« PreviousContinue »
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, in whose time is the Senator from Minnesota speaking?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield briefly to me. Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. It was the reason for some of the provisions of title VII. That is why I said I did not think the proposed new language was necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas. [Putting the question.]
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, have not, the yeas and nays been ordered on the question of agreeing to this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not yet been requested.
Mr. TOWER and other Senators requested the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the question of agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER]. The clerk will call the roll.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON] would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] is paired with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER). If present and voting, the Senator from Virginia would vote "yea" and the Senator from Maryland would vote “nay.”
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] and and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily absent and, if present and voting, would each vote "nay."
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] is absent on official business, and, if present and voting, would vote “nay.”
The result was announced-yeas 38, nays 49, as follows:
The legislative clerk proceeded to Cotton call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a live pair with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT). If the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] were present and voting, he would vote "yea.' If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.
Mr. SYMINGTON (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. If the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER), the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.
Young, N. Dak.
So Mr. TowER'S amendment was rejected.
EDITORS' NOTE: Senator Tower (R., Tex.) modified his original amendment regarding ability tests (see above) to give the green light to such tests so long as the "test, its administration, or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." With this qualification, the amendment was agreed to by the Senate and incorporated in the bill finally adopted.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 952, which I ask to have modified. I send to the desk the modification and ask that it be stated. It is my understanding that under a previous agreement, a Senator may be allowed to modify his own amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated, as modified. The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 44, line 15, insert the following after the word "origin"; nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Mr. TOWER. myself 1 minute. This is similar to an amendment which I offered a day or two ago, and which was, I believe, agreed upon in principle. But the language was not drawn as carefully as it should have been.
Mr. President, I yield
It is my understanding that the present language has been cleared through the Attorney General, the leadership, and the proponents of the bill.
I therefore urge its adoption. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I think it should be noted that the Senators on both sides of the aisle who were deeply interested in title VII have examined the text of this amendment and have found it to be in accord with the intent and purpose of that title.
I do not think there is any need for a rollcall. We can expedite it. The Senator has won his point.
I concur in the amendment and ask for its adoption.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 952 offered by the Senator from Texas Mr. TOWER].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was agreed to.
Discrimination Forbidden: Age Discrimination
EDITORS' NOTE: Congressman Dowdy (D., Tex.) offered an
in the House that would have banned discrimination on account of age. It was defeated by a vote of 94 for, 123 against.
pp. 2596-2597, 2599
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DOWDY
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dowdy: Page 68, line 18, after the word "individual's", insert the word "age".
Page 68, line 23, after the word "individual's" insert the word "age".
Page 69, line 3, after the word "his", insert the word "age".
Page 69, line 5, after the word "his" insert the word "age".
Page 69, line 10, after the word "his", insert the word "age".
Page 69, line 16, after the word "individual's", insert the word "age".
Page 69, at the end of line 24, insert the word "age".
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take very long on this amendment. I offered this as an amendment to a former civil rights bill in 1957 or 1960, I have forgotten which one.
I am sure that most of the Members of this House have had the same experience I have had, hearing from people in our districts.
This amendment inserts the word "age" as one of the things that cannot be discriminated against. Along with color, race, sex, religion, or national origin it just adds "age" as another factor.
I have had many pitiful letters from people in my district and I am sure you have had the same kind of letters from yours stating how after they get over 40 years of age or maybe 45 years of age, they cannot get jobs. The employers simply will not hire them.
That is the worst kind of discrimination when a person is discriminated against at that age, particularly, that young age. In some parts of the country it has gotten to where at 35 years of age it is impossible to get a job-at a time when a man is trying to raise his family.
A lot of this is caused by laws that the Congress has passed. A lot of this is caused by laws that the States have passed on account of physical examinations, insurance, workmen's compensation laws and such things as that.
Certainly, if we are going to prevent discrimination in employment, I feel this is an area that should be included in the bill. I cannot help but believe the rest of you feel the same way.
I believe the official statistics of the U.S. Government show that when a person loses his job after he is 40 years of age, the chances are 6 to 1 that he will not be able to get employment in a similar job or a job paying anything like the salary that he had before he lost his job.
Many people are being thrown out of their businesses and out of their jobs by programs of the U.S. Government, which makes this amendment more essential. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BECKWORTH. I want to commend the gentleman for taking an interest in this particular problem. Not only is this true in the case of private industry, but the Government itself is a difficult place for an older man to obtain employment. There are plenty of statistics on that. Even though we have agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and in the Department of Labor that are supposed to be doing something about it, yet, when
one asks them for the statistics they say they have no estimates and no information on the extent to which older people are hired. The gentleman is on a mighty important line of reasoning.
Mr. DOWDY. A few years ago Congress passed a law to keep the Federal Government from discriminating on account of age in employment, yet the gentleman is correct. The problem still exists.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Does the proposed amendment of the gentleman contemplate equal application to Government employment as well as private employment?
Mr. DOWDY. Actually a law already exists for Government employment, which we passed. My amendment would apply to everything the bill before us would apply to. I have offered it in every place that race, color, sex, religion, or national origin discrimination is to be banned.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment deserves the utmost of consideration. Certainly it should be adopted. I urge it. The peopie of the country are writing to you and writing to me asking, "What can we do? We are past 40 or past 45 and cannot get a job. Employers will not listen to us."
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PEPPER. Is it not a fact that the Full Employment Act of 1946 committed the Government of the United States to the principle of providing an economic climate in this country in which all citizens who were ready, willing, and able to work should have an opportunity to work, and did not exclude senior citizens?
Mr. DOWDY. That is correct; it did not exclude them.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOWDY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. I certainly support the gentleman in what he is attempting to do. This is one of the best of the amendments which have been offered.
Mr. Chairman, there is a group-a growing group of Americans who need help and need it badly. They are the men and women whose age makes them no longer desirable in the job markets
of the Nation. Many of them are skilled. But companies which are looking at retirement, disability, and fringe benefit problems want younger employees. There is discrimination against men and women in this group. Theirs is a harsh problem. Living costs are high. Income is low. Employers all too frequently follow a hard and fast rule against employing persons over 45.
In the field of help for the aging, a bill such as this could be useful. It would force action on a problem which has long been recognized, but about which nothing of consequence has been done. Year after year there is talk. There are high level conferences. Commissions are appointed. But nothing comes of it. After some pious resolutions, the problem goes back on the shelf. There is no comprehensive plan to help provide jobs for the aging.
For days the House has attempted to create an image by which to place this bill in a favorable light. A provision on the aging will not make it a good bill. But here at least is an area where action is needed. I sincerely hope the amendment will be accepted.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I feel sure that Members will find that more discrimination is practiced in this area than in any other. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
However laudable may be the purpose of the gentleman from Texas in the offering of the amendment, I am convinced that acceptance of the amendment would cause a great deal of difficulty and would result in confusion without end.
The gentleman speaks of discrimination based on age. What age? Some men are old at 20. Others are young at 70. At what age would discrimination occur?
I think we would be entering into a thicket of difficulties if we adopted the amendment.
If Members will turn to page 84 of the bill, to section 718, under the heading "Special Study by Secretary of Labor" they will see that the committee provided:
The Secretary of Labor shall make a full and complete study of the factors which might tend to result in discrimination in employment because of age and of the consequences of such discrimination on the economy and individuals affected.
In other words, not only the Committee on Education and Labor, but also