(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 17, 2001
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: July 19, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

~Dr
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP7300 96R000400140016-
July 19, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
mover of any such amendment and the man-
ager of the bill, Mr. Williams.
Ordered further, That final vote on pas-
sage of the bill come no later than 10:00
p.m. on Thursday, July 20, 1972.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, as I indi-
cated, I am willing to yield back the re-
mainder of my time if Senators on the
other side are willing to yield back the
remainder of their time.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, we would be
willing to yield back the remainder of
our time and we do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Utah to the Taft-Dom-
inick substitute, The yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
ANDERSON), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. CHILES), the Senator from Louisi-
ana (Mr. ELLENDER), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. METCALF), the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. PELL), and the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MusKIE), are necessarily ab-
sent.
I further announce that the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), is ab-
sent on official business.
I further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
ELLENDER), and. the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON), would each vote
"nay.,,
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Delaware (Mr.
ROTH) is detained on official business,
and, if present and voting, would vote
"nay."
The result was announced-yeas 4,
nays 81, as follows:
[No. 276 Leg.]
YEAS-4
Bible
McIntyre
Moss
Burdick
NAYS--81
Aiken
Fannin
Packwood
Allen
Fong
Pastore
Allott
Gambrell
Pearson
Bayh
Goldwater
Percy
Beall
Griffin
Proxmire
Bellmon
Gurney
Randolph
Bennett
Hansen
Ribicoff
Bentsen
Hart
Saxbe
Boggs
Hartke
Schweiker
Brock
Hatfield
Scott
Brooke
Hollings
Smith
Buckley
Hruska
Sparkman
Byrd,
Hughes
Spong
Harry F., Jr.
Humphrey
Stafford
Byrd, Robert C. Inouye
Stennis
Cannon
Jackson
Stevens
Case
Javits
Stevenson
Church
Jordan, Idaho
Symington
Cook
Kennedy
Taft
Cooper
Long
Talmadge
Cotton
Mansfield
Thurmond
Cranston
Mathias
Tower
Curtis
McClellan
Tenney
Dole
McGee
Weicker
Dominick
Miller
Williams
Eagleton
Mondale
Young
Eastland
Montoya
Ervin
Nelson
NOT VOTING-16
Anderson Gravel Metcalf
Baker Harris Mundt
Chiles Jordan, N.C. Muskie
Ellender Magnuson Pell
Fuibright McGovern Roth
So Mr. Moss' amendment to the Taft-
Dominick amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Taft-
Dominick amendment in the -nature of a
substitute is still before the Senate, and
is open to further amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I send
to the desk a perfecting amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of my amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAN-
SEN). Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
Mr. BENTSEN's amendment is as fol-
lows :
On page 8 between lines 13 and 14 insert
the following new sections:
NONDISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF AGE IN
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
SEC. 12. (a) (1) The second sentence of sec-
tion 11(b) of the Age Discrimination in Em-
ployment Act of 1967 is amended to read as
follows: "The term also means (1) any agent-
of such a person, and (2) a State or politi-
cal subdivision of a State and any agency or
instrumentality of a State or a political sub-
division of a State, but such term does not
include the United States, or a corporation
wholly owned by the Government of the
United States."
(2) Section 11(c) of such Act is amended
by striking out "or any agency of a State or
political subdivision of a State, except that
such terms shall include the United States
Employment Service and the systems of State
and local employment services receiving Fed-
eral assistance."
(3) Section 16 of such Act is amended by
striking the figure "$3,000,000," and inserting
in lieu thereof "$5,000,000."
(b) (1) The Age Discrimination in Em-
ployment Act of 1967 is amended by redes-
ignating sections 15 and 16, and all references
thereto, as section 16 and section 17, respec-
tively.
(2) The Age Discrimination in Employ-
ment Act of 1967 is further amended by add-
ing immediately after section 14 the follow-
ing new section:
"NONDISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF AGE IN
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
"SEC. 13. (a) All personnel actions affecting
employees or applicants for employment (ex-
cept with regard to aliens employed outside
the limits of the United States) in military
departments as defined in section 102 of title
5, United States Code, in executive agencies
(other than the General Accounting Office)
as defined in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code (including employees and appli-
cants for employment who are paid from
nonappropriated funds), in the United States
Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commis-
sion, of the Government of the District of
Columbia having positions in the competitive
service, and in those units of the legislative
and judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment having positions in the competitive
service, and in the Library of Congress shall
be made free from any discrimination based
on age.
"(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the Civil Service Commission is
authorized to enforce the provisions of sub-
section (a) through appropriate remedies,
S 11253 -~"
including reinstatement or hiring of em-
ployees with or without backpay, as will ef-
fectuate the policies of this section. The Civil
Service Commission shall issue such rules,
regulations, orders, and instructions as it
deems necessary and appropriate to carry out
its responsibilities under this section. The
Civil Service Commission shall-
"(1) be responsible for the review and
evaluation of the operation of all agency pro-
grams designed to carry out the policy of this
section, periodically obtaining and publish-
ing (on at least a semiannual basis) progress
reports from each such department, agency,
or unit; and
"(2) consult with and solicit the recom-
mendations of interested individuals, groups,
and organizations relating to nondiscrimina-
tion in employment on account of age.
The head of each such department, agency,
or unit shall comply with such rules, regu-
lations, orders, and instructions which shall
include a provision that an employee or ap-
plicant for employment shall be notified of
any final action taken or any complaint of
discrimination filed by him thereunder. Rea-
sonable exemptions to the provisions of this
section may be established by the Commis-
sion but only when the Commission has es-
tablished a maximum age requirement on
the basis of a determination that age is a
bona fide occupational qualification neces-
sary to .the performance of the duties of the
position. With respect to employment in the
Library of Congress, authorities granted in
this subsection to the Civil Service Com-
mission shall be exercised by the Librarian
of Congress.
"(c) Any persons aggrieved may bring a
civil action in any court of competent juris-
diction for such legal or equitable relief as
will effectuate the purposes of this Act.
"(d) When the individual has not filed a
complaint concerning age discrimination
with the Commission, no civil action may be
commenced by any individual under this
section until the individual has given the
Commission not less than thirty days' notice
of an intent to file such action. Such notice
shall be filed within one hundred and eighty
days after the alleged unlawful practice oc-
curred. Upon receiving a notice of intent to
sue, the Commission shall promptly notify
all persons named therein as prospective de-
fendants in the action and take any appro-
priate action to assure the elimination of
any unlawful practice.
"(e) Nothing contained in this section
shall relieve any Government agency or offi-
cial of the responsibilty to assure nondis-
crimination on account of age-in employ-
ment as required under any provision of
Federal law."
Redesignate section 12 as section 14.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the
amendment I offer to the substitute
would incorporate the amendments to
age discrimination in Employment Act
which passed the committee unanimous-
ly, bringing Federal, State, and local
employees within the scope of that act.
It would also make one change in
those amendments, raising the yearly
authorization level from $3 million to $5
million, still a very modest and minimal
amount to implement this legislation.
I am advised by the Labor Department
that an equivalent of only 69 staff posi-
tions can be provided to administer the
legislation in all of the States of the
Union. If the full $3 million were author-
ized, that would allow for less than 200
staff positions.
Moreover, with additional Federal,
State, and local government employees
to receive the protection of age discrim-
ination laws under this new bill, we shall
require more funds to make this legis-
lation do what it purports to do, namely
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S 11254
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
to make it unlawful "to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or priv-
ileges of employment, because of such
individuals age."
On March 9 of this year, I introduced
S. 3318, a bill to subject Federal, State,
and local employees to the present age
discrimination law. At that time, I said:
Government Is the Nation's largest em-
ployer with over 10 million employees in
State and local governments and millions
more at the Federal level. Moreover, gov-
ernment has the greatest growth rate of any
other sector of our society and is the source
for much of the growth of private industry.
I believe that the Federal, State and local
governments should be model employers.
And I do not believe that these units of
government are justified in asking private
employers to do what government would not
do for itself.
On May 5, I reintroduced my bill with
amendments as an amendment to the
Fair Labor Standards Amendment of
of 1972. I was joined by the distinguished
chairman of the Labor and Public Wel-
fare Committee (Mr. WILLIAMS), the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON),
chairman of the Subcommittee on Aging,
and the Senator from New York (Mr.
JAVirs), the ranking minority members
of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare
Committee.
Mr. President, the Congress and three
presidents have taken note of the prob-
lems of age discrimination in government
employment.
In 1957, the Congress passed section
302 of the independent Offices Appro-
priation Act of 1957, which said, in effect,
that no part of any appropriation under
any bill could be used to compensate of-
ficers or emlpoyees of the Government
who establish maximum age for entrance
into the Federal Civil Service. This was
subsequently codified in section 3307,
title V of the United States Code.
On March 14, 1963, President Kennedy,
in a memorandum to the heads of agen-
cies, affirmed the policy of the executive
branch barring discrimination on the
basis of age for employment and ad-
vancement,
On February 12, 1964, President John-
son issued Executive Order 11141, which
declared that:
It is the policy of the executive branch of
the Government that (1) contractors and
subcontractors engaged in the performance of
Federal contracts shall not, in connection
with employment, advancement, or discharge
of employees . discriminate against per-
sons because of their age . . .
The Senate version of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 provided that discrimination
on the basis of age would be prohibited
along with discrimination on other
grounds such as race, religion, and na-
tional origin, but that provision was
knocked out in conference for lack of
hard evidence on the subject of age dis-
crimination. Instead a compromise was
adopted directing the Secretary of La-
bor to make a report to the Congress on
the subject. The report, which was filed
in 1965, did find a substantial age dis-
crimination in employment, almost all of
it completely arbitrary.
In 1967, the Age Discrimination in Em-
ployment Act passed the Senate without
a dissenting vote; the vote in the House
was 344 to 13. The law made it unlawful
for an employer having more than 25
employees "to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensa-
tion, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment because of such individual's
age." Certain exceptions were made
where age is a bona fide occupational
consideration or where there is a bona
fide seniority system or bona fide em-
ployee benefit plan.
Mr. President, government employees
were excluded from coverage under the
1967 act. In my view, that exclusion is
unsupportable.
The Nixon administration seems to
agree with that view, for on March 23,
two weeks after I introduced my bill, the
President sent the Congress his message
on aging, which said, in part, "especially
in the employment field, discrimination
based on age is cruel and self-defeating;
it destroys the spirit of those who want
to work and it denies the Nation the
contribution they could make if they
were working." The President goes on
to say:
I will soon propose to the Congress that the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act be
broadened to Include what is perhaps the
fastest growing area of employment in our
economy-the State and local governments.
Mr. President, there is ample evidence
that age discrimination is broadly prac-
ticed in government employment.
Elliot Carlson, writing in the Wall
Street Journal on January 20, quotes a
number of elderly Federal employees who
have been subject to pressures as the
result of recent "reduction-in-force" or-
ders issued by Federal agencies. The em-
ployees may be transferred repeatedly,
be denied their rightto "bump" employ-
ees with less exyerience, or be subject to
veiled hints that their usefulness is at
an end.
President Nixon has ordered a 5-per-
cent cut in Federal manpower by July
of this year, and indications are that
older workers are being asked to bear
the brunt of the burden. Mike Causey,
writing in the Washington Post on Feb-
ruary 11, notes that the Pentagon is
alerting older and long-service workers
to volunteer for "involuntary separation"
that would qualify them for immediate
pensions. Joseph Young, in a recent arti-
cle in the Washington Star, notes that:
In seeking initial appointments, transfers
and promotions, older applicants and em-
ployees find that regardless of their ability,
experience and qualifications, their age is
an insurmountable barrier.
And the Carlson article, which ap-
peared in the Wall Street Journal on
January 20, notes that HUD and the In-
terior Department are subjecting some
older employees to extensive grilling
about their jobs and engaging in a series
of subtle or direct pressures encouraging
them to retire.
