong Rogers, Fla'
Bosone Hess Rogers, Mails.
Bow Hill Rogers, Te$,
Boykin Billings St. George
Bramblett Hinshaw Saylor
Bray
Hoeven Schenck
Brehm
Hoffman, Ill, Scott, Hardie
Brooks
Hoffman, Mich. Scrivner
Brown, Ga.
Holmes Scudder
Brown, Ohio
Hope Secrest
Bryson
Hull Sheehan
Budge
Hunter Sheppard
Buffett
Ikard Short
Burleson
Jackson, Calif. Sikes
Burnside
James Simpson, Ill.
Burton
Jarman Simpson, P4.
Bushey
Jenison Sittler
Bush
Jenkins Smith, Ka
Butler
Jensen Smith, Mis
Byrnes
Johnson Smith, Va.
Camp
Jonas Smith, Wis
Carrigg
Jones, Ala. Springer
Chatham
Jones, Mo. Stanley
Chelf
Jones, Stockman
Chenoweth
Hamilton C. Taber
Chiperfleld
Jones, Talle
Church
Woodrow W. Teague
Clevenger
Judd Thomas
Cole, Kans.
Kearney Thompson,
Cole, N. Y.
Kearns Mich.
Colmer
Kilburn Thornberry
Combs
Kilday Tollefson
Cooley
King, Pa. Trimble
Cooper
Lanham Vail
Corbett
Lantaff Van Pelt
Cotton
Laroade Van Zandt
Velde
Coxr
LeCompte Vorys
Crawford
Lind Vursell
Crumpacker
Lovre Walter
Cunningham
Lucas Watts
Curtis, Mo.
McConnell Weichel
Curtis, Nebr.
McCulloch Werdel
Dague
McDonough
Davis, Ga.
- McGregor
Davis, Wis.
McIntire
Deane
McMillan Widnall
DeGraffenried
McMullen Wiggleswortll
Denny
McVey Williams, Miss.
Devereux
Mack, Wash. Williams, N.Y.
D'Ewart
Mansfield Willis
Dolliver
Marshall Wilson, Ind,l
Dondero
Martin, Iowa Wilson, Tex:
Dorn
Martin, Mass. Winstead
Doughton
Mason Withrow
Durham
Meader Wolcott
Elliott
Merrow Wolverton
Ellsworth
Miller, Md. Wood, Ga.
Elston
Miller, Nebr. Wood, Idaho!
Fallon
Miller, N. y.
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
-s
NAYS-118
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Anfuso
Hart
Morgan
Ayres
Havenner
Morrison
Bakewell
Hays; Ohio
Moulder
Barrett
Heffernan
Multer
Blatnik
Heller'
Murphy
Bolling
Herter
Murray
Buchanan
Heselton
O'Brien, Ill.
Buckley
Holifleld
O'Brien, Mich.
Canfield
Howell
O'Brien, N. Y.
Cannon
Irving
O'Neill
Case
Celler
Javits
Ostertag
Chudoff
Karsten, Mo.
O'Toole
Clemente
Kean
Patterson
Crosser
Keating
Philbin
Dawson
Kelley, Pa.
Price
Delaney
Kelly, N. Y.
Rabaut
Denton
Kennedy
Radwan
Dingell
Keogh
Rhodes
Dollinger
Kerr
Ribicoff
Donohue
Kersten, Wis.
Rodino
Donovan
King, Calif.
Rogers, Colo.
Doyle
Kirwan
Rooney
Eberharter
Klein
Roosevelt
Engle
Kluczynslci
Ross
Feighan
Lane
Sadlak
Fine
Lesinski
Scott,
Flood
McCarthy
Hugh D., Jr.
Fogarty
McCormack
Seely-Brown
Forand
McGrath
Shelley
Fulton
McGuire
Sieminskl
Furcolo
McKinnon
Spence
Garmatz
Machrowicz
Staggers
.Gordon
Mack, Ill.
