The President of the United States has talked about a war on poverty. We all subscribe to that. But in what group do we find more poverty than any other group? The aging group. That is where the poverty is those who are 55 years old, 60 years old, and 65 years old. They cannot get a job even if they want one and are qualified, because too many companies-even the Federal Government itself and many State governmentssay, "We do not take on anyone who has reached the age of 35 or 45." So if we mean what we say, and if we want to eliminate discrimination in job opportunities, we have a real opportunity to do so. I hope the Senate will vote for the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I have said to the Senator from Florida previously that I am in favor of the type of legislation proposed, but to place that type of provision in a civil rights bill will only confuse the issue rather than clarify it. Therefore I shall vote against the amendment, as strongly as I feel about eliminating discrimination on account of age.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I also oppose the amendment for the same reason. The purpose of the amendment is most desirable. As the Senator from Florida knows, a study is now under way by the Secretary of Labor. I agree with the suggestion incorporated in the amendment. but it can be voted upon in connection with another measure which he has also offered. The time for the completion of that study is June 1965. We can take care of that situation at another time. To add to the bill age as a prohibited ground of discrimination would make machinery designed carefully for the purpose of dealing with discrimination which the bill is intended to deal with totally overloaded and ineffective, because it would give the established procedure a job to do which it is not qualified to do. We ought to wait until the Department of Labor's report is received, and then draw proposed legislation carefully designed to meet the evils which the Senator from Florida, with understandable purpose, but I think very unwisely, would attempt to deal with by the amendment. So I hope that the amendment will be rejected at this time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The distinguished Senator from Florida asked unanimous consent to have further reading of the amendment dispensed with. Since I am not going to take my 1 hour, I should like to read from page 2 of the amendment, which was not read, so that Senators may know what they are doing.

I read from page 2 of the amendment: On page 33, line 8, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 33, line 13, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 33, line 15, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 33, line 20, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 34, line 2, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 34, line 11, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 34, line 17, insert "age," immediately after "sex,”.

On page 34, line 18, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 36, line 15, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 36, line 17, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 36, line 18, insert "age," immediately after "sex,".

On page 42, line 16, insert "age," immediately after "religion,".

Mr. President, I shall be 57 years of age before the Democratic National Convention is over. I intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator for his support. I am not particularly impressed-I do not think we should be-with the argument that we should wait until later. The statistics I have presented are statistics that have been accumulated over the past 10 years. We talk about putting it over for 5 years, but it will never happen. When will there be a more opportune time than now to cure that particular evil? This is the very time we are talking about discrimination with respect to jobs. The bill is where the amendment actually belongs. If we wait until the Secretary of Labor makes a study, he will come up with the identical study that has already been arrived at, and with the same facts and figures.

If we wish to eliminate discrimination in jobs, this is the time to do it. With respect to discrimination today, there is no worse discrimination than discrimination because of a person's age.

duced on that subject. Yet there have been at least 50 bills introduced relating to fair employment practices acts aimed at elimination of discrimination based

Mr. CURTIS. Only to title VII?
Mr. SMATHERS. Yes.

Mr. CURTIS. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, in my judgment, the amendment is very meritorious and should be agreed to. In the big industrial plants in my State, much automation is being used. Those companies do not want to employ anyone if he is over 40, because they do not want to be stuck with the retirement bill. They will hire Negroes or anybody else. They are not worried about race. But if a person is over 40, he is out. He has no chance of getting a job there. He is too young and healthy to go on welfare, but too old to get a job. He cannot draw social security because he is able-bodied and capable of working. Those are the people who are being discriminated against more and more.

If we pass the bill-and I am told the Senate is going to pass it when it is through-the field will be covered, so there cannot be any discrimination on account of race, color, or creed, but there will continue to be terrible discrimination against people who are about 40 years of age when they find themselves out of jobs. If the Senate wants to do something about discrimination, this is one of the worst and rankest forms of discrimination.

Therefore, this amendment should be agreed to.

us.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have served with the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA] on the Special Committee on Aging. We are busy at work conducting hearings on problems of the aged. In due course of time a recommendation will be submitted to the Senate, after adequate hearings. That is the time when the problem should be considered, because the ponding amendment is irrelevant to the basic purpose of the bill before us, which is one that deals with discrimination based on color or race.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

If this provision were offered alone and were standing alone, I would oppose it, because I feel that one who employs another, and pays him with his own money, should have the right to exercise a discriminating judgment with respect to age, character, education, personality, appearance, experience, or any other factors that he deems pertinent to fitness and suitability as an employee.

I claim this privilege for myself. I would not deny it to another. But since this bill seeks to prevent discrimination on account of race, sex, religion, or other factors, I join the Senator in saying that the largest numbers who are suffering the most crushing form of discrimination are suffering it because of age. Therefore, I

All Senators know that age is often a factor in employment. I am sure neither the Senator from Louisiana nor any other Senator would want to have job factors established so that age would not be important, for example, in a person working on a superstructure on the 86th floor of a skyscraper. Everybody knows age is important in selective types of employment where there are dangerous pursuits and occupations.

