« PreviousContinue »
Enforcement and Administration:
EDITORS' NOTE: An amendment requiring EEOC employees to identify themselves when serving as investigators was introduced by Senator Tower (R., Tex.). It was rejected in a roll-call vote, 30 to 55.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend until the Senate is in order? The Senator may proceed.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
I concur wholeheartedly in the principle that the distinguished Senator from Texas is trying to adopt, which is that the members of the Commission should identify themselves. However, I should like to point out for the benefit of Senators and I especially invite the attention of the Senator from Texas-that his amendment would permit every case to go off on a side question and proof as to whether or not the investigator actually did identify himself. If some other penalty could be applied, such as the disemployment of the person who failed to identify himself or something of that sort, that would be all right. But, if a case should come into court, the whole question could be decided upon a disputation of fact as to whether or not the investigator actually did disclose who he was. So we do not want any amendment of the sort proposed.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I point out that cases in courts of law very often fail on procedural points on matters that are not related to the substantive issue before the court. For example, a faulty indictment may result in the negation of a criminal charge. I think that is not unreasonable. I think it is altogether reasonable that Federal officers should identify themselves to the businessman or employer so that the employer would not be placed at an unfair advantage. I therefore urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas numbered 963. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COOPER (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote. I would vote "nay." I therefore withhold my vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON]. If he were present
and voting, he would vote "yea." If l were at liberty to vote, I would vou "nay." I therefore withhold my vote.
Mrs. NEUBERGER (when her name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. If he were present and voting he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I therefore withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN), the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Tennessee Mr. WALTERS], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from California Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia |Mr. RANDOLPH] and the Senator from Texas Mr. YARBOROUGH] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA] would each vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH is paired with the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote "nay" and the Senator from Tennessee would vote "yea."
Stennis Talmadge Thurmond
Tower Williams, Del.
House 2-8-64 P 2575
The Clerk read as follows:
Byrd, Va. Cooper
Mr. Chairman, I offer
Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: Page 82. line 19. after "suitable" insert "procedural".
So Mr. ToWER'S amendment was rejected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Enforcement and Administration:
EDITORS' NOTE: Congressman Celler (D., N.Y.) introduced an amendment restricting EEOC's authority to adopt and change regulations to proce dural, as distinct from substantive, regulations. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote, and the language appears in the bill as enacted.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted the Commissioner would have a right to rescind procedural regulations as distinguished from substantive regulations. It would make more definite the limitations of his powers. I believe the amendment would clarify the situation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER).
The amendment was agreed to.
Enforcement and Administration:
EDITORS' NOTE: Senator McClellan (D., Ark.) introduced an amendment rohibiting the EEOC from withholding any evidence, testimony, or records 'rom any court or congressional committee. The amendment was rejected by 1 roll-call vote, 32 to 60.
With the provision as it now stands, question could very well arise as to whether Congress or the courts could secure information that the committee may take and secure in executive session.
The Senate should not set up a Frankenstein that would have greater power than Congress. The bill should be explicit, and should provide that Congress shall have a right to call congressional committees, if necessary, to inquire into such matters and to obtain those records; and, likewise, so should the court.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas would add nothing to existing law on the subject; but of course there is the certainty that the amendment would produce great harassment aimed at the Commission and its work, and would tend to negate the value of providing for executive sessions for certain