Taylor
Granahan
Madden
Wier
Green -
Magee
Yates
Hall,
Miller, Calif.
Yorty
Edwin Arthur Mitchell
? Zablockt
Hand
Morano
NOT VOTING-40
Aandahl
Evins
Abernethy
Fenton
Sabath
?Addonlzio
Frazier
Sasscer
Albert
Gore
Steed
Allen, La.
Kee
Stigler
Aspinall
Lyle
Sutton
Bates, Ky.
Mahon
Tackett
Beckworth
Morris
Thompson, Tex.
Burdick
Morton
Vinson
Carlyle
Pickett
Welch
Carnahan
Powell
Wickersham
Davis, Tenn.
'Ramsay
Woodruff
Dempsey
Rankin
Eaton
Reecb, Tenn.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the bill was passed, the objec-
tions of the President to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Fenton and Mr. Reece of Tennessee
for, with Mrs. Kee against.
Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Vinson for, with
Mr. Addonizio against.
Mr. Eaton and Mr. Morton for, with Mr.
Aspinall against,
Until further notice:
Mr. Rankin with Mr. Woodruff.
Mr. Wickersham with Mr. Aandahl.
Mr. Dempsey with Mr. Burdick.
Mr. MURPHY changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Mem-
bers who desire to do so may insert their
remarks In the RECORD on the veto mes-
sage, prior to the roll call.
The.SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection. -
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, it
happens that my first speech in Congress
In February 1929 was against the na-
tional origins clause. I ask unanimous
consent in connection with my remarks
that I may include the speech I made in
.the House in February 1929.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
(Mr. FINE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
AMENDING THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (S. 2421) to
amend the act of January 12, 1951 (64
Stat. 1257) amending and extending
title II of the First War Powers Act
1941 and ask for its immediate consid-
eration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
. Mr.. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, reserving the right to object,
will the gentleman explain the bill?
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want
to say firstly that this bill has the unan-
imous vote of the Committee on the
Judiciary. It seeks to extend title II
of the First War Powers Act for 1 year.
Those powers expire on Monday next,
and in a word they empower the De-
partment of Defense to make certain
fair and equitable amendments and
changes in procurement contracts. For
example, in some instances there is per-
mitted extension of delivery dates in
appropriate cases and the making of ad-
vance payments or partial payments
where such payments would not other-
wise be authorized. It has permitted the
emergency sale of spare parts to civil
airlines when necessary to keep airlines
operating.
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I un-
derstand it is chiefly a matter concern-
ing the Department of Defense, and it
is a unanimous report on the part of the
committee?
Mr. CELLER. Substantially the De-
partment of Defense-not completely but
substantially the Department of Defense.
There is a safeguarding provision, name-
ly: the Comptroller General must pass
upon all these changes.
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I
withdraw my reservation of objection,
Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. CELLERI?
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows :
Be It enacted, etc., That section 2 of the
act of Janualy 12, 1Q51 (64 Scat. 1257), Is
hereby amended by striking out "1952" and
Inserting in lieu thereof "1953".
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed,
8367
and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRI-
ATION ACT, 1953-CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H. R.
7072) making appropriations for the
Executive Office and sundry independent
executive bureaus, boards, commissions,
corporations, agencies, and offices, for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, and
for other purposes, and I ask unanimous
consent that the statement be read in
lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of June 25,
1952.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I under-
stand there will be a motion to recommit
by our distinguished colleague from Cali-
fornia [Mr. PHILLIPS]. In order to be
perfectly fair in the matter, I under-
stand I have 1 hour, and I want to yield
one-half of that to the gentleman from
California [Mr. PHILLIPS]. We will have
only two or three speakers on this side
and I would like to close debate so if
the gentleman will use his 30 minutes it
will be fine.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I thank the gentle-
man, and, in accepting the terms of that
offer, I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. PHILLIPS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, the hour
Is late, and the question before us,
grouped as one problem, is a very simple
problem.
