« AnteriorContinuar »
thing down to eight immediately upon signature of the President, or if you want to bring it down lower than that, it is perfectly OK with us, on this side; I certainly support you.
Mr. GOODELL. Good.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The only reason that we talked about prolonging this over a period is to give these States a chance to conform, but I fully agree with you that if they haven't gotten laws by now, there is no reason why the Federal Government should wait.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I want to say in the defense of the gentleman from New York that he has consistently been with us in writing the most effective enforcement provisions that we could get together.
Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I don't like that emphasis on "now."
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Kemp, we want to thank you very much for your help and for your kindness in being with us today. You have made a real contribution to our proceedings.
Thank you very much.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9:30 sharp, when the committee will first hear from the Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California, followed by our colleague, Representative John Tunney, also of California.
After their testimony, the committee will resume its hearings on H.R. 9222 and similar bills, and will hear from Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, director of the Department of Legislation of the AFLCIO, and Mr. Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington bureau of the NAACP, presenting a joint statement on behalf of the AFLCIO and the Civil Rights Leadership Conference.
The last witness tomorrow morning will be the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The hearing tomorrow morning will be held in room 2175.
(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 21, 1965.)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, 1965
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1965
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., pursuant to recess in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Roosevelt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Roosevelt, Dent, Pucinski, Hawkins, Martin, and Bell
Also present: Representatives Carey, Scheuer, Ayres, and Reid.
Staff members present: Jay H. Foreman, subcommittee counsel, and Adrienne Fields, clerk.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will now continue with its hearings on H.R. 9222, equal employment opportunity amendments, and related bills. Our first witnesses are: Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, the director of the Department of Legislation of the AFL-CIO; together with Mr. Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP, who will present a joint statement on behalf of their organizations. Mr. Mitchell is also speaking on behalf of the civil rights leadership conference.
Gentlemen, we are very happy to have you. I don't know in what order you wish to proceed, but if you will decide between yourselves, Mr. Mitchell, perhaps, will you lead off ?
Mr. MITCHELL. I will, Mr. Chairman, and I might say that we are accompanied by two very distinguished counsels, Mr. Thomas Harris, who is the associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, over to the right; and Mr. Joseph Rauh, who is the general counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He happens to be out of the room at the moment, but I expect he will join us momentarily. He went out to check on the progress of the voting rights bill conference,
Mr. ROOSEVELT. We are happy to have both of these very fine gentlemen. They are both old friends of the committee.
May I just interrupt for one moment, also, to ask the committee's pleasure? There has been prepared a legislative history and analysis of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was done by Mr. Raymond J. Celada, of the Library of Congress staff, research service, and I believe that it would be very helpful to have it printed in the record for the use of all members.
Mr. DENT. So moved.
STATEMENTS OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF LEGISLATION, AFL-CIO, AND CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU OF THE NAACP; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS HARRIS, ESQ., ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, AFL-C10; AND JOSEPH RAUH, GENERAL COUNSEL, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say we would appreciate it if the committee would direct questions that it may have to any of the group appearing before you today, and we would also appreciate it, if there are legal questions, that they would be directed to either of the counsel accompanying us.
I would like to preface my statement, Mr. Chairman, by saying that it is a great honor to be here in this company of my fellow workers. Mr. Biemiller is one of the early fighters for fair employment practice legislation. He was a Member of the Congress when the first FEPC bill came to the floor, and I have very vivid recollections of his efforts to get that legislation passed. Also, it is good to note that he has continued outside of the Congress to work for not only this legsilation, but also for other constructive causes in the area of civil rights.
We have an advantage here, the four of us, that isn't often enjoyed. We walk the road of conscience together, linked by the chains of friendship, personal friendship, which has endured through the years. We operate with a wonderful group of persons who constitute the leadership conference, some 90 organizations, each organization and each person being faithfully dedicated to the cause of civil rights.
H.R. 9222 substantially strengthens title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and we, therefore, support it.
The two major weaknesses of title VII, as it now stands, are its limited coverage and the weakness of its enforcement provisions. H.R. 9222 would greatly improve the act in both of these respects.
The existing title VII, which went into effect only on July 2 of this year, at present covers only employers having more than 100 employees, and even when it reaches its maximum coverage, only employers with more than 25 employees will be covered.
ÀI.R. 9222 would immediately bring within the reach of the act employers having eight or more employees. We are strongly in favor of this extended coverage.
The other major deficiency of title VII is the weakness of its enforcement provisions. The present act does provide for suits by the Attorney General to enjoin a pattern or practice of discrimination. This may be proven to be an effective enforcement device, and certainly should be retained. However, the present act vests no enforcement authority in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and its provisions for enforcement by aggrieved individuals are complicated. H.R. 9222 corrects these deficiencies.
H.R. 9222 incorporates provisions, evidently modeled after the National Labor Relations Act, which gives the Commission power to issue complaints, conduct formal hearings, and issue corrective and remedial orders. These orders are en forceable in the Federal courts of appeal, upon the record made before the Commission. If the Commission decision is adverse to the changing party, he may appeal to the court,
A major deficiency of the present act is the requirement that an aggrieved person must first seek relief from a State or local agency. if the State or locality has a fair employment practices law. This requirement will result in delay and frustration. H.R. 9222 eliminates this requirement, and that is all to the good.
H.R. 9222 provides, as does the present act, that the Federal Commission may, in its discretion, enter into agreements with State or local agencies ceding authority to handle particular classes of cases. However, there should not be any blanket requirement, as in the present law, that the aggrieved individual must in all cases first seek relief from the State or local agency, even if the Federal Commission knows that the State or local agency is not doing an effective job.
All of these are major improvements in the present act, and we strongly support them.
There are, however, a number of other improvements which we would also like to see made in the present title VII. Most of these also have to do with broadening coverage and strengthening enforcement. While none of these other changes is nearly as important as the revisions made by H.R. 9222, their total effect would, we think, be substantial.
We suggest the following additional revisions, which are listed in the order in which they appear in title VII, not in the order of importance:
(1) The present act excludes from coverage "a State or political subdivision thereof." State and local employment has risen rapidly in recent decades. Some States and localities discriminate in their employment policies. While this discrimination violates the 14th amendment, no effective remedies now exist. We therefore urge that States and localities be brought within the coverage of the Federal act.
(2) The act also excludes from coverage "a bona fide membership club." The act deals with employment, not with membership, and we see no reasons why private clubs should be permitted to discriminate in employment. Under the present act membership clubs are completely exempted, while religious societies are exempted only as respectsthe employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on of its religious activities.
In other words, a religious society may not discriminate in hiring custodial employees, but a membership club may. We see no justification for any exemption of clubs.
(3) The act presently exempts employment agencies run by a State or locality, though it covers the U.S. Employment Service and the State and local services connected with it. We see no reason for this distinction and no reason why employment agencies run by a State or locality should not be covered.
(4) The present act excludesthe employment of individuals who perform work connected with the educational activities of an educational institute. In addition, an educational institute which is operated by a particular religious society and whose curriculum is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion is exempted entirely.