Mr. O'NEILL. I am just trying to prevent anything further from happening.

Mr. WATSON. We have had a lot happen despite other bills that have been passed. I only urge us to face our responsibilities as Members of the House. Certainly we have no control over the other body. I thank the chairman and Members for allowing me the opportunity to testify.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Watson.

The Committee will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Waggonner.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. WAGGONNER. May I express my personal appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for the opportunity of being heard briefly and after that I will answer any questions that some of you might have of me with regard to this legislation.

I can only wish today that I had the oratorical ability of the 18th century English statesman, Edmund Burke, and if he were here today as a Member of the House of Representatives, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have asked to appear before this distinguished committee as I have in opposition to the bill before you. I feel safe in making this prediction because his position was exactly the same as mine. He summed up his view in words of crystal brilliant purity when he said:

The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter . . but the King of England cannot enter; all of

his force dares not cross the threshold.

If ever there was an unassailable right of every freeman in America, this has been it: that in his home every man has sanctuary from the oppression of his government. This right, inalienable thus far, has played a vital role in the very development of this Nation, because it has been a heritage, a freedom, and a civilizing force giving us sober stability.

Now you gentlemen have before you legislation that will take away from every man, not just the white man at whom this bill is punitively aimed, but take away from every man the right to own and hold and dispose of his property as he sees fit. Those who want to railroad this bill through the House without benefit of any committee consideration in either the House or the Senate can try to soothe their consciences by saying that human rights take precedence over property rights, but this is self-delusion because, if you take away from man his right to own property, you are stripping him of a human right, not a property right, just as surely as if you took away his right to choose the kind of car he drives, what color suit he wears, what food he eats or what cigarette he smokes. These could be called property rights, too, because they too involve property, but what you take away from a man when you take away from him the right to sell his property as he chooses is not so much his property as his right to dispose of it.

If the present Supreme Court were made up of Justices devoted to preserving the Constitution of the United States instead of prostituting their positions to advance so-called social reforms, such a pro

posal as you have before you would be declared unconstitutional before the sun sets today. Courts have held, time after time, that the Federal Government has no place meddling in the private business transactions of individuals.

In a decision upheld by the Supreme Court itself, the Second Circuit Court had this to say:

We had supposed that it was elementary law that a trader could buy from whom he pleased and sell to whom he pleased and that his selection of seller and buyer was wholly his own concern. It is part of a man's civil rights.

Gentlemen, I would like to repeat that phrase if I may :

It is part of a man's civil rights that he be at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rests upon reason or is the result of whim, caprice, prejudice or malice. We have not yet reached the stage where the selection of a trader's customers is made for him by the government. (227 Fed. 2d Circ. Upheld.)

We could search court decisions from now until adjournment and not find a more pointed refutation of every specious argument which is being made in favor of this unfair housing proposal.

How prophetic that the Court should use the phrase "not yet reached the stage." This was the Court's judgment in 1915 when this decision. was made. Now in 1968 the House is being asked to declare that the Federal Government has reached that stage; that traders can no longer enjoy the privilege of choosing their customers; that they must be directed by a faceless bureaucrat from Washington.

I cannot believe that there is a Member of either body of the Congress who does not truly know in his conscience that in advocating passage of this measure he is taking part in the stripping away of one of the basic privileges that have distinguished Americans from those who live in totalitarian countries.

When you tell an American that he cannot sell his home to X; that he has to sell it to Y or A instead, you have struck at the very taproot of freedom. If the Federal Government thrusts the nose of the camel under the tent, if the legislative precedent is established that the Federal Government has the right to take any part in such a private transaction, then we are not a legal inch away from the proposition that this same Government can dictate what price can be charged, when a house can be sold or if a house can be sold.

Gentlemen, I want to read to you from page 29 of the bill, beginning with line 4, the section entitled "Discrimination in the Financing of Housing," and listen to me carefully, and tell me what this section says. I say to you that this section says that a man who lends money for real estate transactions cannot even refuse to make a loan, not based upon discrimination because of race, color, religion or national origin or that sort of thing, but he is denied the basic right to even refuse to make a loan.

Listen to it, gentlemen, and tell me if this is not what it says.

Section 805. After December 31, 1968, it shall be unlawful for any bank, building and loan association, insurance company or other corporation, association, firm or enterprise whose business consists in whole or in part in the making of commercial real estate loans, to deny a loan or other financial assistance to a person applying therefor for the purpose of purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling.

And sure, there is more. But it says "or to discriminate." The reasons for making the loan have nothing to do with discrimination prior to this point. The man who is in the lending business is denied the right to refuse to even make a loan. The Federal Government should have no such right.

It can be argued until we are all blue in the face that this unfair housing section does not go that far and that there is no sentiment that it go that far. But the final answer is that there is no majority sentiment in the Nation today for the proposal that is before you. I need only cite the case of the State of California, where such an unfair housing proposition was put to the voters and soundly rejected. It was then that the Supreme Court, nine men neither good men nor true, decided that they had to protect the majority of the people from themselves and they struck down the will of the people.

Some of you gentlemen may have been present on the floor of the House on the 14th of last month when the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the leadership attempted to violate its commitment to those of us who are opposed to this measure by bringing the bill up for immediate debate. You will remember that I questioned the chairman of the Judiciary Committee as to what this bill contained and he admitted that he was not familiar with all its provisions.

I am sure that this was an admission he was ashamed to make. And well he should be when any committee chairman has to admit to the other 434 members that he does not know the intricacies of legislation he asks us to pass without any committee consideration.

Gentlemen, I don't fear the voice of the people as some of the proponents of this measure apparently do. I am not afraid to take the time necessary to give this bill a hearing in the Judiciary Committee or a House-Senate conference. I am not afraid to let the people know what this bill contains and what it will do to their rights as free men and women if it becomes law.