The conference report on independent
offices, when we went to conference with
the Senate, had 132 points at issue. Sev-
eral of those were technical points. The
important point is that out of the entire
lot, the committee of conference was in
agreement upon all those which I can
now group.
In order to save time, the minority
managers on the part of the House, did
not, sign the report and I shall explain
our reasons for that. I shall also say
that in order to save time we will not at-
tempt, as the items are read by number
in the conference report, to amend or
change or to return any of those at that
time. At the proper time I shall offer a
motion to recommit, and in order that
this matter may be clear in the discus-
sion I shall read the motion to recommit:
I move to recommit the bill H. R. 7072 to
the committee of conference with instruc-
tions to the managers on the part of the
House to insist on the House provisions on
the number of housing units to be com-
menced in fiscal 1953-
Which is Item 47-
to insist on the inclusion of the money rec.
essary for new hospital construction.
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 CIA-RDP57-00384RO01000050003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000050003-5
8368
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 2'
This is for veterans' hospitals and ap-
pears as item 82-
to insist on the orderly formula for per-
sonnel replacement contained in the so-
called Jensen amendment.
That is item 128, which I shall further
explain-
and further to insist on the Senate provi-
sions for the appropriations for maritime
training.
Items 97 to 103, inclusive.
There was one other item because of
which the minority members did not sign
the report, and that had to do with the
number of steam plants for the Tennes-
see Valley Authority. But since it is a
small matter, whether we discuss it in
this conference report or whether we dis-
cuss it tomorrow when the supplemental
bill comes up, the minority members
with whom this was discussed decided
not to include that in the motion to re-
commit.
Why do we bring this back?' Because
when this subcommittee came to you
with the independent offices bill we said
to you that these were our best opinions,
and In several of those cases, by recorded
vote upon the floor, you changed our de-
cisions. We felt that we did not have
the right to accept in conference the
changes which were made in the Sen-
ate and concurred in by a majority of
the conferees without bringing it back
to the floor for action.
On the floor on March 20 we proposed
25,000 houses. The gentleman from
Texas [Mr., FISHER] offered an amend-
ment limiting that to 5,000 houses. This
was carried by a recorded vote. The Sen-
ate changed this to 45,000 houses, and by
-a vote of approximately 2 to 1 in the con-
ference 35,000 houses would be permitted
to be started in fiscal year 1953.
There are many people upon this floor
who believe that that is a larger number
of houses than should be permitted to
be started in.the fiscal year 1953, and
you will have an opportunity to express
your opinion whether you agree with the
people who think that way.
On the matter of the Jensen amend-
ment I want you to understand thor-
oughly what the situation is, because I,
for one, think it is very important.
Actually, in many of the individual agen-
cies for which we are providing money
we, between the House and Senate, have
cut the amount to an amount equal to
or less than the amount which would
have been provided in the Jensen
amendment. The question therefore
arises, why do I ask you to vote on the
Jensen amendment to authorize us to
insist upon the orderly formula for per-
sonnel replacement? Because if we do
not insist upon this and send us back
to conference the head of an agency,
included in this bill, will have the right
to remove people to. meet the reductions
in money and, therefore, in personnel, at
his judgment.
The Jensen amendment provided a
formula by which people who left the
agency for any reason, voluntarily or
otherwise, would not be replaced until
these figures were reached; and I, for
one, think that is an important amend-
ment and that we should insist upon it.
I do not believe that this House know-
ingly would permit the figure to stand
for the Veterans' Administration hos-
pitals. The Senate out out all construc-
tion for the new hospitals for veterans,
leaving us in this situation-and please,
Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here to de-
fend the number of hospitals that have
been built, the number of beds in the
hospitals that have been built, or the
location of the hospitals that have been
built. For 10 years I have been endeav-
oring to induce the Veterans' Adminis-
tration to make a re-evaluation of the
veterans' hospital program. We have
built these hospitals, whether or not they
were correct; we have built them of a
size which may or may not have been
correct, and now when we reach the
greatest need of all, the need for neu-
ropsychiatric hospitals, with one stroke
the other body cuts out the money for
the neuropsychiatric hospitals, the NP
hospitals.
