Page images

were appointed. The Rules Committee had blocked floor consideration of a number of fair employment practice bills.

Second, Rule XXII in the Senate, the rule governing cloture, was modified to permit cloture by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, instead of two-thirds of all Senators. As it turned out, this change was not important with respect to the cloture vote that cleared the way for adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All Senators, including one in a wheel-chair, voted on the cloture motion.

Bills in 87th Congress

Although the Administration made no proposal for fair employment practice legislation in the 87th Congress, there were bills introduced. Congressman Robert Griffin (R., Mich.), for example, introduced a bill that would have made employment discrimination based on race, creed, color, etc., an unfair labor practice.

The bill that received most consideration, however, was H.R. 10144 introduced by Chairman Powell (D., N.Y.) of the House Labor Committee. As reported by the House Labor Committee on February 21, 1962, H.R. 10144 was titled the "Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1962." (See page 2155 for the text of the Report of the House Labor Committee.)

The Powell bill made it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, or age. The law was to be administered by a five-member Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with power to bring civil actions to prevent unlawful employment practices. Although reported by the Labor Committee, the bill failed to clear the House Rules Committee.

Kennedy Proposal

In a televised conference on June 11, 1963, President Kennedy announced that he would seek civil-rights legislation in the 88th Congress. On June 19, he sent a draft proposal to Congress.

There then followed considerable maneuvering in Congress. The House Labor Committee gave tentative approval to H.R. 405, an equal employment opportunities bill providing for enforcement through suits in the federal district. courts. The Committee later considered an enforcement procedure similar to that utilized by the National Labor Relations Board under the Taft-Hartley Act.

In the Senate, S. 1937 introduced by Senator Humphrey (D., Minn.) was approved by the Labor Committee. Under S. 1937, the administration and enforcement of the equal employment opportunity requirements was to be handled by an Administrator in the Department of Labor. The Administrator was to prosecute complaints before an independent Equal Employment Opportunity Board. The Board was to issue cease-and-desist orders enforceable in the federal courts of appeals.

House Commitee's Bill

More important was H.R. 7152, which was reported with bipartisan support by the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 7152 was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Cellar (D., N.Y.), on June 20, 1963, as the Administration's omnibus civil-rights bill. On January 30, 1963, however,


the ranking Republican member of the Committee, Congressman McCulloch (R., Ohio), had introduced another omnibus civil rights bill, H.R. 3139.

Subcommittee No. 5 of the Judiciary Committee held 22 days of hearings on these and other civil-rights bills, running from May 8 to August 2, 1963. There was testimony by 101 witnesses, and a record covering 2,649 printed pages was compiled.

As reported by the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 7152 was a broad civil-rights measure. There were 10 titles. The equal-employment-opportunity provisions were in Title VII. Other titles dealt with voting, public accomodations, public facilities, public education, federally assisted programs, registration and voting statistics, procedure in civil-rights cases, and appropriations and separability.

The controversy over the method of enforcing the equal-employment-opportunity provisions was to be resolved this way: (1) There would be a bipartisan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission without enforcement powers; and (2) enforcement would be through suits brought by the Commission or aggrieved persons in the federal district courts. (See page 2001 for the text of the Report of the House Judiciary Committee.)

Approval by House

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, civil-rights legislation was given a priority by President Johnson equal to that of the 1964 tax cut. The House Rules Committee cleared the bill for House action at the beginning of 1964.

The House began debate on the bill on January 31. Before passing the bill on February 10, the House adopted 18 amendments to Title VII. The most im portant amendment adopted was the one proposed by Congressman Smith (D., Va.) to add sex as one of the forbidden bases of employment discrimination. The Smith amendment was adopted on February 8 by a vote of 168 to 133. A correcting amendment proposed by Congresswoman Bolton (R., Ohio) was adopted on February 10. (For a tabulation of amendments adopted by the House, see Appendix 1; for debate on the Smith amendment, see page 3213.)

Action by Senate

The House bill went directly to the floor of the Senate instead of being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was considered by supporters of the measure to be hostile to it. It was the hope of some of the bill's principal backers that the Senate would accept the House bill without change, thus obviating the need for a conference between the two houses.

This did not happen. The bill was amended 87 times during the 83-day debate in the Senate, and the Dirksen-Mansfield substitute that finally was adopted made many important changes, including some major ones in Titles VII and XI.

The substitute was hammered out while the extended debate was going on in the Senate by a group of supporters of the bill, primarily Senators Dirksen (R., Ill.), Mansfield (D., Mont.), Humphrey (D., Minn.), and Kuchel (R., Calif.). It was drafted in consultation with the Justice Department headed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy.


The substitute was introduced early in June, and Senators Dirksen (R., Ill.) and Humphrey (D., Minn.) made detailed explanations of the changes it made in the House bill. (See pages 3003 and 3017 for the Humphrey and Dirksen statements.)

After adopting an important amendment to Title XI to provide for a jury trial, upon demand by the accused, in criminal contempt cases under all titles of the Act except Title I, supporters of the bill succeeded in invoking cloture by a vote of 71 to 29. Then on June 17, the Senate adopted the substitute bill by a vote of 76 to 18.

Final Approval

Upon being returned to the House, the bill was not subjected to the usual procedure of setting up a conference with the Senate to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions. Instead, the House was asked to vote on acceptance of the measure as amended by the Senate. On July 2, 1964, after one hour of debate, the House adopted H.R. 7152 as amended by the Senate. The vote was 289 to 126. President Johnson signed the measure the same day.

According to the records, the measure was considered and debated by the House Judiciary Committee 22 days, by the Rules Committee seven days, by the House six days, and by the Senate 83 days. The extended debate in the Senate lasted 534 hours, 1 minute, and 37 seconds.

[ocr errors]




SEC. 701. For the purposes of this title

(a) The term "person" includes one or more individuals, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

EDITORS' NOTE: The definition of "person" is taken without change from the bill reported on November 20, 1963, by the House Judiciary Committee. (See page 2009.)

(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a State or political subdivision thereof, (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Provided, That during the first year after the effective date prescribed in subsection (a) of section 716, persons having fewer than one hundred employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the second year after such date, persons having fewer than seventy-five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers: Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy.

EDITORS' NOTE: The bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee provided that the definition of an "employer" would not include persons having fewer than 100 employees during the first year of the Act and 50 employees during the second year of the Act. This provision was amended on the House floor by an amendment introduced by Congressman Willis (D., La.) and amended by Congressman Lindsay (R., N.Y.) to add an intermediate step of 75 employees during the second year after the effective date of the Act. Since the Title VII provisions did not become effective until a year after adoption of the Act, the amendment delayed the effective date of the Act's maximum coverage until the beginning of the fifth year after passage. The

« PreviousContinue »