Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentleman yield for just a correction of the record?

The law in New York now is six.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I see.

Mr. GOODELL. It has gone down to four.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It has gone down to four, so it wouldn't affect New York, and the gentleman mentioned New York.

Mr. PUCINSKI. There are 44 State commissions, I believe, and I think that they all have varied criteria. They are all going down, of course, but would this create any problems for you, Mr. Kemp?

Would this bring the Federal Government into these areas where a State commission is trying to do a good job, create some duplication? Mr. KEMP. I can only give you the benefit of my experience in Illinois, Congressman. The State statute provides a minimum of 50. Anticipating that there might be this kind of problem, as indicated in the prepared statement, the commission initiated legislation providing for contractual relationships between the EEOC as to however it might turn out, and the State commission.

Obviously, there would be some advantages, so far as the theory and the practice of fair employment in the State of Illinois for those employers who employ less than 50, and there is no opportunity, until 1967, when the State legislature meets again, to reduce that figure from 50 to anything.

So that that would create no problem for 49 down to 8, or whatever. Mr. PUCINSKI. Would you think, Mr. Kemp, that if the Federal law were to do down to 8 or 10, or whatever figure the Congress selects as the proper figure, that this would spur the respective States, including Illinois?

Mr. KEMP. I suspect so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would this create the possibility of a special session of your State legislature to amend the act to reduce the number so that you would keep the Federal Commission out of your State? I presume the witness before you said that they guard very jealously their prerogatives on the commission, and I would suspect that you are no different from all the other commissions around the country in that respect.

Do you think that by reducing the total number in the Federal act, that this would stimulate the State legislatures to reduce their respective State laws to conform with the Federal standards?

Mr. KEMP. I doubt whether there would be a special session. You are as familiar as I am, if not more so, with the problems of Illinois in reference to the State legislature, and there are those that seem to have more priority than this matter.

But I would imagine that at the next session of the Illinois General Assembly, that the figure would be substantially reduced, if in advance of that, Congress chose to reduce the figure even further than it now exists.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, there seems to be uniform agreement, at least reasonably uniform agreement, among the people that we have talked to who are close to this picture in terms of administration, that the 50 figure is too low.

Now, of course, the chamber of commerce takes the position that we are going to come down to 25, by 1968, and do you think that a 25 figure is a workable figure?

As to coming down to 25 as against going down to 8, what effect would this have on Illinois?

Mr. KEMP. Well, when you are talking about industrial employment, at least in northern Illinois, you have a number of shops that employ 25 or less people, that are engaged in commerce, that are covered by wage standard law and all the other statutes, and are also covered by the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin bill.

When you talk about 10, you are usually talking about small retail operations. Observations would indicate that the same kind of discrimination and possibly more so, in Illinois, might apply in reference to retail trade as it applies in heavy or light industry.

In order to reach that millennium, where discrimination in employment could be erradicated altogether, without checking with my colleagues, my own opinion would be that the lower the figure, the better the possibility.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and confusion and duplication of jurisdiction, would you have any suggestions for reducing the number? Perhaps we ought to either add another year, and have it go down to 10 by 1969, or maybe accelerate the whole program, and bring it down to 10 by 1968. In any event, your State, and the other States, would have one more opportunity in their State legislatures to conform to the Federal standards. Would there be any merit in that approach?

Mr. KEMP. I would think so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Now finally, Mr. Kemp, the problem of age. You don't have it in the Illinois law. I think you have heard the previous witness and the colloquy. Do you feel that we ought to have age in this nondiscrimination legislation?

Mr. KEMP. Yes; I do.

I suppose it is universal that 40 is the breaking point in reference to a fellow being able to apply freely in the market for employment, and one of the reasons that we are given to understand is because of the number of firms that have established pensions.

This makes an economical difference, and I paid attention to your proposed legislation where there could be an offset. And this would make the thing much more palatable to an employer who either individually on his own because of a labor contract has a pension plan that is on an actuarial basis, and then, of course, there is the employer who feels that if he takes a fellow beyond 40, and the retirement age is 60, he has got a limited amount of time to train and get the full advantage of this man's work life, or woman's work life. But there is an advantage. Because at 40, as you mention, a fellow has a mortgage and growing children, and all the middle-age responsibilities, this is the peak of his responsibilities, and if he discovers that this is the minimum of his earning power, then he is in bad trouble.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, I agree with you. I have asked Mr. Wirtz, the Secretary of Labor, to give us a third dimension in his monthly figures on employment.

Now we get a figure, total number employed, total number unemployed, and that's all we have. Yet in that category of unemployed, I am sure his own reports show this-there is a substantial number of people who continue to be unemployed in this country, for no other reason than because of their age.

Now if we were talking about 65 and 70-but we are talking now about the middle 40's, the late 40's, early 50's, where this breadwinner still has a family to bring up, and for this reason, I am glad to hear you say that we ought to dig into this.

Now, one final question, Mr. Kemp. The question of giving the Federal Commission the same powers that many of the State commissions have on cease and desist orders: would you feel that this would become more operative and would avoid overlapping if the Federal Commission had to, before it could come into a State, show cause before a district court that the State commission, for whatever reasons, is not giving the aggrieved individual the relief he is entitled to?

First, would this give you some additional protection, or do you wish to have this protection?

Secondly, do you think that this would eliminate duplication of legal actions against a single employer?

Mr. KEMP. Well, I am not sure. I am not sure, Congressman, as to whether or not this has all of the merit in the world, because courts move very slowly, and it would seem to me that there is a possibility of a disadvantage both to the respondent and to the complainant.

If the respondent's position is correct, and he has not participated in a discriminatory employment act, it would seem unfair for him to have this long a period of time for that slow court movement, where a conclusion would be reached, and as for the complainant, he is seeking immediate economic relief, either a job, or being upgraded.