In the program there were four hos-
pitals, one to be built in the Middle
West-that was not in this money and
that will come next year-one to be built
in the Middle West, Cleveland, of a
thousand beds; and two to be built on
the west coast of a thousand beds each:
We have leveled ground for one of them
and have asked for bids. We have ac-
quired the land for the other. We would
have to stop the bids and pay a penalty.
We may have put hospitals in the
wrong place, we may have built too many
general medical and surgical hospitals,
but we cannot today deny the hospitals
most needed for the veterans where the
veterans are today and not where they
used to be 10 years ago.
And so, in conclusion, because I do
not wish to delay the House, it seems to
me that the House should send us back
to conference on the four items I have
indicated in this particular motion to
recommit.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield. I
Mr. VAN ZANDT. The four hospitals
that have been cut out by the Senate,
is that in addition to the 16,000 beds
the President took away from the VA
some years ago?
Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct as I
understand it.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I
understand the conferees have approved
the full amount of the budget estimate
for research., including work in connec-
tion with prosthetic appliances. There
is to be no reduction in the number of
nurses, dieticians, and so forth?
Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has expired.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself two additional minutes.
Mr. COTTf3N. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILLIPS, I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. COTTON. I am sure that the
gentleman from California will agree
with me when I interpolate this observa-
tion. I think those of us representing
the minority side of the subcommittee
have always admired greatly our chair-
man, the distinguished gentleman froin
Texas [Mr. THOMASI. ? I, for one, nevfr
admired him so much as in the course
of the conference on this bill. He did
a truly magnificent job and he carrni~e
back with a magnificent victory on a1-
most all of the 130 items. He saved t4 e
Important language in the housing
clause, he saved the important Thomas
rider, he saved a great deal of the mat-
ters that are very important in this bill.
I am sure the gentleman from Cali-
fornia will agree that it is only because
of the solemn vote taken in this House
on the housing question and on the mat-
ter of veterans' hospitals as well t e
Jensen amendment that compelsasus o
come back to make sure that the Hou e
passes on those vital questions; is th~t
correct?
Mr. PHILLIPS. The gentleman mak s
my peroration for me. That is exact y
the situation. We greatly admire tl}e
gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS]
and, furthermore, we bring this bill back
with an unusual condition in it-witjh
less money than. when it left the House.
I think this marks a milestone in the
relations between the two bodies.
Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield to the gently-
man from Connecticut.
Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Will the gen-
tleman explain to us why we have to
consider all four of these together?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Because all four axe
in the minds of some people. You may
not be interested in all four, other peq-
ple are not interested inthe ones you a e
interested in.
I neglected to say anything about the
maritime appropriation. I will not 00
an obligation of the Federal Goverrj
ment and which I feel is important. 11
Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will t11e
gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I yield to the gentlf-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FULTON. Is there any possibi--
ity under the present procedure to haste
the four items divided as separate
amendments so that there could be sepd-
rate votes on each one?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No; I am makir;g
them as one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. The time of the ger
tleman from California has expired.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I yie Id
3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. JENSEN].
Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I simply
want to explain some points of the Jer}-
sen amendment. I want every_ Men--
ber of this body to know that tere is
nothing in the Jensen amendment any
place which keeps a department from re-
ducing its personnel to a greater degree
than what is provided for in the Jenseh
amendment. Also on items which the
committee and the conferees have re-
duced.to a greater degree than is pro-
vided in the Jensen amendment the
figures in the bill still hold good. Iii
other words, the Jensen amendment
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: C1A-ROP57-00384R001000.050003-5