Imágenes de páginas

"(k) The commencement of proceedings under this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission's order.

“(1) When granting appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order, or making and entering a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part an order on the Commission, as provided in this section, the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity shall not be limited by the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes”, approved March 23, 1932 (29 U.S.C. 101–115).

“(m) Petitions filed under this Act shall be heard expeditiously.

"(n) For the purposes of any investigation provided for in this Act, the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of September 16, 1914, as amended (15 U.S.C. 49, 50), are hereby made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Commission, except that the attendance of a witness may not be required outside of the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business, and the production of evidence may not be required outside the State where such evidence is kept.

“(0) The several departments and agencies of the Government, when directed by the President, shall furnish the Commission, upon its request, all records, papers, and information in their possession relating to any matter before the Commission.


"SEC. 718. (a) The Commission shall conduct a continuing survey of the operation of apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs, including on-the-job training programs, to determine if the employers, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees controlling such programs are engaged in unlawful employment practices with respect to the operation of such programs.

“(b) Notwithstanding any provision of section 709, in conducting such survey the Commission shall at all reasonable times have access to any records maintained by an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee pursuant to (1) the regulations prescribed by the Commission under the second sentence of section 709(c), or (2) any fair employment practice law of a State or political subdivision thereof."

Mr. ROOSEVELT. They would accomplish three modifications of title VII. First, they would amend the definition of employer to cover those persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce who have 8 or more employees rather than 25 or more. The act's protections would thus be extended to approximately 92 percent, or 3 million employers who are not covered under the present language of title VII.

The present provisions will affect only approximately 8 percent, or one-half million employers out of a total of 3.3 million in the entire country.

Second, these bills provide for a continuing study in depth of the employment practices in the specific area where the necessity of compliance with the act is particularly sensitive, and important, if the act is to have any real meaning.

Third, these bills provide for modification of the enforcement authority granted to the Commission. They do not repeal those enforcement provisions which were determined to be sufficient by the Congress when it passed the act in 1964.

I want to, of course, make clear that the provisions which were adopted by the Congress at that time were not the provisions which I personally and many members of the committee wanted. But, nevertheless, they were adopted by the Congress at the time the act was adopted.

It should be noted that these proposals do not go into effect until July 2 of this year. These proposals would provide the Commission with authority to use direct action in those cases where a majority of its members, have determined that there exists a pervasive pattern of unlawful employment practice which immediately and urgently affects the public interest. This pattern may be found in any geographic region of our country or in a particular industry, or in the practices of a particular employer, or labor union. But the key is that such pattern must first have an effect which is urgent and immediate in the particular area, industry or organization.

If this condition is found to exist, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would then have the authority to issue a cease-anddesist order which would be reviewable and enforcible in the Federal courts. Such courts' review would reach the existence and impact of the pattern of unlawful employment practices.

In other words, the courts would have to sustain the finding of a majority of the Commission.

I have been in touch with the recently appointed Chairman of the Commission who has informed me that, since the Commissioners have just been sworn in during the last 2 weeks, they have been preoccupied with organizational and personnel matters, and have not had an opportunity, as a Commission, to study, in detail, any modifications of the provisions of title VII.

He further informed me that the Commission had not had any practical experience under the act, since July 2 of this year is the earliest date it can accept complaints which, of course, must allege unlawful employment practices which have occurred after that date.

Finally, the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission expressed his keen desire to cooperate in every way with the committee and the Congress and at an appropriate time to make comments and recommendations with respect to title VII.

I trust my colleagues will accept his decision that it would be very difficult for him to make much comment at this time on a section of the law which has not yet gone into effect. These bills as printed may require certain changes. They were drafted and introduced in order to have expeditious consideration. But with the bills before us, and keeping in mind the emphasis I have indicated, I am pleased to welcome our old friends, Mr. Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP, and Mr. Biemiller, of the AFT-CIO, to present the views of their organizations.

It is well known and has been publicly discussed that these measures have been connected with the so-called Taft-Hartley repeal bill which was recently reported by the full committee. It is not a secret that there have been certain discussions by the chairman of the full committee in this respect.

Speaking for myself and not the members of the committee, I want to make very plain that this legislation which I have introduced at the request of the chairman and at his suggestion is in no way, as far as I am personally concerned, to be taken to mean that I will have any part in any delay of the full consideration of the repeal of the rightto-work section of the Taft-Hartley law.

While I beliere that this legislation as presented can be defended, and will be good legislation, and will indeed perhaps have a very beneficial effect on the rights of those that we are seeking to assist, I do not think that this legislation should be used as a vehicle to stop or delay the passage of the legislation recently recommended by the full committee.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the end of your statement. The procedure that we are now experiencing before this committee follows very extensive hearings on section 14(b). The committee met in executive session and voted out what we in our judgment believed to be a good bill, the repeal of section 14(b).

At the time the action was taken on that particular measure, there were no strings attached. We acted because we felt that repeal of section 14(b) was long overdue. In the hearings that we are now conducting on H.R. 8998, and in whatever subsequent action we take on this legislation, I would certainly agree with the chairman of the subcommittee that this is not going to be predicated on the desire to, hamper the progress of action on the bill to repeal section 14(b).

I think these two measures are completely separate and apart. While I am anxious to hear the testimony on H.R. 8998. I should like the record to show that I am not in any way bound to dispose of H.R. 8998 prior to any action on 14(b). I have already cast my vote in support of repeal of 14(b).