Mr. President, age discrimination
practices, whether they relate to the age
of hiring, restrictions on promotion, or
direct and indirect "encouragements" to
retire,, are not to be condoned. Many of
our citizens are productive at 60 as they
were at 25, and measures taken to re-
move them from the work force are both
callous and unrealistic.
A recent report of the Senate Special
Committee on Aging declares:
If we are really concerned about some of
the long-term and institutionalized forces
of inflation, why aren't we making every
effort to maintain a high level of labor force
participation of "older workers"?
The report goes on to say:
The price the Nation pays for failure to
maximize employment opportunities for
older workers is increased dependency. We do
not see an increase in dependency as a good
tool with which to fight inflation. We all
have much more to gain through a national
effort to raise our productive capacity and
simultaneously provide meaningful job op-
portunities for older people.
Mr. President, some 31 States have
some form of age discrimination law but,
they differ in scope and effectiveness. The
Labor Department does not have clear
evidence on how various State laws are
implemented, but it does concede that
some States have only a handful of
employees to enforce what is admittedly
a very sensitive and complex problem. I
am afraid that Senator JAVITS' words
spoken during the 1967 debate are still
true. At that time, the Senator from New
York said,
The experience under State laws has been
varied. Unfortunately, most States have not
made available sufficient funds or manpower
to really make a dent in the problem.
Mr. President, age discrimination is
deeply ingrained in the American system.
Somehow, in our youth-oriented culture,
we have developed the idea that a man
or woman over 40 is no longer a good
employment risk.
I have no prejudice toward younger
workers, but I believe our attitude to-
ward middle-aged and older workers is
nothing short of a national scandal.
Indeed, the problem has been magni-
fled during the last 2 or 3 years. From
January 1969 to September 1971, unem-
ployment for persons 45 and older
jumped 77 percent. Many of these people
find themselves in a no-man's land-too
young to retire, too old to hire--and they
usually remain unemployed for longer
periods than their younger counterparts.
Mr. President, I agree with President
Nixon that it is time to make the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act more
comprehensive in its coverage. The com-
mittee bill, which incorporates my
amendment, would bring Federal em-
ployees under the coverage of a law spe-
cifically directed at the overall problem
and give some focus to other remedies
which simply have not done the job. The
measures used to protect Federal em-
ployees would be substantially similar to
those incorporated in the bill which ex-
panded the authority of the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunities Commission.
At this time I want to express my ap-
preciation to the distinguished floor
manager of the bill (Senator WILLIAMS),
and to Senators EAGLETON and JAVITS, all
of whom were instrumental in placing
the age discrimination amendment in
the final draft of Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1972.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the Senator
from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Sena-
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 pproved For A(L: 73EWq M00400140016-6
July 19, 197.,A
tor from Texas made me a cosponsor of
S. 3318, and I am very proud to have
been a cosponsor, and I think it is fair
to say that I did my very best to see that
there were incorporated in this bill pro-
visions against age discrimination. I be-
lieve that I speak also for the manager
of the bill, the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. WILLIAMS), when I say that we
have no desire to be parochial about this
substitute, though we are opposed to it
for substantive reasons. If any Senator
wishes to seek to incorporate this pro-
posal as an amendment to the commit-
tee substitute, we feel that it would be
acceptable and desirable in any minimum
wage bill.
If the amendment is acceptable to the
authors of the Taft-Dominick substitute,
it is acceptable to me, and I hope the
Senate will approve it.
Mr. BENTSEN. I appreciate the Sena-
tor's statement in that regard.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Ohio for a question.
Mr. TAFT. I believe that this proposal
is a perfectly proper one to add to the
pending amendment, and so far as I am
concerned, I believe I speak for the co-
author of the proposed substitute, we will
be willing to accept it. If there is no ob-
jection or request for further time, I am
prepared to yield back the time for this
side at this time.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. This proposal, I be-
lieve, incorporates some of the provi-
sions already in the law prohibiting dis-
crimination on account of age, and I see
no objection to adding it here. I think it
is fair to point out that we have had an
administration proposal along this line.
It has been sent to the Congress this
week, I believe. I do not think it goes quite
as far as that of the Senator from Texas,
in that it affects only State and local
governments.. But his proposal is not an-
tagonistic to anyone as far as I can see,
and as far as I am concerned, I would
be glad to incorporate it as a part of the
substitute and take it to conference If the
substitute prevails.
Mr. BENTSEN. I appreciate the sup-
port of the distinguished Senator from
Colorado, the author of the substitute
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do all
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this
expression of dealing with discrimination
because of age is certainly a principle we
all support. We take every opportunity to
strike at any possible discrimination.
Here is another opportunity. I certainly
support the Senator from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if there
is no further request for time, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. TAFT. I yield back the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has been yielded
back. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Texas
to the Taft-Dominick substitute amend-
ment. On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
ANDERSON), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. CHILES), the Senator from Louisi-
ana (Mr. ELLENDER), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS), the Sena-
tor from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN), the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MusKIE), and the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. PELL), are necessarily ab-
sent.
I further announce that the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), is
absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
ELLENDER), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
GRAVEL), the Senator from Washington
(Mr. MAGNUSON), and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), would each
vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CUR-
TIS) is detained on official business, and
if present and voting, would vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 86,
nays 0, as follows:
[No 277 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Aiken
Fannin
Mnss
Allen
Fong
Nelson
Allott
Gambrell
Packwood
Bayh
Goldwater
Pastore
Beall
Griffin
Pearson
Bellmon
Gurney
Percy
Bennett
Hansen
Proxmire
Bentsen
Hart
Randolph
Bible
Hartke
Ribicoff
Boggs
Hatfield
Roth
Brock
Hollings
Saxbe
Brooke
Hruska
Schweiker
Buckley
Hughes
Scott
Burdick
Humphrey
Smith
Byrd,
Inouye
Sparkman
Harry F., Jr.
Jackson
Spong
Byrd, Robert C. Javits
Stafford
Cannon
Jordan, Idaho
Stennis
Case
Kennedy
Stevens
Church
Long
Stevenson
Cook
Mansfield
Symington
Cooper
Mathias
Taft
CotUon
McClellan
Talmadge
Cranston
McGee
Thurmond
Dole
McIntyre
Tower
Dominick
Metcalf
Tunney
Eagleton
Miller
Weicker
Eastland
Mondale
Williams
Ervin
Montoya
Young
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-14
Anderson
Fulbright
McGovern
Baker
Gravel
Mundt
Chiles
Harris
Muskie
Curtis
Jordan, N.C.
Pell
Ellender
Magnuson
S11255
So Mr. BENTSEN'S amendment to the
Taft-Dominick substitute amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I send a
perfecting amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1204 proposed by the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK)
to S. 1861, and ask that A be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ROTH). The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
8. 1861
On page 4, line 9, after the word "em-
ployee" insert the following: "in retail or
service establishments or seasonal recrea-
tional establishments or education institu-
tions".
On page 4, line 14, strike out "80" and
insert in lieu thereof "85".
On page 4, line 18, beginning with the
word "or" strike out through the word
"higher".
On page 4, line 25, strike out "80" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "85".
On page 5, line 2, begi;fining with the word
"or" strike out through the word "higher".
On page 5, 11ne 5, strike out "80" and in-
sert In lieu thereof "85".
On page 5, line 15, before the period, insert
a colon and the following: "Provided, That
such regulations shall not restrict full-time
student employment by any employer to a
level below that provided for under this
section prior to the effective date of the Fair
Lai or Standards Amendments of 1972".
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. HOL-
LINGS) be added as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the pur-
pose of the amendment is to modify the
provisions concerning the youth differ-
ential wage which appear in the pro-
Posed substitute bill. That substitute
would change existing law in three ways:
First, it would reduce the differential
rate from the present 85 percent of the
prevailing minimum wage to 80 percent.
Second, it would extend coverage to
all employers of young people in place
of the present restriction to retail and
service establishments, educational in-
stitutions, and seasonal recreational
businesses.
Third, the substitute would eliminate
the requirement that employers have
Labor Department certification before
making use of the youth differential
provision.
By contrast, my amendment would
retain existing law with respect to both
the wage differential itself and the scope
of coverage. The differential would re-
main at 85 Percent and its application
would be limited to retail and service es-
tablishments, educational institutions,
and seasonal recreational businesses,
just as it is now.
The only change in existing law under
my amendment would be to eliminate
the cumbersome Labor Department cer-
tification requirement that was intended
to guard against abuses of the youth
differential but which has actually
worked to discourage full-time student
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S 11256
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
employment. It is clear that unlimited not go as far as the current provision of
use of youth employment is not desir- the substitute. It leads me to the con-
able, but it is equally clear that bureau- elusion that the amendment has no
cratic redtape should not undermine the merits over and above those of the sub-
program itself. stitute. While there are some provisions
tion requirement and substituting for it
authority on the part of the Labor De-
partment to issue such regulations and
standards as it feels necessary to prevent
abuses. For example, I would think the
Labor Department would require some
kind of notification procedure. This
would promote enforcement by providing
for the identification of youth employers
but would not stifle the employment op-
portunities themselves as the present
certification procedure does.
In short, my amendment proposes to
go to a general standards approach to en-
forcement instead of the present case-by-
case review.
Mr. President, there is a good basis for
having a youth differential and that is to
create more job opportunities for young
people who are without work experience
and job skills or who are full-time stu-
dents. Unemployment among young peo-
ple today is more than three times that
of the overall labor force. Young blacks
are especially hard hit with an average
unemployment rate over the past 5 years
of about 27 percent.
The youth differential, which is now
part of the law and which by implica-
tion is fully endorsed by the committee,
serves a useful purpose. But it serves no
purpose to entangle the program in bu-
reaucratic redtape and procedures. All
my amendment seeks to do is to allow
employers to make maximum use of this
worthwhile incentive program while
guarding against abuses.
Mr. President, I have discussed this
amendment with a wide range of individ-
uals and I have found a surprising con-
sensus on the part of businessmen and
young people alike that it is a worthwhile
approach to the issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Ohio is recognized for 3 min-
utes.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, while I cer-
tainly feel that the Senator from Vir-
ginia has the same motives that the
sponsors of the substitute have, I have
some difficulty in accepting the amend-
ment. On balance, I feel I might have to
oppose it.
Mr. President, the difficulty, it seems
to me, with the measure is that it per-
petuates the discrimination between
youths seeking employment who are in
school or in a student status and youths
who are not in that status.
One of the advantages of the youth
differential provision which we includ-
ed in the substitute amendment is that
it applies to all youth under the age of
18 and full-time students under the age
of 21.
It seems to me that while the pur-
poses of the pending amendment are
meritorious, the fact that it has a limited
effect would mean that it probably would
ante i ao noti ieei inaa i eau buvvui' +v
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield 4
minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I to-
tally agree with the Senator from Ohio.
I think that the amendment, if agreed
to, will complicate rather than ease the
ability of young people to find jobs.
I would say to' my friend, the distin-
guished Senator from Virginia, that there
is one other technical problem with the
amendment which I think creates really
quite a serious difficulty. The Senator
has stricken on pages 4 and 5 of our pro-
posed substitute the words "or whichever
is higher," leaving the minimum at a flat
85 percent or whatever the minimum
happens to be.
The net result of striking the "or
whichever is higher" is that some stu-
dents who might be hired under this pro-
vision could not get less than the present
amount they are entitled to get under
the minimum wage law.
Our youth differential provision, by re-
quiring that a student under 21 or a youth
under 18 be paid 80 percent of the new
rates established by this bill, or the pres-
ent rate, whichever is higher, makes it
clear that no youth could receive less
than he is making now.
That is why we had the $1.60 as a
floor and 80 percent of whatever the min-
imum might be, and similarly $1.30 as a
floor on agricultural labor. For exam-
ple, the substitute would increase the
minimum for nonfarm workers covered
prior to 1966 to $1.80 per hour. Eighty-
five percent of that comes to $1.53-less
than the current $1.60 minimum. And
we get into the same problem with ag-
ricultural work. So I would say to the
Senator from Virginia that I think this
is a serious problem.
