Page images
PDF
EPUB

EDITORS' NOTE: During the debate in the House, Congressman Willis introduced an amendment that would have applied Title VII to employers of 150 employees during the first year after the effective date of the Act, 100 employees during the second year, and 50 employees during the third year and thereafter. After discussion, however, Willis accepted a suggestion that the amendment be modified to provide a four-step coverage schedule based on 100, 75, 50, and 25 employees. As so modified, the amendment was adopted.

House 2-10-64

pp. 2716-2717

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WILLIS

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIS: On page 65, line 2, strike out "100" and insert "150" and on page 65, line 5, strike out "50" and insert "100" and on page 65, line 6, after the word "employers" insert a comma and the following language: "and during the second year after such date persons having fewer than 50 employees and their agents shall not be considered employers."

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, under this bill the ultimate coverage will reach establishments having 25 or more employees. Under the bill, for the first year persons having fewer than 100 employees would not be covered. For the second year persons having fewer than 50 employees would not be covered. Then beginning with the third year and permanently thereafter persons having more than 25 employees would be covered.

My proposal would mean that for the first year an establishment having 150 or more employees would be covered. For the second year, establishments having 100 employees or more would be covered. For the third year, establishments having 50 or more employees would be covered and for the fourth year and permanently thereafter the bill would cover establishments having 25 or more employees.

Mr. Chairman, I have talked to quite a number of Members about this. As a matter of fact, what I was striving to do was to get something better. I would have hoped that ultimately the coverage would not exceed 50 employees. I have tested the sentiments of Members and hoped this amendment could be agreed to.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the word "second" be stricken and that the word "third" be inserted in lieu thereof in this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be modified according to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana.

There was no objection.

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

Mr. WILLIS. I yield.

Mr. RODINO. Does the gentleman mean that after the third year any establishment having less than 50 employees would not be covered?

Mr. WILLIS. No. For the first year it would be 150; the second, 100; the third, 50; the fourth year, 25, and thereafter permanently 25.

Mr. RODINO. It would extend to establishments with 25 or more employees only at the end of the third year and the beginning of the fourth year?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes, exactly.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to accept the gentleman's amendment, but I want to understand what it is.

Do I understand for the first year the title is not affected? It only operates for 1 year?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. CELLER. After the first year, then your amendment would operate against the labor unions or an employer with 150 employees or more?

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.

Mr. CELLER. Then the following year, the third year, it would operate against labor unions or employers with 100 employees or members?

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.

Mr. CELLER. And the fourth year it would operate against 50 employees, or members?

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.
Mr. CELLER.

Mr. WILLIS.

And the fifth year, 25? That is correct. In my remarks I went up to the fourth year

because I was beginning with the effective date of the bill, but as the gentleman relates it, it is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. CELLER. I do not think the gentleman's amendment is consistent with that explanation. I think it should be reread and changed, or modified.

Mr. WILLIS. The gentleman suggests that 25 is not in my amendment. It is unnecessary to be in here, as I see it, because 25 is on page 64, line 17. Under the structure of the bill the first sentence reads:

The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees.

That is not disturbed.

[ocr errors]

Then later on in the bill there is a proviso, and let me read that:

provided during the first year after the effective day prescribed in subsection (a) of section 719 persons having fewer than 100 employees

I make it 150

and their agents shall not be considered employers. During the second year after such date persons having fewer than 50

I make it 100

and their agents shall not be employers

And I add during the third year after such date persons having fewer than 50 employees and their agents shall not be considered as employers.

I adopt the identical language of the bill except I have figures less than this amendment is intended. I do not refer to 25 because that is unnecessary. That is on page 64, line 17.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. WILLIS. Let us see if the chairman and counsel understand the amendment.

it.

Mr. CELLER. I think I understand

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WILLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I agree that the gentleman's amendment does just what he said with respect to employers. However, in response to the questions of the chairman, he indicated that it would have a similar effect and application to labor organizations. I would like to point out to the gentleman it will not unless a similar amendment is offered to page 66, subsection (e), beginning with line 4 and running down through line 12.

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct. I was going to conform this amendment to that passage later on.

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

Mr. WILLIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LINDSAY. Would the gentleman accept an amendment here which would provide on line 5, instead of "fifty" it would read "seventy-five"; in the third year the figure would be "fifty"; in other words, one hundred, seventy-five, fifty, and then twenty-five. Would not that be acceptable to the gentleman?

Does the gentleman follow that, or shall I restate it?

Mr. WILLIS. I would hope that would be unnecessary. It is pretty hard to have to offer an amendment when what you originally sought was something beyond this. I would like to test the accuracy of the chairman and the ranking minority member before going into that.

Mr. CELLER. I think the suggestion made by the gentleman from New York is appropriate. If it is agreed to, I will agree to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. McCULLOCH. I am of the opinion it would serve a useful purpose if the suggestion of the gentlemen from New York [Mr. CELLER and Mr. LINDSAY] were followed.

Mr. WILLIS. I accept the suggestion. Mr. CELLER. The gentleman will accept the amendment, so that labor unions will be treated exactly like employers?

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman make that request?

Mr. WILLIS. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state the request for the modification of his amendment?

Mr. WILLIS. That similar language in terms of figures be employed on page 66. It would be that the first figure of the amendment would be the figure "one hundred", the second figure would be "seventy-Яve", and the third figure would be "fifty".

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Further, that those same figures would apply to the figures on page 66?

Mr. WILLIS. Exactly.

Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Where specifically do they go in?

Mr. WILLIS. The gentleman had the line a minute ago.

