the Committee on the Judiciary felt restrained about going into this difficult area because of a lack of knowledge; because of woefully insufficient information on the subject of so-called discrimination based upon age.

In the bill we call upon the Secretary of Labor to make a comprehensive study and to report back to us. After we receive the conclusions of the Secretary of Labor we shall be in a better position to offer legislation.

The answer is that now we do not have sufficient information, concerning discrimination based on age, to act intelligently. I believe, therefore, it would be rather brash to rush into this situation without having sufficient information to legislate intelligently upon this very vexatious and difficult problem.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a brief question? Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COLMER. What difference would it make what the age was, provided the discrimination was because of age?

Mr. CELLER. It might make a big difference, depending upon the surrounding circumstances. But, frankly I do not know; and I do not believe the gentleman knows. We should wait until we get the fullest possible information on the subject. We should permit the Secretary of Labor to look into the situation. We should permit him to put his experts to work on it and give us the results of their labors. Then we could legislate on this subject intelligently.

I do not believe we could do so now. We cannot legislate intelligently now.

Mr. COLMER. If the gentleman will permit a further interruption, it seems to me that the gentleman is begging the question when he wants to put it off until we can get the bureaucrats to give a report on it. That may never happen. Also, the question of whether a man is 35, 40 or 50 years of age is immaterial. The same point might be made by somebody else on the question of the color of a man's skin; as to whether it was a light color or a dark color, a chocolate color or a medium color.

The question would be a question of discrimination because of age.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the bill provides that the Secretary of Labor investigate discrimination in employment because of age and to indicate the consequences of such discrimination on the economy and the individuals affected. I think that we

should wait for the results of such an investigation and then we will be armed with the proper facts.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to serve on the subcommittee that has held very extensive hearings for 3 years now, I believe, on this whole question of fair employment practices. The committee is chaired by the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT. We have traveled to New York. We have held hearings in Chicago and held hearings in California. So we are not entirely strangers to this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have been pleading with my committee from the very first day we started hearings that we really cannot do an effective job in eliminating discriminatory practices in hiring in this country if we limit ourselves only to race, religion, and national origin. I have 174,000 citizens in my district who are 45 years old or older. I was extremely depressed when I saw a survey of the Department of Commerce which indicated that unless an American worker has an extraordinary skill, his chances of getting another job once he loses his original job are 6 to 1 against him if he is 45 years old or older. I tell you that you cannot solve the problem of discrimination in hiring practices with this title VII, limiting yourself to what you have in the bill now, because there is not a Member on this floor-and I fear no contradiction in this statement-there is not a Member on this floor who does not know that when people apply for a job today the first question they are askedand it does not make any difference whether they are white, colored, Indian, Chinese, Catholic. Protestant, or Jewthe first question that is asked is, "How old are you?" You know and no one can deny the fact that when you tell a personnel manager that you are 45 years old or older, he does not want to know any more about you. Now, you know this. Gentlemen, let us test the wisdom of what I am saying.

There are 26 States in the United States that have adopted various forms of fair employment practices acts. Of those 26 States, 14 have learned that their acts fell short of the purpose, which is to bar discrimination in employment, and they have since been compelled to adopt amendments dealing with age. This goes for the State of my chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr.

ROOSEVELT, and this goes for the State of the ranking member of the committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from New York Mr. GOODELL]. Both the State of New York and the State of California had to recognize the fact that they cannot deal effectively to wipe out discrimination in providing an opportunity for people to earn a living in this country unless they wrote into their act the question of age.

I say to you that the very same arguments that apply to this whole title apply to age. We have based this title on one thing. We say in this title that if an American worker, be he man or woman, is otherwise qualified for employment— and that is the key of this whole titleotherwise qualified for employment—he shall not be denied an opportunity to earn his living because of his race, color, or national origin.

Earlier today we voted to bar discrimination because of "sex," and now I hope we make this act complete by adding the word "age."

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

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for 7 days patiently listening to debate and listening to the learned members of the Committee on the Judiciary argue the points that they know best. Therefore, I do not think that I am imposing upon the good will of the membership when I take the floor and ask for additional time to discuss a subject that I have spent years studying very carefully as a member of the Labor Committee. This is not something that I am pulling out of my pocket. I sat in California and heard the director of labor there argue that the State law of California was ineffective until they wrote a bar against discrimination in hiring because of "age" into their act. I heard witnesses in New York argue that their act was ineffective until that State included in their State law a prohibition against discrimination in hiring practices in that State because of a person's age if he or she is otherwise qualified for the particular job.

So, Mr. Chairman, we can look through the committee hearings, and the statements are there, the testimony is there.

I know there are those who say, let us not include this point because we may lose some support for this bill. I say you will gain support. If you want to do something, if we honestly and sincerely want to do something about this problem of giving every American an opportunity to earn a living if he is otherwise qualified, we will include this subject of age in this title.