The basic problem that I see with it-
which forces me, reluctantly, to feel that
I must oppose it-is exactly as the Sen-
ator from Ohio has described. The high-
est unemployment rates in this country
are among our youth. And to the extent
that we narrow the areas in which they
can be hired at less than the increased
minimum wage rates, to that extent we
decrease their viability in the labor mar-
ket.
They cannot get the work experience
necessary to move up the ladder. For that
reason, I feel the application of the youth
differential in our substitute should ap-
ply to all types of employment.
I realize that many of the labor unions
do not like the youth opportunity pro-
vision and they have very strongly op-
posed the youth opportunity provision
that we have tried to include in the sub-
stitute. However, the fact of the matter
is that it is not those people who are
working within the labor unions who
are largely the unemployed. It is ' the
youth and particularly the ethnic or
minority groups since they have less
skills than most union members who
have gone through apprenticeship
schools and other institutions in the
union. They are not going to be hired
at the same rate.
it is for that very reason that we
adopted an 80 percent, rather than 85-
percent differential. For the very rea-
son of trying to simplify the administra-
tion of it, we broadened its present ap-
plication beyond retail service and agri-
culture, -and left it open to whatever
fields they might seek jobs.
Because I have high respect for the
Senator from Virginia, it is with con-
siderable reluctance I must oppose the
amendment because I feel that he has
made a technical mistake and has de-
creased rather than increased the op-
portunity for youth employment.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I yield
myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I want to
say that the substitute measure retains
most of what is my understanding of the
present law.
I think that we want to encourage
youth to find employment in many fields
of endeavor. And those fields are spelled
out in my amendment retail, service
establishments, educational institutions,
and seasonal recreation jobs. However, I
think that if a young person is employed
in certain other types of endeavor, in
construction work, for example, they are
entitled to the full minimum wage and
not 80 percent of that wage.
I want to point out to the Senate that
we now have a differential of 85 percent
and that the substitute being offered by
the Senator from Colorado and the Sen-
ator from Ohio reduces that to 80 per-
cent. So on the one hand we would be
reducing the differential that could be
paid, and on the other, extending it to
certain other areas of employment which
I think represents discrimination
against young people, because these
other types of work generally involve
full time, and not seasonal, student
employment.
I share with the Senator from Colo-
rado his concern about students who need
work. In my remarks I pointed out we
have a 27 percent unemployment rate
among young people in the black com-
munity. I also would point out to the
committee chairman that if the sub-
stitute prevails in its present form we
will be reducing the differential rate
from 85 percent to 80 percent, and
second, in my judgment, we will be en-
couraging employers in other fields to
hire youth in place of adult employees
because they can pay them a lower wage
for full-time employment.
I think what we want to encourage is
seasonal and part-time employment for
youth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SPONG. I yield myself 1 additional
minute.
I gather that the sponsors of the sub-
stitute and the Senator from Virginia are
in agreement that certification is a cum-
bersome procedure. It is one that I
believe the Labor Department itself in
past years considered doing away with.
What my amendment seeks to do is
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S 11246 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
And they know that it is the enemy-not'the
United States-that is responsible for the
current actions in Viet Nam.
Public support from a majority of Ameri-
cans has come through clearly. It has been
seen in the thousands of letters and tele-
grams to the White House and Congress. It
has been seen in the Gallup poll indicating
that 74% of the American public supports
the President's efforts toward building peace.
It has been seen in the Harris poll showing
that 59% endorse the President's decision to
mine the enemy's harbors.
It has also been seen in the low level of
protest around the country. Sure, there have
been riots and demonstrations, but there al-
ways will be regardless of the issue. Those
who carry the Viet Cong flag today will carry
another banner tomorrow. But you can be
sure that their banners will urge the destruc-
tion of America, not the improvement of it!
If there is to be a negotiated settlement,
the time is now. In the meantime, the Presi-
dent has asked for the support of a unified
nation. I believe he deserves that support
Today this nation has a new direction. The
Peking trip has dramatized that fact. The
substantive agreements in Moscow have dra-
matized that fact.
Hopefully, the world can arrive at a point
When its leaders can safely discuss and re-
solve mutual problems. If so, we will truly
be moving toward our nation's goal of a gen-
eration of peace.
MODIFICATION OF UNANIMOUS-
CONSENT AGREEMENT ON S. 1991
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. President,
I have an addendum to the agreement
previously entered with. respect to Cal-
endar Order No. 904, S. 1991. I have
cleared this request with the distin-
guished assistant Republican leader.
I ask unanimous consent that time on
the bill be limited to 11/2 hours instead
of 1 hour as previously ordered, and that
the additional half hour be under the
control of the distinguished Senator
from Montana (Mr. METCALF), with the
original hour controlled as previously
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS
Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr, President, I
again ask unanimous consent that the
Senate stand in recess until the hour of
1:30, and that at 1:30 p.m. the second
track business, the minimum wage bill
be laid before the Senate and made the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Thereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Senate
took a recess until 1:30 p.m.; whereupon,
the Senate reassembled when called to
order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.
STEVENSON).
ORDER TO HOLD H.R. 14424 AT DESK
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that H.R.
14424, to amend the Public Health Serv-
ice Act to provide for the establishment
of a National Institute of Aging, and for
other purposes, be held at the desk until
the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare. reports its companion bill on the
subject, which should occur within the
next few days.
The House bill (H.R. 14424) would
then be placed on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered,
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMEND-
MENTS OF 1972
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, the Chair lays be-
fore the Senate the minimum wage bill,
which the clerk will read by title.
The legislative clerk read the bill by
title, as follows:
A bill (S. 1861) to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, to extend
its protectio tum o additional employees, to
raise the im wage to $2.25 an hour,
to prov a for an 8-hour workday, and for
oth urposes.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I send to
the desk a perfecting amendment to the
Taft-Dominick amendment, which I un-
derstand is the pending business, and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the full reading of
the amendment be dispensed with. I will
explain it. It is technical, because it
amends a statute, and therefore can bet-
ter be explained.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
abjection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Moss' amendment to the Taft-
Dominick amendment is as follows:
On page 1, before line 1, insert the follow-
ing:
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY TO PUERTO RICO
AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
SEC. 2. (a) Section 3(d) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, is
amended to read as follows:
"(d) 'Employer' includes any person act-
ing directly or Indirectly in the interest of
an employer in relation to an employee, in-
cluding the United States and any State or
political subdivision of a State, but shall
not include any labor organization (other
than when acting as an employer), or any-
one acting in the capacity of officer or agent
of such labor organization."
(b) Section 3(e) of such Act is amended
to read as follows:
"(e) 'Employee' means any individual
employed by an employer, including any
individual employed in domestic service
(other than a babysitter), and in the case
of any individual employed by the United
States means any individual employed (1)
as a civilian in the military departments as
defined in section 102 of title 5, United
States Code, (2) in executive agencies (other
than the General Accounting Office) as de-
fined in section 105 of title 5, United States
Code (including employees who are paid
from nonappropriated funds), (3) in the
United States Postal Service and the Postal
Rate Commission, (4) in those units of the
government of the District of Columbia hav-
ing positions in the competitive service, (5)
in those units of the legislative and judi-
cial branches of the Federal Government
having positions in the competitive service,
and (6) in the Library of Congress, and in
the case of any individual employed by any
State or a political subdivision of any State
means any employee holding a position
comparable to one of the positions enumer-
ated for individuals employed by the United
States, except that such term shall not, for
the purposes of section 3(u) include any
individual employed by an employer en-
gaged in agriculture if such individual is
the parent, spouse, child, or other member of
the employer's immediate family.".
(c) Section 3(h) of such Act is amended
to read as follows:
"(h) 'Industry' means a trade, business,
industry, or other activity, or branch or
group thereof, in which individuals are gain-
fully employed.".
(d) (1) The first sentence of section 3(r)
of such Act is amended by inserting after
the word "whether", the words "public or
private or conducted for profit or not for
profit, or whether".
(2) The second sentence of such subsec-
tion is amended to read as follows: "For pur-
poses of this subsection, the activities per-
formed by any person or persons in con-
nection with the activities of the Govern-
ment of the United States or any State or
political subdivision shall be deemed to be
activities performed for a business purpose.",
(e) The first sentence of section 3(s) of
such Act is amended (A) by inserting after
the words "means an enterprise", the paren-
thetical clause "(whether public or private
or operated for profit or not for profit and
including activities of the Government of
the United States or of any State or politi-
cal subdivision of any State) ", (B) by strik-
ing the word "employees" the first two times
it appears in such sentence, and inserting
in lieu thereof the words "any employee".
(f) Section 5 of such Act is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
"(e) The provisions of this section and
section 8 shall not apply with respect to
the minimum wage rate of any employee in
Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands employed
by any employer which is a State or a politi-
cal subdivision of any State. The minimum
wage rate of such an employee shall be de-
termined In accordance with sections 6, 13,
and 14 of this Act."
On page 1, line 3, strike out "2" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "3".
On page 1, lines 5 and 6, strike out, "the
first year" and insert in lieu thereof "the
first six months".
On page 2, beginning with line 3, strike
out through line 8, and insert in lieu there-
of the following:
the( first year from the effectivehour
date of the
Fair Labor Standard Amendments of 1972;
and
"(2) not less than $2.00 an hour there-
after."
On page 2, between lines 8 and 9, insert
the following:
(b) Section 6 of such Act is further amend-
ed by adding at the end thereof the follow-
ing new subsection:
"(f) Every employer who in any workweek
employs any employee in domestic service
in a household shall pay such employee
wages at a rate not less than the wage rate
in effect under subsection (b) of this sec-
tion, unless such employee's compensation
for such service would not, as determined
by the Secretary, constitute 'wages' under
section 209 of the Social Security Act.".
On page 2, line 10, strike out "3" and in-
sert In lieu thereof "4".
On page 2, line 18, strike out "4" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "5".
On page 3, line 21, strike out "5" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "6".
Beginning on page 4, line 1, strike out all
through page 5, line 15, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
LEARNERS, APPRENTICES, STUDENTS, AND HANDI-
CAPPED WORKERS
SEC. 7. Section 14(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, is
amended (1) by inserting following the word
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400.140016-6
July 19, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 11245
tart' commitment. If he were forced to at all cost. The North Vietnamese have win nor end. That, in a sentence, is the sad
end U.S. involvement in the manner pre- undertaken this massive effort in clear vio- legacy President Nixon inherited when he
Scribed in the amendment, he would be lation of international accords and under- assumed office.
standings which they themselves agreed to Since January . 1969, conditions have
backing out of our national and inter- follow. changed substantially through President
national responsibilities and jeopardiz- Despite these facts, the American defeatist Nixon's leadership and through his Vietnami-
ing his efforts to prevent future conflicts. are at it again. zation program. It was not President Nixon
If the President had not ordered the They have called The President's decision who sent 550,000 Americans to Viet Nam. He
mining of North Vietnamese harbors in reckless, foolish and irresponsible. They were has brought 500,000 home.
addition to heavier bombing activity in convinced that the Moscow talks would be It was not President Nixon who was in
reaction to the violations by, and in- sabotaged, that the Red Chinese would be office when as many as 500 Americans were
of, the enemy, forced to intercede. To hear these defeatists being killed each week. Under his adminis-
Creased and instead military withdrew actions all troops, the talk, one would think that the North Viet- tration, combat deaths have been reduced by
namese invasion was our fault instead of more than 95%. And I might add that those
United States would be shirking its re- theother way around. low levels have been maintained despite the
sponsibilities to the world, taking away Some of these critics, I am convinced, current intensity of ground combat in South
the support crucially needed by South would rather see America defeated than sup- Viet Nam.
