I am glad the chairman has agreed to accept it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Is not the intent of this amendment to protect loyal American citizens and to distinguish loyal American citizens from those citizens who are not loyal Americans?

Mr. CELLER. I do not want to subscribe to that statement in toto. I want to make my statement within the confines of the bill. The bill simply is intended to prevent discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. It has nothing to do with subversive activities.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment of the distinguished and able gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CoLMER], is essential to the security of this Nation. Communists and subversives have been all too active under our present laws. We have been too lenient. Communists can buy technical magazines and

scientine books at almost every newsstand and every bookstore. They have access to many of our blueprints and patents.

This civil rights bill, as written, could force an American business firm to hire a Communist or some participant in subversive activities. It would be unthinkable to have a Communist working in our business firms and in transportation which are so essential to the preservation of our way of life. Our frontline of defense is now our industrial output, technical know-how, and our research. To force an employer to hire Communists and subversives will endanger our American way of life and would be the surest way to undermine America as the arsenal of democracy and the heart and core of the free world.

I urge, with all the sincerity at my command, that this House adopt this amendment and save our American industry and private enterprise system from espionage and sabotage.

Mr. Chairman, no business should be forced by the Federal Government to employ a Communist. This section of the bill only points out how utterly absurd and unnecessary is the entire bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: On page 71, line 7, insert after "religion" both times it appears the following: "or national origin".

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would make the sentence in 705(b) include national origin as well as religion. It was so intended. The purpose is to make the exemption which you find on page 71, line 7, conform to the language in section 704(e) on page 70, lines 6 and 7. It was intended that this exemption parallel the exemption in 704(e), page 70, to which I have just referred.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I merely want to corroborate the statement of the distinguished gentleman from New York and to point out that not only do the words "national origin" appear just two lines above in line 5, but it also appears on page 70, line 7. It appears on page 69, line 17, and again on page 69, line 3. It appears on page 68, line 18, and line 23.

Obviously the omission was merely an oversight and a clerical error. In order that there be no insinuation that there was anything involved in its omission, we simply want to make the correction and have it conform.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in no way a substantive amendment, and I hope it will be adopted with a minimum of debate.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to ask a question: Do I understand that it will be perfectly all right for a person advertising for employees to express a preference for a white person?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. No. "National origin" has nothing to do with the color of one's pigment.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. RODINO. It goes to the question of what is a bona fide occupational qualification. There may be some instances where a person of a certain national origin may be specifically required to meet the qualifications of a particular job.

Mr. DOWDY. Use the words "AngloSaxon."

Mr. RODINO. No, of course not. The gentleman thoroughly understands that that is not included under a definition of "national origin."

Mr. DOWDY. No, I do not understand it. When you say "national origin" that is a national origin, is it not? Mr. RODINO. "National origin" does not apply to color or race.

Mr. DOWDY. I said "Anglo-Saxon." Mr. RODINO. What "national origin" is Anglo-Saxon?

Mr. DOWDY. It is English.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. May I just make very clear that "national origin" means

national. It means the country from which you or your forebears came from. You may come from Poland, Czechoslovakia, England, France, or any other country. It has nothing to do with broad terms such as the gentleman has referred to.

In

Mr. DOWDY. I understand now. your advertisement you could advertise that you wanted only someone from Poland, but you could not advertise that you wanted just a normal Anglo-Saxon American.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. You have to put it in the context of the amendment. This is necessary. Obviously, if you were to have a Polish organization I do not think that they want to have me as a Dutchman, necessarily, and they would have a right to say something about Polish in their advertisement. It is a very innocuous amendment. gentleman is trying to read insinuations into it which are not there in any way.

The

Mr. DOWDY. I am trying to read the substance that ought to be there, that a person can hire whoever he wants to hire.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, some of us may be a little dense and cannot understand these things. Maybe you can help out if you would give us a specific example of what you are talking about. Give us one or two examples.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. National origin, of course, has nothing to do with color, religion, or the race of an individual. A man may have migrated here from Great Britain and still be a colored person. I refer the gentleman to the book just put out by the Census Bureau which gives data on origin and yet covers all races only by country of origin.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Will the gentleman cite me an example of the club or restaurant or what he is talking about?

Mr. DENT. It has just been called to my attention that a French restaurant or a specific restaurant that deals in foods that are of a certain national type, foods like Italian foods, a person who runs such a restaurant would want to have a chef, and in advertising for a chef he would want to say that he wanted a chef but only those of a certain national origin, say Italy, need apply.

Mr. DENT. I will be a little specific. The gentleman said he is a little dense. I do not think he is any more dense than anybody else. For instance, we have stores in this country that sell religious articles. They would be advertising for someone to work as a salesman or salesgirl in that particular store, and they would say that a person of, say, the Roman Catholic religion should apply for the job, because the articles they sold would relate to that faith. We do not want in any way to force them in that particular type of application to take somebody who would not be helpful to their business, would we? Certainly, if this is occupational, it is restricted to the professional occupation or bona fide occupation.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I think my colleague will find the justification for this amendment if he will refer to page 70, paragraph (e), in line 4, which provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees of a particular religion or national origin in those certain instances where religion or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York merely permits you to advertise for such people when you feel that you need that type of employee to conform with section (e) on page 70. Mr. RODINO. The gentleman asked for an example.

Mr. JONES of Missouri.

Yes.

Mr. RODINO. I think we all know about "pizza pie," it generally carries an Italian connotation and we would assume that a baker, chef, or cook of Italian origin is especially qualified to make pizza pies, and going further the gentleman recognizes that if there is a "pizzeria," which is a pizza pie establish

ment, the employer or the operator of that pizza pie restaurant would probably seek as chef a person of Italian origin. He would do this because pizza pie is something he believes the Italians or people of Italian national origin are able to make better than others-and is reasonably necessary to the operation of his particular business. Therefore, national origin in the operation of a specialty restaurant such as a French restaurant

or Italian restaurant could properly be an occupational qualification that is reasonably necessary to the operation of the restaurant business.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. In other words, you would preclude the hiring of a Negro as a pizza pie chef then?

Mr. RODINO. No. That would not preclude him if the operator of the restaurant wanted a Negro chef-to make pizza pie-he could hire him as well.