I just have one question to ask of the chairman. Will we have an opportunity as long as we are going to take testimony on H.R. 8998, to hear from the new Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission! I certainly think that we ought to have his views on the act in its present form. If he feels that we need some additional amendments, I think we can all agree that it is somewhat a rather strange procedure to be amending an act here now that hasn't seen 1 single hour of daylight. This act was passed last year, and President Johnson has moved in good faith. He has appointed a Commission in which I think we can all place the highest confidence, that they are going to carry out the provisions of title VII. There is no reason for anyone to believe or suspect that the Commission is not going to do an effective job in this field, which is long overdue. I think we can all agree that we needed this legislation. This subcommittee, if I remember correctly, on two different occasions reported out sound FEPC legislation which I supported, simply because we felt that we needed this legislation, that it was overdue.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not want to interrupt the gentleman, and I will be glad to answer his question, but

Mr. PUCINSKI (continuing). I want the record to be clear. It seems to me that if we are going to move along with H.R. 8998, I would like at least to hear the views of the new Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I am glad that we have these two very important witnesses here today. I am going to be very interested in what they have to say. But I did want to clarify the record of my position on this bill.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have been authorized to state for the Chairman of the newly appointed Commission that he feels that at this time he cannot testify on these two bills, although his personal inclination is to say that he can see nothing which is not acceptable in them. He will then be subject to making other statements which, of course, until his Commission has actually had an opportunity to have some experience, he would be unable to do.

Mrs. Green?

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask only one question. In view of the comments which you made in your opening statement, then may I ask the reason for hearings at 6:15 this evening, why the apparent haste, and what is the chairman's wish as to further hearings and the speed with which you want final consideration of this?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. In answer to the gentlelady's well put question, it is simply because the chairman of the full committee requested that certain steps be taken to bring this before the full committee at its meeting on Thursday of this week. He felt that if we could draw legislation which would have little or no opposition, that this might facilitate the passage of the repeal of 14(b), and that he would therefore request this subcommittee to hear views on legislation and pass on whether or not we would recommend this legislation to the full committee by Thursday of this week.

Obviously, there was no other way to do it except by this procedure.

Mrs. GREEN. Without commenting on the merits of either the bill before us or 14(b), as a point of information, could the chairman advise me what the motion was in the full committee as to the reporting of 14(b)?

Mr. RoOSEVELT. I assume the minutes that the clerk keeps will be more accurate, but my recollection is that the chairman was instructed to report the action of the full committee to take 5 legislative days to receive necessary reports, minority or any other views that might be expressed, and at which time, after that motion was carried, the chairman did make a statement which, in essence, said that unless some other action to improve the enforcement of title VII was taken, he would not take any action with respect to requesting consideration of the repeal bill by the Rules Committee.

Mrs. GREEN. I thank the chairman, because it seems to me that the exact motion should be made a part of this record, because it certainly would have an influence on the hearings here, the haste, and the decisions that this subcommittee might make.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Without objection, the Chair will instruct counsel

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I beg your pardon. That was an executive session, so I guess it cannot be made a part of the public record. The Chair will have to regretfully decline the request.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. BELL. The gentlelady from Oregon asked my question, and I think she asked it very well. I certainly concur with much of what she said. I also concur with Mr. Pucinski. I think if we are going to take up this matter, it is a very important matter, and I think it should be given due consideration.

Under those circumstances, I think that the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, should be here for hearings. I definitely get the implication from what you are saying that you are pushing this thing through overnight because the chairman of the full committee says it must be so. I object heartily to this type of action.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Let me just say the committee has the right to take whatever action it wishes to take. We will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock to take that action.

Mr. Reid?

Mr. REIN. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you for the privilege of sitting with your distinguished subcommittee today, and to say I am delighted to see Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP and Andy Biemiller of the AFL-CIO present.

I, too, should like to join in the remarks of the chairman to make clear my position with regard to 14(b), was evidenced by my vote, both in the subcommittee and in the full committee, voting for repeal thereof. I believe this measure is not connected to that.

With regard to the substantive question, I think the record, Mr. Chairman, is clear, and has been clear before the Congress for several years, that there is a need for the most effective and strongest FEPC that we can have. It is quite clear that while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an important and significant step forward, that the FEPC section did lack certain elements that are basic to a strong FEPC.

Specifically, the present act denies the Commission the right to issue cease and desist orders and, in addition, any material that that Commission develops cannot be introduced in the court proceedings. The court proceedings would have to start de novo. While it technically might be needed to have a lengthy period of trial under the Civil Rights Act, I think the plain facts of the matter are that the approach presented in a stronger Commission type FEPC has been thoroughly tested by the State of New York in its State commission, and in a number of other commissions. It was the sense of many of us in the Congress that a strong commission approach was more desirable.

I do not believe our Nation can continue indefinitely to waste the human resources when equal opportunity can be furthered by stronger action. Therefore, I think the case for the approach should stand on the need for it, and I believe a stronger FEPC would well serve the Nation and all America. Thank


Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Mitchell, we are happy to have you with us. We beg your pardon for keeping you so long. You may proceed.


Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and chairman of the legislative committee of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. I appear here today in response to the invitation extended by the subcommittee chairman to the leadership conference to testify on H.R. 8998 and H.R. 8999.

I should like to say, also, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, that here with us today are a great many of the colleagues representing various organizations who meet regularly and work as a team in trying to get civil rights legislation through. They are all very dedicated people and the fact that they are present at this hour is an indication of their interest.

The telegram requesting our testimony was received Frid-v past. Despite the short notice, the leadership conference was able to schedule an early meeting on Monday of its Washington representatives to discuss this legislation. The position I present today was adopted at that meeting without dissent.

« AnteriorContinuar »