Vietnam, weakening U.S. leverage at the port ant responsible means for extricating When the Nixon Administration took office,
peace table, and imperiling the political this couiNtry from a long and frustrating American troops were handling ground com-
there was no authorized plan
In fact
bat
,
.
future of South Vietnam-a future we war. have fought these long years to insure. In the fr tic search for expedient solu- whatsoever for turning that combat role over
bons, they ha )(e openly supported resolutions to our allies. Today, the South Vietnamese
President Nixon's decisions in Ir1do- which would 4a The President's hands as have that responsibility and they are doing
china were made, not to instigate further he withdraws om Viet Nam. Yet, several amazingly well. Sure, they are not winning
devastation on the Vietnamese battlefield years ago they re giving full approval to every battle, but no one ever predicted they
ld
.
as the defeatists believe, but to stop decisions that go us into Viet Nam. wou
North Vietnam's overt invasion. The Today, they fav resolutions to condemn In short, Vietnamization is working. We
critics, however, have misconstrued the President Nixon f seeking to stop the have provided the equipment. We have
basis for the mining and bombing; un- enemy's aggression, ut they direct not one helped to train South Vietnamese forces, and
wittingly, passage of section 12 would single word of critic m against the enemy we have assisted with air and naval support
that started that aggreon. Some have gone as necessary. As a result, substantial num-
bring about the defeat of all past and so far as to believe ene y propaganda while bers of Americans have been withdrawn. Do
present U.S. efforts in Southeast Asia.,_ deliberately refusing to ccept statements by you realize that there are fewer Americans in
If
Vietnam am according to the conditions pre- V Now these defeatists a seeking to over in Korea when President Nixon took office in
scribed by the proposed amendment, up their own errors, an the mistakes of 1969. It took 10 to 15 years for the Koreans
worldwide credibility of the United earlier administrations, y labeling this to take over their own internal security re-
battle "Nixon',' It's 'a simple matter sponsibilities. But the South Vietnamese
s War
states and its position in the interna-
. tional constellation of power would be for them to criticize their celuntry's current have been forced to assume that responsi-
military initiatives. After all, they have no bility in less than three years. I think they
weakened. Instead, we must hold stead- responsibility for the consegt gnces of such have come a long way.
fast. This war will be ended, but to end casual words. Nor would they be account- Three and one-half years ago, there was
it with the date-certain prescription of able for the loss of credibility in\,pur nation's no comprehensive peace plan for ending the
the Mansfield proposal would only be commitments around the globe',should we war in Viet Nam. That, too, has all changed,
a postponement of war. What we would desert South Viet Nam at this, their most Through secret initiatives and public talks
critical, moment. in Paris, the President has sought every rea-
raincheck taking i we accept this d conflict. tis a Some critics have built their entire political sonable avenue for ending the conflict
rafncheck to o yet another her armed career on platforms of obstructionism,, They through negotiations. But the enemy has
EXHIBIT 1 have placed their political interest first and balked every step of the way, greeting each
THE DEFEATISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN their country's interest last. They have. ex- peace offer with insult and escalation of the
(An address by Richard G. Capen, Jr.) pressed moral indignation when it was con- war.
venlent to do so, I don't see how anyone can possibly criti-
Evworlof the o few days have moved They have generated the impression that cize the President for failing to do all that
the world's two grea t powers a few steps s was humanly possible to end the conflict. He
closer to President Nixon's goal of building there would be no war in the world if the _ y p
a generation of peace. The President's-states- United States were not in Viet Nam. They has offered every reasonable alternative to
manlike leadership during the substantive have naively convinced others that once the Hanoi. negotiating-as with
talks in Moscow can be a source of pride for last American soldier was out of Viet Nam, ing as
usands that and was -hehe prois tofd to w with de-
that there would be peace in the world. Do
Americans. all We now have a major understanding to they really believe that settling the war in spite any visible progress in Paris.
halt the arms race. We have treaties with the Viet Nam will settle the war in Ireland? Or Today, not only has the President decided
ta but against also has emy s blatant ag-
Soviets on conquering pollution and disease. the 'var in the Middle East? Or the confronta- to
A A joint Soviet-United States space effort is tion in India and Pakistan? Or the dispute gression, re NVietnamese asl have to prove their
planned by 1975. An agreement has been along the Chinese-Russian borders? sincerity North o before h prove talks eir
reached to reduce incidents at sea. No, Catholics and Protestants. Arabs and ry to negotiate ed. I Through the spirit of negotiations, an out- Jews, Hindus and Moslems and ussians and resumed isn the antime, their war-making
r- naking
break of war has been averted in the Middle Chinese have battled for hundreds of years. being . be It's not likely to stop soon. This, of course, stroyed rapidly and effectively.
East. The access to Berlin has been reestab- y p
lighed. A treaty involving the use of the is regrettable, but, I cannot really believe Overlooked in the dramatic announcement
world's seabeds has been developed and we that restoring peace in Southeast Asia will to mine the harbors of North Viet Nam and
have renewed a dialogue with the more restore peace in the world. to step up our bombing of military and
than 800 million people of Mainland China. Because it's a new ball game today in' Viet strategic targets has been the significant ne-
Regrettably, our desire to negotiate dif- Nam, I believe it is essential to place recent gotiating move made by this country,
ferences has not led to an end of the war in developments In proper perspective. One That involveb our proposal to withdraw all
South Viet Nam. But that has not been due cannot do so without taking stock of what U.S. forces from Viet Nam within four
to any lack of effort or reasonableness on has occurred in the past three an'd one-half months after American prisoners of war are
the part of the Nixon Administration. Rather, years. released and after an internationally super-
our initiatives toward an honorable settle- In my opinion, President Nixon has shown vised cease fire has begun. There are no com-
ment have been met with only obstinate, incredible restraint in the face of irresponsi- mitments for linking our withdrawal to the
negative response from the enemy. ble criticism by those who run away from progress of Vietnamization. There are no
Today it's a new ball game in Viet Nam. their responsibility for past actions by seek- commitments linking our agreement to the
It's 6 new game because the North Viet- ing to saddle others with the consequences stability of the South Vietnamese govern-
namese have made it so, not the United _ of these actions. ment. In short, it is about the most liberal
States, The enemy has violated the demili- Today, from the privacy of Washington law peace plan anyone-most of all the enemy-
tarized zone. They have rocketed population offices, a former Defense Secretary and a could hope to expect.
areas. They have killed more than 20,000 former U.S. negotiator in Paris have all the Fortunately, I feel that most Americans
civilians in the past two months alone. answers for getting America out of Viet understand what has been accomplished to
To invade South Viet Nam, the enemy has Nam-now. But, where were those ready solu- date and realize what is now at stake. They
committed virtually all of its combat tions when these former officials were in posi- respect the President's efforts. They ' eccg-
forces-12 of 13 divisions. Their goal has tions to act? These were the people who got nize that he has taken every possible public
been to choke off South Viet Nam's freedom our country into a war they could neither and private step to end our involvement.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
July 19, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
"establishments" each time it appears, the
words "or educational institutions" and by
inserting following the word "establishment"
each time it appears, the words "or an edu-
cational institution", (2) by inserting fol-
lowing the words "Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1966,", the words "and the
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1972",
and (3) by inserting following the words
"prior to such", the word "applicable".
On page 5, line 19, strike out "7" and in-
sert in .lieu thereof "8".
On page 5, line 24, strike out "8" and insert
in lieu thereof "9".
On page 6, line 17, strike out "9" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "10'.
On page 7, line 4, strike out "10" and insert
in lieu thereof "11".
On page 7, immediately after line 23, insert
the following:
AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE
SEC. 12. Section 6 of such Act (as amended
by sections 2 and 3 of this Act) is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
(g) (1) For purposes of this subsection-
(A) the term "base quarter" means (1)
the calendar quarter ending on June 30 in
every second year after 1972, or (ii) any other
calendar quarter in which occurs the effec-
tive month a general increase in the mini-
mum wage payable under subsections (a)
and (b) of this section;
(B) the term "cost-of-living/national pro-
ductivity computation quarter" means a base
quarter, as defined in subparagraph (a) (1),
in which the Consumer Price Index and the
index established by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to measure the total,private out-
put per man-hour (hereinafter referred to as
the "Productivity Index") exceed, by not less
than 3 percent, such indices in the later of
(I) the last prior cost-of-living/national pro-
ductivity computation quarter which was
established under this subparagraph, or (11)
the most recent calendar quarter in which
occurred the effective month of a general in-
crease in the minimum wage payable under
this Act; except that there shall be no cost-
of-living/national productivity computation
quarter in any calendar year in which a law
has been enacted providing a general in-
crease in the minimum wage payable under
this Act or in which such an increase be-
comes effective; and
(C) the Consumer Price Index and the
Productivity Index for a base quarter, a
cost-of-living/national productivity compu-
tation quarter, or any other calendar quarter
shall be the arithmetical mean of such in-
dices for the 3 months in such quarter.
(2) (A) The Secretary shall determine in
every second year after 1972 (subject to the
limitation in paragraph (1) (B) and to sub-
paragraph (D) of this paragraph) whether
the base quarter (as defined in paragraph (1)
(A) (1)) in such year is a cost-of-living/na-
tional productivity computation quarter.
(B) If the Secretary determines that such
base quarter is a cost-of-living computation
quarter, he shall, effective with the month
of January of the next calendar year (subject
to subparagraph (D)) as provided in sub-
paragraph (C), increase the amount of the
minimum wage payable under this Act by
an amount derived by multiplying each such
amount by the same percentage (rounded to
the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) as the
percentage by which the Consumer Price In-
dex and the Productivity Index for such cost-
of -living/national productivity computation
quarter exceed such indices for the most re-
cent prior calendar quarter which was a base
quarter under paragraph (1) (A) (ii) or, if
later, the most recent cost-of-living com-
putation. quarter under paragraph (1) (B).
Any such increased amount which is not a
multiple of $0.10 shall be increased to the
next higher multiple of $0.10.
(C) If the Secretary determines that a base
quarter in a calendar year is also a cost-of-
living/national productivity computation
quarter, he shall publish in the Federal Reg-
ister on or before November 1 of such calen-
dar year a determination that an increase in
!the minimum wage payable under this Act
is required and the percentage thereof. He
shall also publish in the Federal Register at
that time a revision of the amount of the
minimum wage contained in subsections (a)
and (b) of this section (as it may have been
most recently revised by another law or pur-
suant to this paragraph); and such revised
amount shall be deemed to be the amount
appearing in such subsections.
(D) Notwithstanding a determination by
the Secretary under subparagraph (A) that
a base quarter in any calendar year is a cost-
of-living computation quarter (and notwith-
standing any publication thereof under sub-
paragraph (C), no increase in the amount
of the minimum wage shall take effect pur-
suant thereto, and such quarter shall be
deemed not to be a cost-of-living/national
productivity computation quarter, if during
the calendar year in which such determina-
tion is made a law providing a general in-
crease In, the minimum wage under this Act
is enacted or becomes effective.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term
"general increase in the minimum wage un-
der this Act" means an increase (other than
an increase under this subsection) in the
amount of the minimum wage payable un-
der subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
On page 8, line 2, strike out "11" and insert
in lieu thereof "13".
On page 8, line 15, strike out "12" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "14".
On page 8, line 21, add the following new
section:
Sec. 13. Section 13(b) of such Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
"and employee who is any workweek is
employed in domestic service in a house-
hold."
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for a quorum call,
with the understanding that he be recog-
nized upon the calling off of the quorum
call and that the time not be charged
against either side?
Mr. MOSS. I am glad to yield for that
purpose.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
distinguished Senator. Senators on both
sides will now be alerted to the fact that
an amendment to the Taft-Dominick
amendment has now been offered.
Mr. President, with the understanding
that the Senator from Utah not be de-
prived of his right to the floor, and with
the further understanding that the time
for the quorum call not be charged
against either side, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I request the
yeasand nays on my perfecting amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that my assistants, Mr.
Chris Matthews and Mr. Karl Braith-
waite, be given the privilege of the floor
S,11247
during the debate on the amendment now
pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I make
the same request for a committee staff
member to have the privilege of the floor
during the pending debate, Mr. Chuck
Woodruff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I under-
stand the time is now limited and that I
have 30 minutes and the Senator from
Colorado has 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
a limitation of 1 hour on the amendment,
30 minutes to each side.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, my amend-
ment seeks a middle path between the
committee bill, S. 1861, and the Taft-
Dominick amendment, No. 1204.