Those are the two primary instances. Or he is seeking apprenticeship, as the case might be, so that my own observation of court procedure is that it is a long and often times dilatory procedure, and I am inclined to stick with the decision made by Illinois General Assembly that contractual relationships existing between our commission in Illinois and the Federal Commission be worked out where the lines could be spelled out without having to go to the resources of the

courts.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, you make an excellent point, Mr. Kemp, I think. I am glad you brought this point up, because there sometimes is a tendency to couch these problems in legal language that makes relief quick and immediate relief for the aggrieved so cumbersome that he loses confidence and faith in the program, and I am very happy that you have brought this point up.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Goodell?

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Kemp, it is very nice to have you with us, and I suppose that Illinois should be commended and congratulated for only being about 18 or 20 years behind the State of New York.

Mr. KEMP. Well, I accept that.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We concur, because we have had Republican administrations. We never had the votes, Charlie. When you have got the votes, you can do it. When you don't have the votes, you can't.

Mr. GOODELL. New York got this under a Republican administration, and has expanded it every year under a Republican administration in the last three.

I am a little concerned, Mr. Kemp. For instance, with your rather inadequate law in Illinois, what would happen if we passed this bill

would be the anomalous situation of the States having jurisdiction of large companies, and the Federal Government going in to take jurisdiction over small employers, and if I understand the gentleman from Illinois correctly, he was suggesting the possibility that we defer the application of this till after another legislature in Illinois meets. Was that correct?

Mr. KEMP. No.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Charlie, if you recall, the present law now, the Federal law now, through 1966, we are at 100 now and in 1967, we go to 75; then in 1968, we go to 50, and then we go down to 25 after 1968. And so we really are not in there now, and the next session of the legislature will be in 1967. I presume this is true all over the country, with most legislatures meeting in the odd years, or in single years.

But what I said here was that if we go down to eight, perhaps we ought to decelerate over a period of 2 or 3 years, in order to give these legislatures a chance to amend their own statutes to comply with the Federal standard.

Mr. GOODELL. Well, what you are really recommending is that the people in these States have no relief for 2 or 3 more years, it seems to me. And I don't know why we should reward States because they have been slow in meeting their responsibilities in this field.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, fine, if you will support going to eight at this time, we will join you.

Sure.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think he has before.
Mr. HAWKINS. He wants to go to four.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We will go to four.

Mr. GOODELL. I didn't quite understand the suggestion that was made by the gentleman, which seems to be one that would exempt Illinois during the period when they could have time to move into the field.

I would think probably that if there was passed a Federal law that went to eight fairly quickly, or some other number-it is an arbitrary number, but much less than 50-that when the time came, the State of Illinois, whether in the special session or in the next general session, might have enough pressures to overcome the resistance that you obviously had in this sessian of the legislature.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would you like to ask him where that resistance came from, Charlie?

Mr. GOODELL. I am not interested in fighting any battles in this State of Illinois. I am very proud of the Republican record and the Democratic record in the State of New York, and I am very sorry the State of Illinois doesn't have a comparable record, and we won't go into Chicago.

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Goodell, it was certainly not my intention to indicate that we were asking that Illinois be a tolerated exception.

On the contrary, we suspect that if, in the event that the Federal statute is accelerated and goes down to a figure below or lower than 50, and in looking at your present legislation, you will go down to 50 in 1968?

Illinois down to 50 in 1964. But we suspect that the people who will possibly be respondents will apply themselves, through their in

fluence in the State legislature, and if only under the theory that at least they know the devil they have, so we have no qualms.

Speaking as an individual, I would welcome, if you reduce it down

to one.

Mr. GOODELL. I think it should be clarified when you said the "present legislation." The present law would go to 50 in 1968 and the proposal would take it to 8 immediately.

Let me ask you this: Assuming that case where you both have jurisdiction, where the State and the Federal both have jurisdiction-you haven't gone into your enforcement powers-do you feel that your enforcement powers in the State of Illinois are deficient in any way as compared to the powers that would be provided here for the Federal Commission?

Mr. KEMP. Well, if I may, are you talking about the proposed H.R.9222?

Mr. GOODELL. Yes.

Mr. KEMP. Which provides for enforcement powers, as against what the 1964 act does not provide?

Mr. GOODELL. No, as against what you have in Illinois, setting aside the 1964 act.

Mr. KEMP. Well, your proposed H.R. 9222 has the same sort of enforcement powers, I believe, that we have in Illinois.

Mr. GOODELL. Does your commission, for instance, have the power to make findings of fact which then are conclusive in court?

Mr. KEMP. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. You feel, then, that if I were an employer in the State of Illinois, and both the Federal and State law applied to me, in their jurisdiction, that the State would, under its authority, have ample powers to enforce the law against me?

You wouldn't have to resort to the Federal law, because it would be stronger.

Mr. KEMP. Not the way the Illinois law is presently written. Mr. GOODELL. So it is mainly a question of what jurisdiction you have over the employers in terms of the number of employees. Mr. KEMP. The reduction of the number.

Mr. GOODELL. I have no further questions.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Hawkins?

Mr. HAWKINS. I will pass.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I just want to clarify one point, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Kemp, we have discussed this question of bringing in the Federal law, and I think that you and I can agree that your Governor did attempt to reduce the coverage to 10 workers in this last session of the legislature.

And so if the Federal law were to go down to eight, and become effective immediately upon the President's signature on the law, I gather that this would be completely consistent with the position of your commission.

The only reason that you are not down there now is because the legislature didn't enact your recommendations.

And I might say to my colleague from New York that we never look a gift horse in the mouth. If you will support us to bring this