Apparently the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the administration are afraid. The desperation effort to railroad this bill through Congress without sending it to committee for hearing, investigation, and debate goes against the grain of the democratic principles as violently as the provisions of the bill itself.

And we talk about letting the democratic process function by letting the Members of the House of Representatives vote on this measure, whether or not they want to accept it.

Gentlemen, if you are sincere about letting the democratic principle function, why don't you submit this in a public referendum to the people of this country and see what the people of this country believe about this proposal? Let's have a nationwide referendum. Let's see whether or not the people of this country want such legislation if you are truly sincere about letting the democratic process function. Ånd that will be a real illustration of the will of the people and the democratic process will have spoken and the people of this country will abide by it.

What is this inordinate fear that is driving the leadership to railroad this bill through the House? Why is it afraid to take a few weeks or a month to give this bill the sober consideration any major legisla

tion must be given? Is there a fear that if given time the people will express their opposition in such overwhelming terms that they cannot be ignored? Is there a fear that the militant Black Power groups will continue to burn our cities down if Congress does not pay this blackmail, as has been said here this morning, we must fear?

I will answer my own questions. The answer to them all is "Yes." An Associated Press story appearing in last Friday a week ago's Washington Post quoted him as saying he wanted quick action on this bill because of the impending march on Washington. There is only one phrase to describe the administration's panic: "racial blackmail."

This legislative illegitimacy is being dumped on the doorstep of the House with a note pinned to its diaper asking us to give it the honorable parentage it does not now have. Gentlemen, I make an unwilling wet

nurse.

Gentlemen, before I close my remarks on this bill, I want to touch for a moment on an ill-conceived and dangerous amendment adopted by the Senate which would impose severe penalties for certain activities in connection with civil disorders. I have reference to title X of the bill, sections 231 to 233, known popularly as the Long amendment. I know that Senator Long, who represents my own State of Louisiana, had the best intentions in the world with this amendment. I know the distinguished Senator's sensible views on civil disobedience_and violence and it could not have been his intention to open up the Pandora's box this amendment opens.

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 231(a) make criminal the teaching, demonstration of use, application, making, transportation, or manufacture of firearms while and this is the dangerous wording I am opposed to "while knowing or having reason to know or intending" that the firearm would be unlawfully used in any way or degree to impede or adversely affect commerce.

Now, as I say, I am sure the Senator had in mind a purpose that is entirely constitutional and proper. However, the vagueness of the phraseology used here could and undoubtedly would involve innocent persons in criminal liability with very heavy penalties.

The phrase "or having reason to know or intending" is an example of what I mean. The all-encompassing scope of this terminology embraces more than is either constitutional or practical. A firearms manufacturer or a firearms safety instructor could easily become a violator of a Federal criminal statute by any number of innocent circumstances if this language is allowed to stand.

I feel sure that the Judiciary Committee, made up as it is of some of the foremost legal minds in this Nation, would strike such ombiguous and vague wordage.

Any number of other examples of this uncertain wordage are found in this amendment, such as, for another example, the words "in any way or degree." This has the clear meaning that no matter how remote or infinitesimal the adverse impact on commerce might be, a person could be caught up in the tangle of this Federal statute and imprisoned, fined, or both.

The impracticality of such language is manifest, Mr. Chairman, and this dangerous situation must be cleared up. It can only be cleared up by taking the proper approach in such a situation, send the bill to the Judiciary Committee or to a House-Senate conference,

or better yet, if you still want the democratic process to function, conduct a national referendum.

This final word, Mr. Chairman, on this bill as a whole. We are being accused by the President of "piddling around" when we ask that this bill be given the same procedural treatment that is given every other bill.

And I submit to you that when the House was asked to send to conference the tax bill, which supposedly the administration wants, another process was invoked. It was sent to committee. It was not taken to the House and the Senate amendments concurred in and the bill passed. So I raise the question, which does the President want the most? It ill behooves anyone who has served in the Congress to make such a remark. The end does not justify the means. Not in this case or in any other.

No proposal is so desperately needed that the time cannot be spared to follow the democratic process. In that direction lies autocracy and dictatorship.

The Congress does not enact every piece of legislation I favor and it does not turn down every piece that I oppose, but in the long run there is no process of legislation that I prefer. If we can dismiss the committee system and roll roughshod over the House, then perhaps the time has come to disband the entire congressional system, if the administration has no trust and faith in the traditional method of legislating. I don't share that view. And I know, gentlemen, much has been said today about the wake of the senseless killing of Martin Luther King last Thursday night, that this legislation should be passed as a memorial to him. I don't know how many of you have seen the wire this morning; I don't know how many of you are familiar with the statement made by the distinguished majority leader of the other body, but the distinguished majority leader had this to say on the floor of the Senate this morning:

Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield flashed a "go slow" sign today against President Johnson's attempt to rush a new bill through Congress in the wake of the riots that followed Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination at Memphis. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. If you will bear with me a moment, I would like to go back to the history of this legislation and ask the gentleman whether or not he concurs in the recital of these facts.

I think the gentleman will recall, as well as this committee and the House, that last year there was an antiriot bill, a number of antiriot bills, introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The chairman of that committee, the dean of this House, and a very able man, did not see fit to have any hearings on these antiriot bills. They nestled over there in the Judiciary Committee for months. Whereupon--and if you will pardon the personal reference--I took occasion as chairman of this committee, feeling that I had the backing of the committee and of the country, to serve notice upon the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that if that bill were not activated and there was no action forthcoming, I proposed to ask this Committee on Rules to exercise a power that it has but rarely used, to take that bill from that committee, report it to the floor, and then have it acted upon, to give the House an opportunity to express its will, the democratic process.