I have supported increases in the min-
imum wage, but I clearly understand the
need to be careful about increases dur-
ing our present economic situation. The
Taft-Dominick amendment, however,
goes further in changing the committee
bill than I am prepared to go at this
time.
My amendment would provide for the
following changes:
First. For nonagricultural employees
covered prior to 1966: $1.80 60 days after
enactment; $2 6 months later.
Second. For nonagricultural em-
ployees covered by 1966 and 1972 amend-
ments: $1.80 60 days after enactment;
$2 1 year later.
Third. For agricultural employees:
$1.50 60 days after enactment; $1.70 1
Fourth. The Moss amendment extends
coverage under the act to 1.7 million Fed-
eral employees, 3.2 State and local gov-
ernment employees, and 2.1 employees in
domestics ? cp sot now covered.
anges no existing exemptions.
Sixth. Like S. 1861 as reported, retains
the existing 85 percent certification sys-
tem which applies to full-time students
employed in retail and service firms and
agriculture, and it includes students em-
ployed part time by educational institu-
tions and those employed full time dur-
ing school vacations by such institutions.
Seventh. Provides for future changes
in the minimum wage to be automatical-
ly adjusted every 2 years for changes in
national productivity and cost-of-living
as determined by the Department of
Labor and the Cost of Living Index.
The Moss amendment represents a
compromise. According to the commit-
tee's report-No. 92-842, page 6:
Witnesses before this Committee differed
as to how much of an increase should be
legislated, but the testimony was overwhelm-
ingly in favor of an increase now.
Why was this testimony in favor of an
increase? Let me quote the committee
report:
Between 1966, when Congress amended the
FLSA to increase the Federal minimum wage
from $1.25 to $1.60 an hour and April 1972,
the consumer price index rose 27%. Between
February 1, 1968, the date the $1.60 rate ac-
tually became effective for most workers, and
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S-11248
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
May 1972, the consumer price index rose
21.4%. Thus a substantial increase in the
minimum wage is necessary merely to restore
the purchasing power of low wage workers
to the levels established by Congress in 1966.
In addition, average hourly earnings have in-
creased by 34 percent over the same period.
Of great significance is the fact that the
number of people living in poverty increased
between 1969 and 1970, the first increase since
such records have been kept.
These facts and figures alone explain
the necessity for a minimum wage in-
crease now. Inflation and an increase in
the cost of living have eroded the low
wage earner's purchasing power. Today's
$1.60 buys less than the $1.25 minimum
wage in 1966. This fact exists in the face
of our Nation's increasing productivity.
American low-wage workers have tradi-
tionally shared, and rightfully so, in the
Nation's rising productivity. These are
not second-class citizens-they carry the
full responsibilities of good citizenship
in this Nation. Their taxes support it,
they serve in its armies, and vote in its
elections. No single element in America
is responsible for our rising productivity.
In some way all Americans contribute to
it. All Americans, therefore, should bene-
fit from it.
Between 1966 and 1972, productivity
rose 10 percent and experts from the
Government and business community
have projected an average yearly in-
crease of about 3 percent for the decade
ahead.
Other workers in the Nation share in
this rising productivity through increased
wages and fringe benefits.
Their wages have been attuned to the
increase in cost of living. This is substan-
tiated by the 34 percent average hourly
increase in earnings since 1966. Low wage
earners ought rightfully share similar
increases.
They ought to share similar increases,
but have they?
In the 1971 report on minimum wages
by the Secretary of Labor we note that
the relationship between average hourly
wage and the minimum wage is worse
today than it was in 1950.
As the report states:
Minimum wages have been traditionally
compared to gross average hourly earnings of
production workers in manufacturing for
purposes of evaluating the efficacy or desira-
bility of changes in the level of the FLSA
minimum or of assessing the effects 9f.legis-
lative changes.
With respect to this comparison, the
report concluded that:
The relationship between the minimum
wage and average hourly earnings or average
hourly compensation varies, depending upon
whether account is taken of changes in cov-
erage. Although the minimum wage has been
increased substantially, its ratio to earnings
has been largely eroded by gains in average
hourly earnings between the periods of in-
creases in the minimum wage. Consequently,
the ratio of the minimum wage to average
hourly earnings or to average hourly compen-
sation per man hour is now lower than it was
in 1950, when the 1949 amendments went in-
to effect.
When the 1966 amendments-increas-
ing the minimum wage rate to $1.60 an
hour-were enacted, they represented a
promise that a full-time worker compen-
sated at the minimum wage rate could
at least earn what was considered to be
poverty level of income; which at that
time was about $3,200 annually for a
family of four-$1.60 an hour times 40
hours per week times 50 weeks per year
equal $3,200 annually. Since then, in-
creases the price level as reflected in the
Consumer Price Index have reflected the
bankruptcy of that promise.
Therefore, in light of the rising cost of
living and productivity, it is clear to all,
including those members of the commit-
tee who did not support the majority re-
port, that an increase in the minimum
wage is in order.
The question, then, is how much should
the minimum wage be increased? The
Moss amendment recognizes a need to in-
crease minimum wage and yet guard
against inflation and unemployment
through a too rapid increase.
The wage increases provided by the
amendment were attuned to considera-
tions of correcting and as rapidly as
practicable eliminating labor conditions
detrimental to the maintenance of the
minimum standard of living necessary for
health, efficiency, and general well-being
of workers without substantially curtail-
ing employment or earning power. It is
firmly believed that these gradual and
belated increases, approximately equiv-
alent to productivity and cost-of-living
increases in recent years, can be absorbed
by the national economy as easily as all
previous increases in the minimum wage
rate.
The Moss amendment recognizes the
need for compromise between the minor-
ity reports. The increase proposed by my
colleagues from Ohio and Colorado repre-
sents a partial catch-up solution to the
problem of increase in minimum wage.
Yet they would implement this increase
over a period of years. Meanwhile, in-
creases in the cost of living will eat away
any gains made in real wages as a result
of this bill.
The Moss amendment recognizes the
need for a rational increase and the need
to implement that increase with all dis-
patch to bring relief to the low-wage
worker who has struggled under the
crushing burden of inflation.
Accordingly, I ask the Senate to adopt
the following changes in the rate of im-
plementation of the wage increases-
For nonagricultural employees covered
prior to 1966: $1.80 an hour 60 days after
enactment; $2, 6 months later.
For nonagricultural employees covered
in 1966 and 1972 amendments: $1.80, 60
days after enactment; $2, 1 year later.
For agricultural employees: $1.50 60
days after enactment; $1.70 1 year later.
It seems that every 5 years when Con-
grass is asked to review the minimum
wage we have to expend much time and a
terrific amount of needless energy deter-
mining how great an increase in the
minimum wage is justified to "catch up."
Catchup is a policy which always keeps
us with one foot mired in the past and an
unsure fot trying to determine how far
to stride in the future.
In the present Fair Labor Standards
Act, section 4-D, we read the following:
(d) The Secretary shall submit annually
in January a report to the Congress cover-
ing his activities for the preceding year and
including such information, data, and rec-
ommendations for further legislation in
connection with the matters covered by this
Act, as he may find advisable. Such report
shall contain an evaluation and appraisal
by the Secretary of the minimum wages es-
ta,blished by this Act, together with his rec-
ommendations to the Congress. In making
such evaluation and appraisal, the Secre-
tary shall take into consideration any
changes which may have occurred in the
cost of living and in productivity and the
level of wages In manufacturin,-, the ability
of employers to absorb wage increases, and
such other factors as he may deem per-
tinent.
I am happy that since 1938, when the
Fair Labor Standards Act was passed we
have had section 4-D so that Congress
could increase the minimum wage. The
time has come I believe, when we can
modify this section. I am proposing as
an amendment to amendment No. 1204
providing that the minimum wage be
automatically determined every 2 years
by a cost-of-living and productivity fac-
tor. This would be determined by
changes in the cost-of-living index and
the productivity index of the Depart-
ment of Labor.
My feelings for this nave been ex-
pressed in my earlier comments, but in
further support, I wish to read the com-
ment of Marten Estey in his article
"Wages and Wage Policy 1962-1971."
In discussing wage guideposts, Mr. Estey
notes :
One solution to this problem would be
some form of cost-of-living clause that would
provide for wage adjustments related or tied
to the rise in the Consumer Price Index and
thus protect the worker against the ero-
sion of his real wage.
Equally important from the policy
standpoint is that cost-of-living adjust-
ments make it possible to avoid, or to
minimize, the tendency to try to com-
pensate for past inflation by the use of
"catch-up" wage increases when con-
tracts are renewed. So long as wage de-
cisions reflect past problems, they are
less responsive to current economic con-
ditions than they might be.
With some form of cost-of-living
clause, workers would be compensated-
more or less fully-for price rises on a
current basis and, therefore, would have
less need to "catch up" at contract re-
newal time. Perhaps most significant of
all, when inflation does begin to recede,
wages determined by collective bargain-
ing might respond more quickly, there
being less need either to correct for pre-
vious errors or to try to anticipate fu-
ture price changes." 1
The cost of living index is used success-
fully in evaluating civil service increases,
and it is time that we applied it to mini-
mum wage increases as well.
Mr. President, in hopes that we might
find a compromise solution in the area of
extension of coverage, I offer the follow-
ing suggestions.
While the Taft-Dominick amendment
has recognized the need to increase the
minimum wage, it does not extend the
coverage of the bill. When the Fair La-
bor Standards Act was enacted in 1938,
its objective was clearly seen-the elimi-
nation of "labor conditions detrimental
I Estey, Marten, "Wages and Wage Policy,
1962-1971," in Economic Policy and Infla-
tion in the Sixties, p. 193.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
July 19, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 11249
to the maintenance of the minimum That Congress should so long deny
standard of living necessary for the these workers the protection of the Fair
health, efficiency, and general well-being Labor Standards Act seems incredible.
of workers." Congress has consistently Workers who make our governments run
seen that the minimum wage is imposed have not yet been accorded the same
to protect fair-minded employers from benefits and protects as.- workers in
employers who would exploit the Na- .,"" ost compelling argument for ex-
tion's poor, young, or ill trained, by hir- tending coverage to public servants is a
ing at substandard rates. moral one. Government should be willing
In spite of this recognition, Congress to abide by the same rules it dictates to
has consented to leave some employees private
without coverage-to open the door to yet some individuals maintain
those who would exploit these workers. that this extension of coverage will break
As a consequence, these low-wage work-
ers who are without bargaining power
have been impeded from working their
way out of poverty.
Who are these workers who are un-
covered? Let me quote from the commit-
tee report:
the budgets from the town hall to Capi-
tol Hill. This is not so. According to the
estimates supplied the comittee, this in-
crease in the minimum wage would in-
crease the total wage bill for the affected
governments by only one-half of 1
percent.
the Nation's wage and salary workers in the
civilian labor force are outside the coverage
of the Act. The law presently covers only 45.5
million of the 75 million wage and salary
workers in the United States. A substan-
tial number of these 75 million are beyond
the scope of the Act's practical, possible, or
needed coverage. Almost 13 million, for in-
stance, are executive, administrative, or pro-
fessional personnel, for whom the minimum
wage provisions of the Act would have little
relevance. But of the remainder-some 62
million-who might be brought within the
wage and hour guarantees, over 18 million are
not in fact covered.
In extending coverage of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, to individuals em-
ployed in domestic service, Congress will
correct a glaring inequity which has
existed well over three decades since the
act was passed in 1938.
Workers in this industry are paid very
low wages. Of these 2.1 million workers,
1,101,000 earn less than $1.80 an hour,
and 1,119,000 earn less than $2 an hour.
In 1969, 80 percent had total cash in-
comes less than $2,000 while 57 percent
had less than $1,000.
One might say that these low wages
are due to the part-time nature of much
domestic employment. As the Census
Bureau has pointed out, however, in
1969 approximately 340,000 women em-
ployed full time, year round, as private
household workers had average earnings
of only $1,926 for the year. Many of these
women are heads of households, and yet
we expect them to support their families
at a salary which is $2,000 below the
poverty level.
