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.

As a result of that I am sure the Committee on Judiciary then reported out that bill, antiriot bill, but added to it the basic substance of this bill, a civil rights bill.

Mr. WAGGONNER. The basic substance of title I, if you will allow me to intervene, Mr. Chairman, not the rest of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for correcting me and making the statement more accurate. I was coming to that.

But we did not accept that bill. And again we served notice that we wanted that bill on its own. Whereupon the Judiciary Committee was reconvened and the antiriot bill was reported and in substance section 1 of this bill, the so-called civil rights bill.

This committee acted upon both of those bills separately, on different dates, and they went to the floor and were passed separately and sent over to the other body.

Now that, as I recall it, was in August of last year. That committee without any action, deferred any action on those bills for some time, and finally reported out a bill combining the two. It went to the floor of the Senate and there other matters were considered and finally these additional provisions were written upon the floor of the Senate.

Bearing in mind again now that this body is an equal body of Congress, we have had passed bills dealing with antiriot matters and civil rights, but when the bill comes back to this House it carries with it. legislation involving the Indians of this country, a very small minority, and whether that legislation is good or bad, frankly I don't know. All I know in that connection is that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs headed by the very able and highly respected member of this House, Mr. Aspinal of Colorado, is now, and has been for some time, giving it consideration. But this proposal before us would take that bill away from that committee and enact legislation on the subject of Indian affairs.

It is a matter of common knowledge, is it not, that for years there has been gun legislation considered in the various committees of the House. But because of the very highly controversial nature of this legislation, no action was ever taken and the House has never considered that matter. The House has never had the opportunity to consider that legislation and to work its will thereon.

Then, of course, there is a fair housing provision which seems to be the principal bone of contention in the Congress, the whole Congress, in the House as it was in the Senate. But again on the floor of that body, after months of debate, a provision on open housing was adopted by the senate and went into this bill, was written into this bill, and adopted by the Senate.

Now I repeat there has never been any question in my mind about this matter going to the floor. The only question has been and now is whether this equal body of Congress will have an opportunity in the democratic process to express its will on these various new matters that have been injected into this proposed legislation.

Now may I just conclude. Every day that we have had these hearings we have heard people talk about giving the House an opportunity to express its will. Now that is what the gentleman from Louisiana is asking here today. That is what others who have been here have asked. I ask the gentleman is it the democratic process, the proposed resolution of the gentleman from Indiana here to take

this Senate bill with all of these extraneous matters, these new matters that have not been considered by this Congress, and pass it without any consideration?

Again we hear a lot about second-class citizens. Are we setting ourselves up here as a second-class body that must take whatever the other body sees fit to hand us?

I think the gentleman has answered my question already, but I shall be pleased to have you comment.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that any man, if I could comment on the last first, is a second-class citizen who doesn't think he is one and who doesn't act like one. I think there is a great deal of state of the mind involved in this so-called second-class citizenship.

Now this sequence of events that you have related with regard to the different facets which now comprise this proposal are reasonably accurate. They did occur as the distinguished chairman has stated.

But I call to your attention that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman and learned lawyer from New York, the foremost lawyer in this House truthfully speaking, did oppose the section of this legislation having to do with riots at the time the House considered it. He spoke against it. On the 14th day of last month, the 14th of March, the day this legislation was sent to this Rules Committee, when this was called to his attention he admitted that that part of the legislation was bad, but he was willing to take some bad to get something else.

I submit to you that that is a very poor way indeed to legislate. Now I mentioned only one facet of this bill that I can't conceivably believe the House or this Rules Committee in good conscience would be a party to. And I refer back again just to the portion of page 29 having to do with discrimination in the financing of housing.

The language of this section denies a lender the basic right to deny a loan. It doesn't say that he must not discriminate in denying a loan. It says he can't even refuse to make a loan. It says "or discrimination," in doing some other things. But it does not forbid him, or rather allow him to discriminate in fixing the conditions in making a basic loan. He is denied the right to refuse to make a basic loan. There are some other words which follow on, but they have to do with other conditions, not with whether or not the basic loan, the basic decision as to whether a loan will be made or denied, can be made or denied. He is forbidden, with the language of this bill, to refuse to make a loan for building, buying, renovating homes in the real estate business.

Now, gentlemen, I challenge the press that are here today to let the country know that that language is included in this bill. To let the people know that financial institutions can't refuse to make a loan if anybody requests it.

Oh, yes, there are some other words, again I say, but the basic right to deny a loan is forbidden by this language. And gentlemen, read it for yourselves. It is written exactly that way into the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, any questions?

Mr. SMITH. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madden?

Mr. MADDEN. Well, my good friend from Louisiana is certainly painting a vivid picture about the real estate situation. Personally, under this bill I don't know of anybody who owns a piece of property

who is restricted in any way if somebody comes up with the cash. He can sell it. There is nothing in this bill that will stop him from selling it.

Now I am not a real estate expert and I don't think the gentleman from Louisiana is a real estate expert. I think both of us, if we were, would be out where we could make some money instead of being in Congress.

Here is a statement made before the Senate committee by Evans Buchanan, former president of the National Association of Home Builders, in behalf of this bill:

The fair housing provisions are needed by the real estate industry as a means of eliminating unsound competitive practices in protecting those who choose to do business on a non-discriminatory basis. Participants in FHA and VA programs are now pledged to the policies and practice of non-discrimination under the provisions of Executive Order 11063. Enactment of this bill will provide the uniform standards of conduct so greatly needed in today's real estate market. Many business firms and organizations would long since have discontinued the practice of discrimination except for the fear of adverse economic consequences stemming from competitors who choose to capitalize on racial and religious prejudices. With a national law commanding the acceptance of all, the entire industry will sell or rent without discrimination and without fear of economic reprisals.

Now here is Elliott Couden, Seattle, Wash., real estate broker, member of the Seattle Real Estate Board, the Washington Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Real Estate Boards.

A universal law would remove many of the shackles and impasses we in the real estate business are subjected to. Many real estate salesmen and brokers who would voluntarily provide equal service to all clients suffer a reasonably well grounded apprehension that their efforts will result in intimidation from other realtors and economic attrition from potential clients. This legislation frees all parties from coercion, probably the greatest single element in the housing business.

Now here is Fred Cramer, Chicago, Ill., president of Draper & Cramer, real estate mortgages and banking, who manages 15,000 real estate units:

I think it is in the interest of all of us in the real estate business to be put on an equal basis when it comes to accepting minority groups as buyers, borrowers, or tenants.

Now just a couple more. Edward Derschleg of Chicago:

The real estate industry, our various communities, as well as the country as a whole would benefit from the enactment of fair housing legislation.

Ken Rothchild, President of the Minnesota Mortgage Bankers Association:

Minnesota's open housing laws have not hurt the real estate business. It has been good. There was great fear among the real estate people, but none of their fears have been justified. Realtors and apartment owners and builders have experienced greater demands for their product. The entire community has benefitted from the rapidly improving housing conditions and from reduced racial tension.

Philip M. Klutznick, whom I went to school with a way back years ago, and he is probably one of the biggest real estate housing developers in the United States today, he has built several cities that I know of, and he has endorsed this bill.

So I don't think we are going to ruin the real estate business. We will help a lot of people and eliminate a lot of tension, a lot of bick