Mr. LINDSAY. In line 5, of the bill strike "fifty" and substitute "seventyfive".

Mr. WILLIS. That is correct.

Mr. LINDSAY. Line 5, page 65. The amendment then should read, "Strike 'fifty' and substitute 'seventy-five' ".

Mr. WILLIS. Yes.

Mr. LINDSAY. Line 2 of the same page, the figure "one hundred" remains the same.

Mr. WILLIS. Line 2 remains the same.

Mr. LINDSAY. That is correct. Then on line 6 it is exactly the same.

Mr. WILLIS. Yes; and then you would have added the language: "and, during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers."

Mr. LINDSAY. That is correct. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana as modified.

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WILLIS
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIS: On page 65, line 5. strike out "fifty" and insert "seventy-five" and on page 65. line 6. after the word "employers" insert a comma and the following language "and during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees and their agents shall not be considered employers.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana to modify his amendment as read by the Clerk?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.

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

Mr. WILLIS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CELLER. Then the gentleman wants to amend the figures on page 66; does he not?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes, and that would be on page 66, line 11, the figure "seventyfive" would be substituted for the figure "fifty". Then on line 11, following the word "date" there would be added the language: "or fifty or more during the third year". That would make both amendments conform.

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

Mr. WILLIS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. RODINO. However, the amendments should be accepted together; should they not or would it be one amendment going to page 65 and page

66?

Mr. WILLIS. I was going to offer a separate amendment after we had finished with this one.

Mr. RODINO. Would it not be preferable for the gentleman to offer them together?

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my original amendment be amended to include the conforming amendment so far as the figures are concerned on page 66.

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

There was no objection.

The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana as now modified.

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. WILLIS

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIS: Page 65, line 5, strike out "fifty" and insert "seventy-five", and page 65, line 6. after the word "employers" insert a comma and the following language: "and. during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees [and their agents] shall not be considered employers." And on page 66, line 11, strike out "fifty" and insert "seventy-five", and on page 66, line 11, after the word "date", insert the following: "or fifty and more during the third year".

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, on Sunday, February 9. 1964, the Charlotte Observer, the largest newspaper in the State of North Carolina, which is owned by the Knight newspaper people with headquarters in Akron, Ohio, had an excellent editorial entitled "Rights Bill Would Endanger the Rights of Majority."

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I include the entire editorial as a part of my remarks.

RIGHTS BILL WOULD ENDANGER THE RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITY

The hopes of millions of Americans and the fears of millions of other Americans are wrapped up in the far-reaching civil rights package now being debated in Washington. Both the hopes and the fears are understandable, for this legislation will deeply affect our lives and the lives of those in succeeding generations.

This invests an awesome responsibility in Congress, a responsibility that has not been properly exercised in the House as it worked against the clock and under intensive political pressure from civil rights groups.

The danger of allowing the rights battle to be fought out in the streets of our Nation is obvious. But there is a danger just as serious, though not as spectacular, in baring the rights of the majority to abuse while seeking to legitimatize the rights of a minority.

There is a duty here to posterity that is so important that the U.S. Senate cannot afford to be stampeded into hasty action, no matter how great the pressure on that body.

Every word and phrase of this 49-page bill must be examined to determine its possible effect on personal freedom. Powers are delegated to the executive branch which have got to be circumscribed where they are now "open-end." There are words that must be more clearly defined-"discrimination," for

one.

This is not a matter of impugning the motives of those who have drawn the bill. There are mixed motives, and some are on the highest moral plane. The caution flag must go out on this bill because the individual liberties of Americans are too preclous for Congress to seek good ends through bad means.

What we are about to do is to give the agents of the Federal Government broad and sweeping powers that they have never been able to employ before. This is not to regard the Federal Government as some alien power intent upon doing us harm.

It is our Government, just as much as the one in the State capital or at city hall. But it has always been the prerogative of the people to reserve to the States or to themselves the powers not expressly given the Federal Government in the Constitution. This is a decision about making a drastic change in Washington's historic role and we should know what we're about.

This is not racist talk. We have no patience with those who have done everything in their power to deny basic American freedoms to a minority and now weep copiously over the bier of reason. This is simply an appeal for rational consideration of every State or personal right that the framers of this bill ask us to minimize or give up.

It is an appeal, too, that Members of the Senate seek to envision the exercise of these new powers by those whose faces we cannot see now. Given an understanding of the atmosphere in which this legislation was produced, agents of the Federal Government logically will exercise their new powers on the present generation with reason and restraint. But experience has taught us it is far wiser to circumscribe the powers of government than to put our faith in good intentions, for the passage of time has a way of turning bright castles into ashes.

Constructive changes already have been made in the bill despite the limitations on hearing and debate. Much more needs to be done in the Senate to make sure that Individual Americans, not just Negroes, will be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable government power.

The search for justice is going on, as it should, within our highest deliberative body. But the U.S. Senate must remember that this is not a sociological treatise but law that it is writing, law that it will place in the hands of what George Washington called "a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. A right postponed is a right denied.

I realize the Judiciary Committees on both sides through statements by the senior Members, have accepted this amendment. I look at the amendment in a different way. I like the bill just as It is written as to this provision. I feel strongly the Members in favor of this civil rights bill are yielding and giving up on a substantial provision of the bill that pertains to the time of taking effect and the extent of the coverage. This yielding might have a weakening effect when the House comes to the conference committee on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses.

I therefore oppose the amendment. I do not believe it should be accepted. I feel that the bill should retain, in respect to this provision, the language as it was written originally.

« PreviousContinue »