These people have no centralized body
to bargain for them. They do not enjoy
the benefits of regular work, have no
fringe benefits, no unions to protect
them or Federal Government laws to
guard them. After 34 years, it is time
they were extended the coverage of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
In the last 10 years, Congress has been
asked to review minimum wage legisla-
tion twice. In both instances, in 1961 and
a aln in 1966, Congress felt compelled to
eend. coverage of the act to employees
ndt previously protected by the Fair La-
bqr Standards Act. Today 16 million em-
ployees still remain unprotected by this
vitally important legislation. Of that
number, 1,726,000 are Federal employees
arid over 3. million are employed by State
and local governments across the Nation.
Minimum wage increases enacted by
Congress since 1949 have matched in-
creases in the productivity and the cost-
of-living almost identically.
In 1949, Congress legislated a 75 cents
an hour minimum. Seventeen years later,
in 1966, we passed a $1.60 minimum.
This 1966 hike constituted a 113-percent
increase over the 1949 level, a percentage
which was justified by a 77 percent in
productivity and 36-percent increase in
the cost-of-living during that period.
Increase in Increase in Combined
productivity cost-of- increase in
(index of living productivity
output per (consumer and cost-
man hour) price) of-living
Increase in
minimum
wage
1949____
$55.3
$71.4 --------
----
$0.75
1955 ----
69.9
80.5 --------
----
1.00
1961____
80.9
89.6 --------
----
1.25
1966___
98.10
97.2 --------
----
1.60
Total
per-
cent-
77
36
113
113
The Moss perfecting amendment would
simply continue this trend. Since the
last minimum wage increase became
fully effective, the cost of living has
risen by over 20 percent and productivity
by over 9 percent. There is no justifica-
tion for delaying implementation of the
$2 minimum, which constitutes a 25-
percent increase, for the 14 months pro-
vided in the Taft-Dominick proposal.
My perfecting amendment would
make the increase effective 8 months
after enactment.
In addition, I have provided for an
automatic adjustment, every 2 years, in
the minimum wage. This adjustment
would be based upon cost of living and
productivity, the same standard which
has justified previous minimum wage
hikes.
I believe, therefore, that the modi-
fications of the Taft-Dominick amend-
ment would provide these benefits, would
extend the coverage, and, by first boost-
ing the minimum wage to where we have
caught up with inflation and productiv-
ity, would place it in a position where
automatically hereafter changes in pro-
ductivity and the cost of living would be
reflected in an automatic change in the
minimum wage.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER- Who
yields time?
Mr. DOMINICK. I yield myself 10
minutes in opposition to the proposed
amendment.
Mr. President, I have just done some
computations, and I am talking without
a prepared text, just off the top of my
head, because I did not know that this
matter was coming up.
So far as I know, the amendment pro-
os the Senator from Utah has not
been checked out with the manager of
the bill or the ranking member of the
committee, Senator JAVITS, nor with Sen-
ator TAFT, or myself. So it comes some-
what as a surprise to us.
I will say, however, that it varies very
substantially from our substitute. Among
other things, it extends coverage, which
we do not seek to do in our substitute, to
Federal employees, State and local em-
ployees, and domestics.
I spoke about the subject of the cover-
age of domestics before this time, when
the Senator from Utah was not in the
Chamber. I cannot think of a more
guaranteed way to enmesh every house-
wife in the country in Federal bureau-
cracy than by trying to cover domestics.
Enforcement would be difficult. I recall
sitting in committee when we were talk-
ing about this matter once before, and
many members of the committee on both
sides of the aisle commented on the fact
that they felt that few housewives, in-
cluding their own would hire domestics
if they had to file the extensive records
required by the wage and hour law.
If we have the domestic employee
under the minimum wage criteria, we
immediately are going to have every
housewife in the country, every time she
has a cleaning woman, subjected to ques-
tions by the Labor Department as to
whether or not she is meeting the re-
quirements, as to what is the added value
of whatever services are provided by the
housewife in supplying a room and meals,
or various pieces of equipment to the
cleaning woman or laundress, or whoever
it may be. In my opinion, it is going to be
a bureaucratic mess and will require an-
other whole corps of Federal employees
just to determine whether a housewife
can have someone in either to cook
dinner on an occasional night or to do a
week's cleaning. So I have great difficulty
on that particular phase of it.
Going beyond that, to the merits, once
again the Senator from Utah is appar-
ently trying to accelerate the rather ex-
traordinary inflationary push which
would be given 'by the committee bill. It
is of interest to me that, although he
retains our figures with respect to non-
agricultural employees covered prior to
1966, he accelerates the raise to $2 by
6 months, so that it would be effective
6 months after the raise to $1.80.
Second, he accelerates, in like manner,
those who were first covered by the 1966
amendments, and those who will be cov-
ered under this proposal, beyond what
we did, by saying that it will be $1.80
and $2 instead of our $1.70, $1.80, and
$2. The only thing he does not accelerate
is the figure for agricultural workers.
I find this quite significant. I am not
quite sure why he would accelerate
everyone else under his proposal and not
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S11259
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
the agricultural workers. I presume this
is because he is in agreement with us
that there are now enough problems on
the farms in finding labor to be able
to take care of the crops at almost any
price, and that the proposals put in by
the committee bill are unrealistic inso-
far as keeping small farms alive is con-
cerned.
Going beyond that, the extension of
coverage, it seems to me, is one of the
more significant things in this amend-
ment. It is very similar to the committee
bill, the only difference being that it does
not cover the committee provision which
refers to the size of an enterprise and
the employees that would be covered
therein. Other than that, he incorporates
most of the Federal employees, the State
and local government employees, and
the domestics, whom the committee bill
also covers. At a time when the chair-
man of the Cost of Living Council and
the chairman of the Price Control Coun-
oil have stated that the proposed com-
mittee bill, with its extension of cover-
age and its very sharply accelerated
rates, would not seem a very difficult
situation insofar as their role is con-
cerned in trying to stabilize prices, I can-
not see how adding this enormous num-
ber of additional people to the coverage
and accelerating it is going to change
the situation.
From a very brief conversation I have
had with the distinguished chairman of
our committee, Senator WILLIAMS, I
gather that, also, is not very happy with
this proposal. I am strictly against it,
and among other things I point out item
No. 7. This provides for an automatic
change in the minimum wage every 2
years, based on national productivity
and cost of living.
I ask this question of the Senator from
Utah: Let us suppose the cost of living
should go down-a very interesting kind
of concept. Do I correctly understand
that the Senator would then reduce the
minimum wage, under those circum-
stances, or is this applicable only when
it goes up?
Mr. MOSS. I am happy to respond to
the Senator from Colorado.
Of course, it works both ways. If the
cost of living should drop drastically,
there would be a reduction in the mini-
mum wage requirement.
Mr. DOMINICK. I am happy to hear
the Senator from Utah say that. Almost
all the proposals I have heard to date
have been strictly an upward push. Very
few times have I seen it work in reverse-
that when the cost of living goes down,
the minimum wage goes down. I am not
sure, really, that if the cost of living goes
down, there is a need for reducing the
minimum wage. It is interesting to me
that the Senator puts it both ways. I am
happy to see that he is flexible on this.
But it seems quite clear to me that it
is going to be difficult to compute. No one
is going to know what his minimum wage
standards are going to be, except that
every 2 years there will have to be a re-
computation.
Furthermore, as I understand the
thrust of the amendment-although I
have not seen the full amendment-ft
would be, substantially, to take out of
the jurisdiction of our committee the
opportunity to review the Fair Labor
Stadards Acs to see what coverage should
or should not be included as time goes
by and to determine whether or not an
increase is in order.
The question of productivity is a par-
ticularly good one, it is very difficult,
however, under all the indices we have
now to determine what national pro-
ductivity actually is. I have some figures
from the speech I made yesterday indi-
cating that national productivity has
only gone up 10 percent since 1966, while
the cost o living has increased 28 per-
cent. I a not convinced that the na-
tional productvity test has ever been tied
down sufficiently so that we can find an
index on which we could rely. It reminds
me of the situation when we were trying
to provide aid for universities in the
higher educational field. We kept trying
to find out which ones were actually in
financial trouble as opposed to others
and we could not find any common ac-
counting ground in any university any-
where in the country on which we could
rely. The net result was, we put a study
and research program into the higher
education bill, which was passed, provid-
ing for a system and a study to be made
to be able to determine that.
I should like to get a comment from
the Senator from Utah on that point. He
has a very good productivity factor in
here. My question is, How does he arrive
at that factor?
Mr. MOSS. I will be happy to answer
that. The President has guidelines which
he is using for this very purpose, exactly
the same cost-of-living figures in the in-
dex. It is published in the Federal Regis-
ter. The average is 3.1 percent per year
since 1948.
Mr. DOMINICK. I understand those
figures, but it seems unlikely that they
are accurate when we take into account
that the Labor Department at the pres-
ent time has declared it an unfair labor
practice for a worker on piecework of
any kind of exceed a quota which has
been established by a union. Conse-
quently, we do not have that worker's
productivity in any way shown by the
national figure. I understand that the
Senator is using the index as an arbi-
trary matter. What I am saying is that I
am not sure it is accurate and I never
will. be sure it is accurate as long as it is
considered to be an unfair labor practice
to be able to earn as much money as one
can. This is a settled case in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. I think it
is wrong. I have been protesting it.
Moreover, I think to tie the minimum
wage inflexibly to the Consumer Price
Index would lock us into an inflationary
spiral, because I think it has been
demonstrated that minimum wage
increases exert strong inflationary
pressure.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from Colorado yield at that point?
Mr. DOMINICK. I yield.
Mr. TAFT. I would like to comment on
the productivity question. Andrew Bie-
miller of the AFL-CIO testified before
the Labor and Public Welfare Committee
regarding productivity and stated that
productivity in many instances, basically
is subject to the control of the employer
and not up to the employee at all. Par-
ticular work practices which are involved
or contracted for under a labor-manage-
ment agreement. Often the assignment
of work in relationship to productivity is
something that is determined solely by
the individuals in the industry involved.
As the Senator from Colorado has
pointed out we have rather specific fig-
ures for factory production but in the
matter of service figures, we have very
few figures on which to rely.
Mr. DOMINICK. The Senator is totally
correct. I have got to apologize to him.
I believe that under our agreement, he
had charge of the time. What I did was
just to take it over and I apologize to
him. I appreciate his comments.
Mr. President, in connection with this
discussion it is worthwhile to point out,
however, that on the index, whether
right or wrong, on the national produc-
tivity, over the last decade, the national
productivity is considered to have in-
creased 10 percent. The consumer price
index, however, increased 28 percent.
This is a much more reliable figure. The
committee bill has recommended a 37.5
percent increase in the minimum wage.
I do not think it is difficult to determine,
under item 7 of the proposed amend-
ment, with those figures in front of us,
on the productivity index, right or
wrong, as to what percent increase there
should be in the minimum wage under
the concept as developed by the Senator
from Utah.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time, such as I have. I am strongly
opposed to the amendment.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, the Senator
from Colorado is concerned about the
extension to cover domestic employees,
saying that this would burden the house-
wives in keeping records. I suggest that
it would be no more of a requirement to
keep records than is done now by house-
wives who employ domestics, in order
to arrive at the correct social security
contribution on the wages they pay do-
mestics. There is no reason to believe
that anything further would be required
by way of recordkeeping. If there is
a violation, they may be called in, just
as any person would be who violates the
law, to explain what their practice was.
I emphasize that there is no great
recordkeeping that would be necessary.
The Senator also objected to my
amendment, saying that it would push
inflation by shortening the effective time
of the increased minimum. But I would
point out that we already have experi-
enced an increase in the cost of living,
which is over 20 percent since last we
dealt with the minimum wage, and pro-
ductivity in that same time has jumped
9 percent. So this constitutes about a
29-percent increase in the period of time
we are dealing with.