It is interesting to me that we can become hot and bothered about discrimination based on age at this hour when the Senate has had years to do something about it. I recall no bill intro

crimination on account of age.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

With reference to the comments made by the Senator from Minnesota, let me say that nothing in this amendment would prevent an employer from declining to hire an aged person even though he was not qualified and even though age might be the reason why he was not qualified. But when certain employers have a policy of not hiring anyone because he is 40 years of age, so that they will not have to pay the cost of retirement, they are discriminating against persons because of age.

House

2-10-64

pp. 2719-2720

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. COLMER

The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. COLMER).

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. COLMER: On page 70, at the end of section 704, add the following new subsection: as used in this title, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Mississippi yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. COLMER. I yield, very briefly. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, in light of the limitation on time may I inquire what amendments will be voted upon when the time expires? I have two amendments at the desk which I may or may not offer, depending upon developments. I would like to be advised whether I will be recognized to offer the amendments and if so when that time will occur.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to

recognize such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize those Members desiring to offer amendments and the question on each amendment will be put immediately without debate.

Mr. POFF. I thank the Chair.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It simply provides that it shall not be deemed "unlawful employment practice" under the provisions of this bill to refuse employment to a Communist or a member of any subversive group heretofore constituted as such. Or to put it in different language, generally an employer will not be penalized under the act if he fails to employ a Communist or a member of such subversive groups who otherwise would come under the provision of this section.

Mr. Chairman, I have given a great dcal of time and effort to this bill. I have also, I might point out, been around this House for a good many years. I was here when all of this movement was initiated under the mislabel of "civil rights." I think I know something of the historical background of this

movement.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I had been here for approximately 10 years when the first FEPC bill was introduced; likewise, I was here when all of these so-called Powell amendments were offered as amendments to bills being considered on the floor of the House. And I need not remind you that every one of them have been defeated. Yes, I hold in my hand here the first FEPC bill which was offered in the Congress. The date of it is March 13, 1941. And who offered that bill? It was none other than the gentleman from New York and former Member of this body, Mr. Vito Marcantonio.

Moreover, it is interesting to note in this connection that substantially the same amendment which I am offering here now was offered and adopted as a part of that bill. It is further of more than passing interest that the record discloses that after the adoption of this Communist amendment that its author, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Marcantonio, voted against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like further to point out that this amendment has the same objective as the one that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. FLYNT] had proposed to offer and on which he has done a great deal of work in securing support therefor.

Now let me say if I may to the Chair and my friends, the Members of this House: I do not expect this amendment to be adopted because of the strange correlation here between the Republican and Democratic leadership. I might add further that I have not had it cleared with the team of CELLER and McCULLOCH: I have not attempted to clear it with NAACP and ADA and CORE or any of these other like organizations who are riding high and calling the turns here. Too, I might add further that I have not had it cleared through the spotters who have been occupying the gallery and calling Members off the floor to unduly influence their votes throughout the debate on this bill.

In spite of the fact that I have read the book on how to make friends and influence people, I want to say to you frankly that I have become so sick by this procedure that I have reached the point where I do not give a darn whether I am making friends or enemies on the consideration of this attack upon our common country.

I am putting it square to you. I challenge you to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I shall not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, and I state that for this significant reason: There is nothing in this bill which would prevent a man, be he employer, or labor leader, from discriminating against a Republican or Democrat or Socialist or Communist. The only difficulty arises, and the only infraction of the act would be, where discrimination is based on race, color, creed, national origin and now, of course, sex.

I have prepared a statement which I want to read for the purpose of legislative history.

There is nothing in this title or in this bill which has anything to do with political or subversive activities; it is a bill which deals solely with discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin; and now, scx. The proposed amendment dealing with members of Communist Party neither broadens nor narrows the substantive terms of the title and thus, while I think it completely unnecessary, I do not oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, some Members have expressed themselves on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi as being of doubtful constitutionality, and that if stricken from the title by the courts it might also imperil the vitality of other provisions.

Let me make it perfectly clear that this is not the case. Section 717 is a separability clause, as is section 1003. These two provisions make it unmistakable that the invalidity of any provision of title VII or of any other title, or of any addition or exception to this or any other title, or of any application of the bill, will in no way affect the validity or application of any other provision or application. Therefore, I see no need to oppose this amendment relating to refusals to hire Communists because some think it of dubious constitutionality.

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

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

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I, too, accept the amendment under the terms which the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has expressed, and I do so primarily because of the speech the gentleman from Mississippi made. If we oppose this amendment it would put you in company with Communists or pro-Communists. I do not think any Member should be put in that light. I believe in the patriotism of every Member of this House. By insinuation it should not be allowed to be questioned. Therefore, I accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. WILLIS. I call to the attention of the Members that this is a very carefully prepared amendment. It uses the language employed in the Internal Security Act. In other words, by an act of this Congress we are talking about people who apply to register with the Attorney General. It is nothing novel. It is a very carefully prepared amendment, and