Senate 6-17-64

pp. 14215, 14216

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I call up my amendment No. 1025 and ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: On page 65, line 19, change the period to a colon and insert the following: "Provided, however, That failure to comply with requiroments of this section shall not constitute more than one offense until after notice in writing has been given to the employer, employment agency or labor organization, as the case may be, by the Commission, of the past or existing noncompliance."

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,

section 711 of title VII of the substitute amendment provides a fine of up to $100 for each separate offense of employers not posting notice prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. This amendment would prevent a continuing failure to post such notices from constituting more than one offense until after the Commission had notified the employer in writing of the existing noncompliance.

On this amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.

ment of the Senator from South Carolina. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN), and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] are absent on official busi

ness.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] is necessarily absent.

On this vote, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] is paired with the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE). If present and voting, the Senator from Virginia would vote "yea" and the Senator from California would vote "nay."

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] would vote "yca."

The result was announced-ycas 32, nays 63, as follows:

The

The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the amend

EDITORS' NOTE:

House 2-8-64

pp. 2571-2573

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: On page 78, beginning in line 22, strike out "may gather data regarding the" and all that follows down through line 4 on page 79, and insert the following: "shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to any matter under investigation or in question."

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, this section concerns investigations and inspections of records. The Committee on Education and Labor which labored long and reported last year a fair employment practices bill felt that the language that would be best to adopt here would be the language taken from the Taft-Hartley Act rather than from the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have used the Fair Labor Standards Act and all the provisions of that act are reported in the bill now before you.

The amendment changes the language to conform to the Taft-Hartley Act.

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

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

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, is exactly right. We have moved from language that was a close approximation of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the language found in section 11. the investigation section, of the Taft-Hartley law.

It is our understanding, after consultation, that this language would allow the Commission to do what is necessary in the gathering of evidence, including the viewing of books and premises and such. and would adequately meet the needs of this Commission.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a good amendment and should be adopted. I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAFT).

Mr. TAFT. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would just repeat the statement made by the gentleman from Hawaii. This matter was fully considered in the Committee on Education and Labor. We felt the investigatory powers that are involved in the present section of the Taft-Hartley Act are fair and adequate to take care of any investigation necessary in this case. Incidentally, we went into the matter of various precedents for investigation and we found that reasonable access to the premisesbut only reasonable access-had been

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I should like to ask the gentleman if any hearings were ever held on this title by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. McCULLOCH. The entire testimony, which was taken before the Committee on Education and Labor, became a part of the record of the Judiciary Committee pursuant to formal action of that committee. There were no individual witnesses except probably two or three, including the Secretary of Labor and the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT), as I recall, who appeared in person.

Mr. GROSS. So there were no hearings held on this title of the bill in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. McCULLOCH. The facts are as I have stated.

Mr. GROSS. Is the answer "Yes" or "No" to my question?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Yes, there was a hearing. As I have indicated, the Secretary of Labor appeared before the committee. The gentleman from California came before the committee, both of whom were examined, at length, on this title.

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

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. We also heard the presidents of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CELLER. And the president of the UAW. We heard any number of witnesses.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I thank the gentleman for that amendment.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, why then are all these amendments to the bill being presented on the floor of the House, from the Judiciary Committee itself?

Mr. McCULLOCH. They are perfecting amendments. That is in accordance with our legislative process.

Mr. GROSS. Of course it is in accordance with an extraordinary legislative process.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. I shall take only a few minutes, because I should like to know the reason for some language. I ask some Member who can answer the question why it is necessary to have section 709(a) relating to investigations, since investigating powers are covered already in section 710(a)?

I have before me the sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. which provide that "for the purposes of the Federal Trade Commission,” in effect, the "Commission or its duly authorized agent or agents shall, at all reasonable times. have access to. for the purpose of examination, and the right to copy any documentary evidence of any corporation being investigated or proceeded against."

Of course, this investigative power is the same relating to everything within this title, and not just corporations, which are referred to in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Could someone explain to me why the double investigatory power is needed? Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. GILL. The gentleman read the answer to his own question as he read the section of the Federal Trade Commission Act which refers to "documentary evidence of any corporation." That does not deal with individuals or individual proprietorships. That is certainly one major reason for providing section 709(a).

Mr. CRAMER. However, I ask the gentleman whether section 710(a) does not provide that "for the purposes of any investigation" there "are hereby made applicable" the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act "to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Commission." which seemingly would broaden the corporation phase to cover everything within this title: would it not?

Mr. GILL. I am not sure I understand the purport of the gentleman's question. Certainly, considering section 709(a) along with the language found in section 710(a), which incorporates by reference sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and section 307 of the Federal Power Commission Act, we can understand the full purport