We are really just catching up. Then
we would move on to the automatic ad-
justment based on the productivity and
the cost of living. Since we can do this
for adjusting civil service pensions, I do
not see why we cannot do it for adjusting
the minimum wage.
One thing being said is that domestics
really do not need a minimum wage. I
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 July 19, 19~'2Approved For e.M&SIONAL RECORD 73 SENATE000400140016-6
have pointed out by the figures I cited
that many of these domestics are draw-
ing an incredibly small annual salary in
this field. That means that these people
are living in poverty and they must there-
fore try to get help somewhere else, from
part of the welfare system. So, if we are
bent on reforming the welfare system, as
we say we are, then one of the best ways
we can do it is to make sure that those
who work for a living at least draw a wage
which will keep them above the poverty
level. If they drop into the poverty level
then they are going to have to have some
supplemental income in order to exist. I
do not think the time will come when we
will allow our people to go hungry or not
be properly clothed or housed in this
country.
I think, therefore, that this amend-
ment offers a reasonable 'compromise
with the committee bill and that pro-
posed by the Senators from Ohio and
Colorado. I suggest that it answers the
principal objectives that we need; First,
to extend the coverage; second, to catch
up on the minimum wage now with pro-
ductivity and cost of living; and, third,
put it into a regularized basis so that
automatically it can be adjusted here-
after, based on the figures published and
utilized elsewhere in fixing salaries in
this country.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COT-
TON). The Senator from Ohio is recog-
nized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, with regard
to the productivity point, I have the in-
formation distributed by the Senator
from Utah, and I have a lot of questions
about its applicability'to the actual sit-
uation involved here.
I invite the attention of the Senator
from Utah to the statement in the mi-
nority views on page 129, along this line:
Proponents of the Committee approach
argue that inflation can be avoided and prof-
its maintained if productivity is increased.
This euphoric view, i.e., that minimum wage
industries. The gain in productivity, outpu
per manhour in the private nonfarm econ
low-wage trade and services, whose produc-
tivity gains lag substantially behind those of
the economy as a whole although these are
the industries most directly affected and
therefore the most stimulated by wage in-
creases.
I would like to comment on a couple
of other aspects of the amendment of-
fered by the Senator from Utah. He puts
back the provision relating to students
and youth, the 85 percent provision, The
estimate is that this system has not
worked. There have not been applica-
tions for certificates for youth in any
number indicating any real or substan-
tial impact in this area. Meanwhile our
youth employment problem has increased,
drastically.
The attempt which we are making in
the substitute bill which the amendment
of the Senator from Utah would change
is to encourage the employment of youth.
That would be completely negated by the
amendment of the Senator from Utah.
I would also like to comment on the
domestics issue, because the Senator
from Utah indicates that he does not
think there is much recordkeeping in-
volved.
I have in my hand three separate bul-
letins under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. One is 52 pages long. Another is not
quite as long. It only covers 13 pages.
Another one is about six or seven pages.
I can see every housewife in the country
getting out that bulletin and deciding
what she has to do or what she does not
have to do under these circumstances.
The Senator has not mentioned the
principal argument against the domestic
provision which I discussed yesterday.
The committee position purports to be
based upon the commerce clause. I be-
lieve it completely violates the Consti-
tution. I cannot conceive of any activity
of any sort in American life today that
would be covered by the commerce
clause, and subject to Federal regulation
if the committee's interpretation were
adopted. I do not believe it would receive
such support. However, even beyond the
constitutional question, we also have
personal experience with respect to so-
cial security coverage. We have the rec-
ord which indicates that social security
coverage of domestics has been -accom-
plished in a very sporadic manner and is
characterized by its evasion as much as
by its observance.
Mr. President, to compound that by
putting in overtime requirements and
minimum wage requirements covering
every housewife in America would be a
great tragedy.
The committee bill also attempts to
cover Federal employees. This amend-
The PRESIDING CER (Mr.
COTTON). The ti the Senator has
Mr. T . Mr. President, I yield my-
self dditional 2 minutes.
ator from Ohio is recognized for an-ad-
ditional 2 minutes.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, the coverage
of Federal employees, it seems to me, is
about the most self-defeating aspect
that we could imagine.
I cannot think of any Federal em-
ployees who are not paid more than the
minimum wage except for military and
prisoners working in prison industries
As to the practice of paying overtime
ting this provision in the bill would be.
It is foolish to say that without re-
viewing the other laws that exist, all of a
sudden we will come in and blanket this
whole area.
Mr. Presiden
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, how much
me remains to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
S11251
ator from Utah has 16 minutes remain-
ing.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I thank the
Chair.
Mr. President, it seems that what we
are doing here-and I am surprised to
hear some of the arguments being made
by those in opposition-is saying that
the figures are not reliable and we could
not say for sure what the productivity
amounts to.
Surely the drafters of the Taft-Dom-
inick amendment must have relied on
some figures or some reports. I do not
think that discussing the figures pub-
lished by the Department of Labor and
other Federal departments and saying
that they are not letter-perfect is an
answer to trying to gear the minimum
wage to the amount of productivity and
cost of living increases.
The purpose of the minimum wage is
simply to say that any citizen who works
for a living is entitled to be paid an
amount of money which will enable him
to support himself under the present cost
of living existing in this country.
My amendment has a second provision
to it, that if productivity in general goes
up so that labor is more productive, then
he shares in the benefit that comes to all
of us in our society as a whole because
of the higher productivity.
The matter of student and youth dif-
ferential has also been referred to. They
say that students have been denied jobs
because the minimum wage was getting
too high. That matter has always con-
cerned me. I wondered just how effective
it was. I have had inquiries from my
constituents and elsewhere expressing
the fear that if the minimum wage went
up for students, they would not be
employed.
I was sent a report which was published
in 1970. The report was entitled, "Youth
Employment and Minimum Wages."
That report concludes that while the
minimum wage has been increased and
coverage extended during the period that
has -witnessed unemployment of teen-
agers, no direct relationship has been
proved.
Thus the report finds that there has
been no decrease in employment or lack
of employment by reason of the mini-
mum wage set for young people. That
is the reason I thought we should return
to the 85 percent and not drop to the
80 percent as proposed in the amendment
to which my amendment is a clarification
or a modification.
I think the case is rather clear here.
We are talking about an extension of
coverage to those who have been denied
the protection of the minimum wage law.
We are talking about catching up so that
those who are being paid only the mini-
mum wage now may be brought up to
compensate for the rise in the cost of
living and the rise in the productivity to
the point where they were in 1966 when
we last acted on the matter.
The third thing is of great importance.
It seems to me that we can get on a reg-
ularized basis and apply the cost of living
and the productivity to the minimum
wage as an automatic factor so that the
Congress every 4 years or every 6 years
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S 11252
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
will not have to fight about this, but will
be in a position once again to work this
matter out and try to catch up to the ap-
propriate amount.
I think we ought to catch up in a rea-
sonably short time and not make a long
delay between action by Congress and the
time when the increase will finally take
effect. These people are in need of this
kind of protection now and it should be
extended to them now. If we can do that
and then go to the automatic system we
will have solved one of the very difficult
problems presented now in this matter
of wages and prices.
I point out again that using the pro-
ductivity index and the cost of living in-
dex is what the President did in phase 2
in determining the kinds of regulations
to be placed on the wages of employees.
He used this very formula we are called
upon to use in this amendment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time. If my colleagues are prepared
to yield back the remainder of their time
I am prepared to yield back the remain-
der of my time.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Ohio yield to me for 4
minutes?
Mr. TAFT. I am glad to yield to the
Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I wish
to go back for a moment and talk about
this proposed extension of coverage to
domestics. It sounds great. Here, we have
low paid people and they are going to be
paid more and everyone is going to be in
glory and feel good about it because they
are doing something for them. However,
the fact of the matter is we have yet to
find that raising the minimum wage for
low income people has any effect what-
ever in being of assistance to them. It in
fact has the opposite effect-unemploy-
ment and welfare, because there are peo-
ple who cannot find other jobs.
Mr. President, I hold in my hand a
study entitled "The Employment Effect
of Minimum Wage Rates," written by
Professor John M. Peterson and Charles
T. Stewart, Jr.
They come to this conclusion: and ob-
viously domestic workers would be in-
cluded.
Both theory and fact suggest that mini-
mum rates produce gains for some groups of
workers at the expense of those that are the
least favorably situated in terms of market-
able skills or location.
Within low-wage industries, higher-wage
plants gain at the expense of the lowest-
wage plants. Small firms tend to experience
serious profit losses and a greater share of
plant closures than large firms. Teenagers,
non-whites, and women (who suffer greater
unemployment rates than workers in gen-
eral) tend to lose their jobs, to be crowded
into less remunerative noncovered industries,
and to experience more adverse changes in
employment than other workers. Depressed
rural areas, and the South especially, tend
to be blocked from opportunities for employ-
ment growth that might relieve their dis-
tress. Given these findings, the unqualified
claim that statutory minimums aid the poor
must be denied. The evidence provides more
basis for the claim that while they help some
workers they harm those who are the least
well off.
I think this is extremely pertinent in
connection with the extended coverage
which the Senator from Utah proposes.
The only alternative for these people,
if their jobs are eliminated, is welfare.
In addition, the only possible basis for
the Federal Government extending min-
imum wage coverage to this group is
that they are in interstate commerce.
The basis upon which the committee
said that these particular workers, the
domestic workers, are in interstate com-
merce is that vacuum cleaners and laun-
dry equipment are made in only a few
States, and move in interstate commerce.
So, they argue, if anyone is using a
vacuum cleaner, regardless of what he
is doing, he is in interstate commerce.
All I can say is, if we extend the Com-
merce Clause of the Constitution to that
extent we are really vitiating any re-
strictions on the Federal Government at
all. We are saying, that the Federal Gov-
ernment has poer whenever it wants
to do something to do it without regard
to the rights of others, and whether
something is actually in commerce or
not. I cannot think of anything less
likely to affect interstate commerce than
someone coming in to do some launder-
ing for a housewife.
With that plus the recordkeeping in-
volved my guess is that Congress will
have every housewife in the country on
its neck saying, "What are you trying
to do to us?" In addition, it will not be
helping the domestic workers because
they will not be able to get jobs and they
will have to go elsewhere.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired. Who yields
time?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Ohio has 5 minutes remaining
and the Senator from Utah has 10 min-
utes remaining.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Utah yield to me
for 1 minute?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I have cleared this request with the prin-
cipal parties. It is an addendum to the
agreement with respect to the program
for tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from West Virginia is recognized.
ADDENDUM TO UNANIMOUS-
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that at the hour
of 9:40 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of S. 1861, the
so-called Minimum Wage bill; that the
distinguished junior Senator from Flor-
ida (Mr. CHILES) be recognized at that
time for the purpose of calling up an
amendment to the Taft-Dominick sub-
stitute; that time on the amendment by
Mr. CHILES be limited to 20 minutes, to
be equally divided between the distin-
guished author of the amendment, the
Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES), and
the distinguished authors of the sub-
stitute, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
TAFT) and the Senator from, Colorado
(Mr. DoMINICK), whichever is the case;
and that the vote on that amendment
occur, if it is a yea and nay rollcall vote,
at 11 o'clock a.m., just immediately pre-
ceding the vote which under the order
of yesterday was to have occurred at 11
a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re-
quest? The Chair hears no objection, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for 30 seconds
further?
Mr. MOSS. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I want to be
sure I have the proper understanding
of my own request, and that is that at
the hour of 10 o'clock tomorrow morning
the amendment by Mr. CHILES will be
temporarily laid aside and time will then
begin running on the substitute by Sen-
ators TAFT and DOMINICK, as previously
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is so
understood and, without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
Presiding Officer, and I thank the Sen-
ator from Utah for yielding.