I am aware of one thing: There is no question that there is an economic factor involved, and I believe the Congress will have to deal with this economic factor if we accept this principle of nondiscrimination because of age. I recognized that it may cost an employer more money to hire an older worker and it is for this very reason that I have introduced legislation to relieve an employer of these additional costs by giving him a tax credit for these additional costs if such additional costs occur in hiring older people.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I certainly hope the gentleman from New York is not accusing me of trying to gut the bill because I have been interested in the subject of age for a long time. As a matter of fact. the gentleman might be interested to know that the first bill that was reported out of the Committee on Education and Labor on FEPC did include an age provision in it and that was the bill that was stymied in the Committee on Rules and never came to the floor of the House.

Second, I would like to ask the gentleman from California how his own State handles the question of age?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Oh, I am glad the gentleman asked me that because it is important that I answer it.

My own State of California has a very carefully written statute which surrounds the question of age with all kinds of hedges which would protect management. This is not in this amendment as it is offered here. Therefore, it very clearly is not the matter we are discussing at this time.

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

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York Mr. GOODELL].

Mr. GOODELL. I think the gentleman from California will agree with me that what we are seeing here, in some instances with great sincerity and in other instances less so, is an attempt,

frankly, to load the bill with items and factors that the bill is not designed to cope with.

The problem of this amendment is that the whole framework, and our whole section here was drawn especially to meet the very peculiar problems of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or color.

Discrimination based on age has an economic source. There are many other factors that are very complicated in the problems of age. We should cope with this problem. We should try to develop some machinery to deal with it. But this is not the vehicle by which to do it.

I hope we are not going to load this bill down or load this title down with this kind of amendment and jeopardize the entire title to the bill.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman has made an excellent statement.

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

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the gentleman.

The gentleman

Mr. WAGGONNER. from New York asked the gentleman from California if he would not agree that this was a matter which properly should lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. He agreed that it should be there.

Since the gentleman has made this admission, would he not further admit that the entire section or entire title should lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It does lie within that jurisdiction.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Then it should not be in this bill.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. We requested the Committee on the Judiciary to include it in this bill; therefore, they are not violating our jurisdiction.

The gentleman

Mr. WAGGONNER. said that the vote would reflect the responsibility of the House on this particular amendment. Will the gentleman admit that the vote will also reflect the interest of the House and who we are interested in as well?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not quite understand what the gentleman means by that comment.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Would not the gentleman admit that the vote will reflect the interest we have in the old people?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It may reflect the interest that some people have in the older people, but it is also a reflection

of doing something in the wrong way and a reflection of the fact that we are losing sight of the main purpose of the bill.

I am just as interested as is the gentleman in the older people of this country, I say to my friend. I have demonstrated that time and time again. I am dedicated to trying to do something meaningful with respect to discrimination because of age. I would not ruin the bill to do so. I would not put in something to lead them down a wrong path. Then at some time in the future, after their hopes had been raised, we would find there was nothing for them. Let us not mislead the senior citizens but I strongly feel they will be able to recognize their true friends.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I shall not take 5 minutes. Since the gentleman has already discussed the question of age and its wide impact, and I recognize how seriously concerned he is, would he not agree that a provision against discrimination because of age would open up a tremendous number of problems which are not envisaged.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. I agree with the gentleman.

Mr. RODINO. Would it not be better to have this subject studied comprehensively by the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes.

Mr. RODINO. I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman, who as a member of the Committee on Education and Labor has great knowledge of the subject. But we had no opportunity to go into this subject of age. I, too, am seriously concerned, for as the gentleman from California has already stated, there is evidence on discrimination because of age, and yet I believe this bill is hardly the proper vehicle to deal with this question. I believe the subject is properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

If there is any subject in the world I have a right to discuss it is that of age.

I am happy to say that I am now 81; that I will be 82 in April; that I am a candidate for reelection; and that I will be reelected this year-but that, 20 years thereafter, I do intend to retire, and not before.

My friends and colleagues, we started out here to do a little job, to do what we could to guard against discrimination

because of race or creed. We started on a simple little excursion. Then, because we like women and we want to give them all we can give them, we included them.

Now, apparently because I must have made so many friends-and I thank you all-you want to include old people.

Do you not feel that would be going pretty far? Do you not feel we should get back on that little excursion on which we started, to take care of discrimination because of race or creed?

Then, after we have done the job and have a happy world, without anyone being discriminated against because of his race or religion, we can help out the ladies and the old folks. I can wait for another 10 or 12 years at least for you to get around to me, if that is necessary. The job now is to complete what we set out to do to end discrimination because of the color of the skin or the manner of worship.

Then you can come and help out the ladies and the old people. If you wrap

them all in one package, three good causes will die on the vine. That is the way I think about it.

