portunities are made available to all regardless of race or color.

It was James Baldwin, I believe, who so eloquently said that civil rights will mean very little to that Negro who does not even have a dime for a lousy cup of coffee. I repeat, this FEP section of the bill is perhaps one of the most important parts.

Now we see one attempt after another to add amendments by many of the opponents of the bill-opponents who may very well soon use these same amendments to destroy this FEP section and if possible, weaken or water down the entire legislation. It reminds me of the story of the scorpion and the muskrat who wanted to cross the river. The scorpion in a very beguiling way said to the muskrat, "Will you not let me ride on your back across the river." To which the muskrat replied, "No, I will not because when we get to the middle of the river, you would probably sting me to death." And the scorpion said, "Oh, but that is ridiculous. Why would I do that, because I would drown too." The muskrat was taken in by the scorpion's beguiling way and his smiling answer and gave the scorpion a ride. Sure enough, when they reached the middle of the river, the scorpion lifted his tail and dealt the muskrat the lethal blow. As the muskrat was sinking he said to the scorpion, "You know I'm still curious why you did that." And the scorpion replied, "Oh, it's just my nature."

And so, Mr. Chairman, as opponents of the legislation in a beguiling way make a good piece of legislation carry all of the piggyback amendments, we may find that the whole proposal will sink in midstream. Of course, it is to the advantage of the opponents of this legislation to add additional burdens-to water it down-to weaken it-to divert attention from the primary objective of providing basic constitutional rights.

But may I suggest, very earnestly, that the vast majority of the people of this country have not forgotten the primary

objective. In offering amendments in regard to sex-in trying to picture this legislation as the Negro woman against the white woman; in adding amendments in regard to atheists-in offering other amendments-are we losing sight of why this legislation on civil rights is being demanded by the American people?

Have we so soon forgotten Emmett Till? Have we forgotten the homes and churches that have been bombed in Florida, in California, in Cicero, in Alabama, because someone somewhere dared to speak out against the injustice and cruelty to Negroes who were demanding their voting rights and who wanted a chance to get decent jobs and decent wages?

And

In making jokes and introducing some very irrelevant amendments, have we so soon forgotten the James Meredith's, the Medgar Evers-yes, and Prince Edward County where for 5 long years there was no public school door open to any child who happened to be born a Negro? have we forgotten the most un-American activity when four little girls were killed in their Sunday school classroom by a bomb because Negroes finally dared to ask for their just rights? Yes, and when the Negroes have wanted equal opportunities for decent jobs, have we so soon forgotten the electric cattle prods, the firehoses and the police dogs?

Mr. Chairman, it is to correct these injustices-it is to try to say even at this late time, 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, that the majority of people in the United States do believe in justice and freedom and equality and fairplay. Let us not further weaken this section of the bill or any section of the bill but rather let us by our votes make it abundantly clear that this Congress intends to have the Federal Government exercise its power in ending discrimination against Negroes wherever it is humanly possible.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio.

The amendment was agreed to.

Senate

6-12-64

Mr.

p. 13647

conflicts between the wholesale insertion of the word "sex" in the bill and in the Equal Pay Act.

The purpose of my amendment is to provide that in the event of conflicts, the provisions of the Equal Pay Act shall not

I understand that the leadership in

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: On page 44, line 15, immediately after the period, it is proposed to insert the following new sentence: "It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this title for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d))."

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, after many years of yearning by members of the fair sex in this country, and after very careful study by the appropriate committees of Congress, last year Congress passed the so-called Equal Pay Act, which became effective only yesterday.

By this time, programs have been established for the effective administration of this act. Now, when the civil rights bill is under consideration, in which the word "sex" has been inserted in many places, I do not believe sufficient attention may have been paid to possible

amendment as a proper technical correction of the bill. If they will confirm that understand, I shall ask that the amendment be voted on without asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The amendment of the Senator from Utah is helpful. I believe it is needed. I thank him for his thoughtfulness. The amendment is fully acceptable.

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

We were aware of the conflict that might develop, because the Equal Pay Act was an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act carries out certain exceptions.

All that the pending amendment does is recognize those exceptions, that are carried in the basic act.

Therefore, this amendment is necessary, in the interest of clarification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. RIBICOFF in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Utah. (Putting the question.)

The amendment was agreed to.

Senate 6-12-64

pp. 13663-13664

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wish to ask of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY), who is the effective manager of the pending bill, a clarifying question on the provisions of title VII.

I have in mind that the social security system, in certain respects, treats men and women differently. For example, widows' benefits are paid automatically; but a widower qualifies only if he is disabled or if he was actually supported by his deceased wife. Also, the wife of a

retired employee entitled to social security receives an additional old age benefit; but the husband of such an employee does not. These differences in treatment as I recall, are of long standing.

Am I correct, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, in assuming that similar differences of treatment in industrial benefit plans, including earlier retirement options for women, may continue in operation under this bill, if it becomes law?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. That point was made unmistakably clear earlier today by the adoption of the Bennett amendment; so there can be no doubt about it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am grateful for the reply.