Thank you for giving me your attention. I know you want to vote, but I insisted on my right to speak, and I am going to insist upon that. Once in a campaign they raised the age issue on me. I challenged anybody in the audience not over 21 who would put on the gloves with me with the understanding that if I could not knock him out in two rounds, I would quit the race. I hope the amendment will be defeated. It is in a good cause, but the timing is bad.

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

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOWDY].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. DowDY) there were-ayes 94, noes 123.

So the amendment was rejected.

Senate 6-11-64

pp. 13490-13492

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendments, No. 569 and ask that they be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments of the Senator from Florida will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendments.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendments offered by the Senator from Florida are as follows:

On page 40, line 7, insert "AGE," immediately after "RELIGION,".

On page 40, line 15, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 40, line 21, insert "age," immed!ately after "sex,".

On page 41, line 1, insert "age," immed!ately after "sex,".

On page 41, line 3, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 41, line 8, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 41, line 16, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 42, line 1, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 42, line 13, insert “age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 42, line 14, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 44, line 14, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 45, line 1, insert "age," immediately after "sex.".

On page 45, line 11, insert "age," immediately after "sex.".

On page 46, line 8, insert "age," immediately after "religion.".

On page 46, line 11, insert "age," immediately after "religion,".

On page 46, line 12, insert "age," immediately after "religion,".

On page 67, line 16, strike out "1964" and insert in lieu thereof "1965."

On page 67, line 18, insert "additional" immed.tely preceding "legislation".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I should like to be notified at the expiration of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, title VII, as I understand, is calculated to eliminate job discrimination. It goes to great lengths to set up standards by which job discrimination, on account of race, color, religion, or sex, will be eliminated. But there is one great void in that particular section. There is one great area in which there is considerable discrimination that the section overlooks. In fact, I believe I can establish that there is more discrimination in this area, without basis and without justification, than in any other area. That is discrimination with respect to age.

For several years the Special Committee on Aging has been conducting studies as to how much discrimination there is throughout our economic system because of people's age. Very briefly I should like to read some of the statistics. I shall not take too long a time, but I am certain Senators will find them startling.

The study was prepared by the White House Conference on Aging. The Conference conducted a study in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The study showed that a job applicant 35 years old would automatically be excluded because of his age from 16.9 percent of the job openings reported. The report goes on to show that if a man is 40 years of age he would be excluded not only from that original 16.9 percent of job openings, but, in addition, 11.6 percent of all job openings. When a man or woman reaches the age of 45 years, or she is excluded from even being considered in relation to an additional 9.6 percent, or a total, roughly, of 40 percent of all job openings in the whole area.

The study points out that people who are 55 years old are excluded from 55 percent of job openings merely because they are 55 years old.

The U.S. Employment Service and the President's Council on Aging conducted another study. They considered 25,000 employer job orders received in May 1963 for public employment in Federal and State agencies in 8 major cities. Fortyfive percent almost half of the job orders-specified an upper age limit on referral. Eighteen percent, or nearly

one-fifth of the orders, restricted referrals to applicants under 35 years of age. If he lost a job and happened to be 36, he could not even be considered.

Twenty-five percent of applicants under 45 and 42 percent of applicants under 55 were restricted. So if an applicant is 55 years of age or older, irrespective of color, choice of faith, or whether he is male or female, he has the door slammed in his face with respect to trying to get another job.

Mr. President, that is the worst kind of discrimination that exists in our country.

Another study which was made by the U.S. Employment Service and our committee showed that actually the type of discrimination to which I have referred is bad, because a study of the 500 largest firms in the United States showed that they rated the records of those over 40 years of age equal to or better than that of younger workers—

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes have expired.

Mr. SMATHERS. I yield myself another 3 minutes.

The records of those over 40 years of age are equal to or better than those of younger workers in 9 out of 10 of the following characteristics: Dependability, lack of absenteeism, quality of work, quantity of production, accident rates, physical capacity, versatility of skills, ability to get along with others, and speed in gaining proficiency on a new job.

Mr. President, we are talking about discrimination. We shall all grow old. We cannot help it. It will happen to us no matter what the pigmentation of our skin, no matter what church we belong to, no matter what sex we are, or any. thing else. It is not right that merely because one becomes old, doors should be slammed in his face.

If we really mean what we say-that we wish to get rid of job discrimination, and we really desire to get rid of it-we ought to eliminate discrimination against people because of age.

I point out also that the amendment would apply to the colored citizen as well. He, too, grows old. If we want to give people the opportunity for jobs which we say we want to give to them, this is an opportunity really to do it.

Let us put a provision with respect to age in the bill and stop discrimination with respect to white citizens, colored citizens, Puerto Ricans, and all the rest on the ground of age, because they are discriminated against on that basis, just as all the rest of us are.