The unanimous consent agreement
reads as follows:
Ordered, That, during the further consid-
eration of S. 1861, a bill to amend the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended,
on Thursday, July 20, 1972, at 9:40 a.m. the
Senate proceed to consider an amendment
by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Chiles, with
debate thereon limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the Sen-
ator from Florida, Mr. Chiles, and the Sen-
ator from Colorado, Mr. Dominick: Provided
further, That at 10:00 a.m. the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the Taft-
Dominick substitute amendment, No. 1204,
with a vote on the Chiles amendment com-
ing at 11:00 a.m., to be followed by a vote
on the Taft-Dominick substitute amend-
ment. The time on the Taft-Dominick sub-
stitute amendment will be equally divided
and controlled by the Senator from Ohio, Mr.
Taft, and the manager of the bill, Mr. Wil-
liams, and no further amendments to the
Taft-Dominick substitute amendment be in
order on Thursday, July 20, 1972, but a
tabling motion, however, would be in order.
Ordered further, That after the vote on
the Taft-Dominick substitute amendment,
No. 1204, if defeated, the Senator from Ver-
mont, Mr. Stafford, be recognized to call up
an amendment.
Ordered further, That after the vote on the
Taft-Dominick substitute amendment, de-
bate on the bill be limited to 4 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the Sen-
ator from New York, Mr. Javits, and the
manager of the bill, Mr. Williams, and that
the Senators in charge of the time on de-
bate on the bill may, from the time under
their control on the passage of the said bill,
allot additional time to any Senator during
the consideration of any amendment, debata-
ble motion or appeal.
Ordered further, That debate on any
amendment to the bill on Thursday, July 20,
1972, be limited to 1 hour, to be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent of
the amendment and the manager of the bill,
Mr. Williams, if he is in opposition to the
amendment, otherwise that time will be un-
der the control of the Minority Leader or his
designee: Provided further, That time on
any amendment to an amendment, debatable
motion or appeal be limited to %2 hour, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 July 19, 1972Approved For ~Cj RESSION/~1L0 ::CIA- RD 73B00 ATE 00400140016-6 CO - SE
m0,jer of any such amendment and the man- NOT VOTING-15
&+h e bill
M
a?e
,
r. Williams. Anderson Gravel
ordered further, That final vote on pas- Baker Harris
VTe of the bill come no later than 10:00 Chiles Jordan,
RH
OIi Thu
sd
.
r
ay, July 20, 1972. Ellender Magn
Fulbright MceS
M
MO
r.
SS. Mr. President, as I indi-
sated, I am willing to yield back the re- So Mr.
mainder of my tima if DominieF
S 11253
regulations, orders, and instructions as it
Vern Roth
deems necessary and
(1) be responsible for the review and
other side are willing to yield back the e mick PRESIDING amendment in the OFFICER. The nature of Taft a evaluation of the operation of all agent
remainder of their time, y pros
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, we would be substitute is still before the Senate, and grams designed to carry obtaining the and policy puof ish-
is open to further amendment. Ingtio(on at n, periodically least ast a a semiannual to yield back the remainder of g ual l basis) progress
our time and we do so. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I send reports rts from each such department, agency,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time to the desk a perfecting amendment and or unit; and
has been yielded back. The question is ask for its immediate consideration. "(2) consult with and solicit the recom-
on agreeing to the amendment of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mendations of interested individuals, groups,
Senator from Utah to the Taft-Dome amendment will be stated. and iorgani n employme relating to nondisorimina-
inick substitute. The yeas and nays have The assistant legislative clerk pro- The in head employment ch account age.
been ordered, and the clerk will call the ., seeded to read the amendment. The of each syw departmen agency,
Mr. BENTSEN. M. President, I ask lations, shall
anfllInstructions with which hall
roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. unanimous consent that further reading include a provision that an employee or ap-
The clerk called I announce of my amendment be dispensed with. plicant for employment shall be notified of
Mr. the Senator from New Mexico (1VI announce The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAN- any final action taken or any complaint of
that RSON) the S, ato Senator from Florida SEN). Without objection, it is so ordered. discrimination flied by him thereunder. Rea-
sonable exemptions to the provisions this
(Mr. CHILES), the Senator from Louisi- The amendment will be printed in the
ana (Mr. ELLENDER), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. METCALF), the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. PELL), and the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), are necessarily ab-
sent.
I further announce that the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), is ab-
Sent on official business,
I further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
ELLENDER), and the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON), would each vote
,,nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota. (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Delaware (Mr.
ROTH) is detained on official business,
and, if present and voting, would vote
"nay."
The result was announced-yeas 4,
nays 81, as follows:
[No. 27fi-Laa-j-.
AS-1.
Aiken
Allen
Allott
Bayh
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Boggs
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
Fannin
Fong
Gambrell
Goldwater
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Hartke
Hatfield
Hollings
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Percy
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Spong
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Young
Byrd, Hughes
Harry F., Jr. Humphrey
Surd, Robert C. Inouye
Church
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland
Ervin
Javits
Jordan, Idaho
Kennedy
Long
Mansfield
Mathias
McClellan
McGee
Miller
Mondale
Montoya
Nelson
Mr. BENTSEN's amendment is as f01- sion but only when the Commission has es-
lOWS: tablished a maximum age requirement on
the basis of a determination that age is a
On page 8 between lines 13 and 14 insert bona fide occupational qualification neces-
the following new sections: sary to -the performance of the duties of the
NONDISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF AGE IN Position. With respect to employment in the
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT Library of Congress, authorities granted in
SEC. 12. (a) (1) The second sentence of sec- this subsection to the Civil Service Com-
tion 11(b) of the Age Discrimination in Em- mission shall be exercised by the Librarian
ployment Act of 1967 is amended to read as of Congress.
follows: "The term also means an agent civil la) action Any inpersons aggrieved may bring a
(1) any such court of mpetent juri
of such a person, and (2) a State or politi- diction for such legal or equitable relief as
as
cal subdivision of a State and any agency or will effectuate the purposes of this Act.
instrumentality of a State or a political sub-
division of a State, but such term does not complaint "(d) When the
concceerning age individual has discnot filed a
include the United States, or a corporation with the Commission v action myibe
wholly owned by the Government of the commenced b , nd civil action ay
United States." section un ilthe Individual u has given the
(2) Section 11(c) of such Act is amended Commission not less than thirty days' notice
by striking out "or any agency of a State or of an intent to file such action. Such notice
political subdivision of a State, except that shall be filed within one hundred and eighty
such terms shall include the United States days after the alleged unlawful practice oc-
Employment Service and the systems of State curred. Upon receiving a notice of intent to
and local employment services receiving Fed- sue, the Commission shall promptly notify
eral assistance." all persons named therein as prospective de-
(3) Section 16 of such Act is amended by fendants in the action and take any appro-
striking the figure "$3,000,000," and inserting priate action to assure the elimination of
in lieu thereof "$5,000,000." any unlawful
(b) (1) The Age Discrimination in Em- Practice.
ployment Act of 1967 is amended by redes- shall rel eve any rcontained in elieve agency section
ignating sections 15 and 16, and all references clal of the responsibilty to assure nondis-
thereto, as section 16 and section 17, respec- crimination on account of age in employ-
tively. ment as required under an
(2) The Age Discrimination in Employ- Federal law." Y provision of
ment Act of 1967 is further amended by add- Redesignate section 12 as section 14.
lug immediately after section 14 the follow-
ing new section: Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the
"NONDISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF AGE IN amendment I offer to the substitute
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would incorporate the amendments to
"SEC. 13. (a) All personnel actions affecting age discrimination in Employment Act
employees or applicants for employment (ex which passed the committee unanimous
- -
cept with regard to aliens employed outside ly, bringing Federal, State, and local
the limits of the United States) in military employees within the scope of that act.
departments as defined in section 102 of title It would also make one change in
5, United States Code, in executive agencies those amendments, raising the yearly
(other than the General Accounting Office)
authorization level from $3 million to $5
as defined in section 105 of title 5, United 1I1illion, still a very modest and minimal
States Code (including employees and appli- amount to implement this legislation.
cants for employment who are paid from
nonappropriated funds) , in the United States I am advised by the Labor Department
Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commis- that an equivalent of only 69 staff posi-
sion, of the Government of the District of tions can be provided to administer the
Columbia having positions in the competitive legislation in all of the States of the
service, and in those units of the legislative Union. If the full $3 million were author-
and judicial branches of the Federal Govern- ized, that would allow for less than 200
ment having positions in the competitive staff positions.
service, and in the Library of Congress shall be made free from any discrimination based Moreover, with additional Federal,
on age. State, and local government employees
"(b) Except as otherwise provided in this to receive the protection of age discrim-
subsection, the Civil Service Commission is ination laws under this new bill, we shall
authorized to enforce the provisions of sub- require more funds to make this legis-
section (a) through appropriate remedies, lation do what it purports to do, namely
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R0004001400167.6
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
S 11254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 19, 1972
to make it unlawful "to discriminate a dissenting vote; the vote in the House A recent report of the Senate Special
against any individual with respect to his was 344 to 13. The law made it unlawful committee on Aging declares: out compensation, terms , conditions, or priv- for an employer having more than 25 the a aterreally on tined b onali ed0mi of forc~q
ileges of employment, because of such employees "to discriminate against any tof inflation, why aren't we making ever.
individuals age." individual with respect to his compensa- effort to maintain a high level of labor force
On March 9 of this year, I introduced tion, terms, conditions, or privileges of participation of "older workers"?
S. 3318, a bill to subject Federal, State, employment because of such individual's
and local employees to the present age age." Certain exceptions were made The report goes on to say:
discrimination law. At that time, I said: where age on is a or bona
where here ispatbona mThe price -th employment pays for opportunitiesfailure for imize Government the Nation's largest em- older workers is increased dependency. We do
ployer ver with with over 10 million employees in fide seniority system or bona fide em- good
State and local governments and millions ployee benefit plan. not tool see with an which increase to in fight dependency inflation. as a We good
all
al
more at the Federal level. Moreover, gov- Mr. President, government employees have much more to gain through a national
ernment has the greatest growth rate of any were excluded from coverage under the effort to raise our productive capacity and
other sector of our society and is the source 1967 act. In my view, that exclusion is simultaneously provide meaningful job op-
for much of the growth of private industry. unsupportable. portunities for older people.
I believe that the Federal, State and local the Nixon administration seems to
And I not belie president, some 31 States have
governments sho i, that these emunitsployers. of agree with that view, for on March 23, Mr. government are justified in asking private two weeks after I introduced my bill, the some form of age discrimination law but
The
employers to do what government would not President sent the Congress his message they Labor differ p in scope artment and nd effectiveness. hectivenesness. T Tae
do for itself. on aging, which said, in part, "especially evidence on how various State laws are
in the employment field, discrimination
On May 5, I reintroduced my bill with based on age is cruel and self-defeating; implemented, but it does concede that
Fair Labor Standards as an dAmendment to the it destroys the spirit of those who want some States have only a handful of
of r Labor Joined by mendmes of to work and it denies the Nation the employees to enforce what is admittedly
lic Wed contribution they could make if they a very sensitive and complex problem. I
of 1972. I was Joined by the distinguished
chairman of the Labor and Public Wel- working." The President goes on am afraid that Senator JAVITS' words
fare Committee (Mr. WILLIAMS), the he were to say: spoken during the 1967 debate are still
Senator from Missouri (Mr. on Aging I will soon propose to the Congress that the true. At that time, the Senator from New
the of the Subcommittee Age Discrimination in Employment Act be York said,
and
and the Senator from New a on w York (Mr. broadened to include what is perhaps the The experience under State laws has been
JAVITS), the ranking minority members fastest growing area of employment in our varied. Unfortunately, most States have not ent of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare economy-the State and local governments. made
really available make a denciin the funds or manpower
Committee.ressident, the Congress Mr. President, there is ample evidence
Mr. oof the pro b- probb- that age discrimination is broadly prat- Mr. President, age discrimination is
presiPdents have taken note ot ticed in government employment. deeply ingrained in the American system.
lams o age discrimination in government Elliot Carlson, writing in the Wall Somehow, in our youth-oriented culture,
employ yment. Street Journal on January 20, quotes a we have developed the idea that a man
In 1957, the Congress passed section number of elderly Federal employees who or woman over 40 is no longer a good
302 of the Independent Offices Appro- have been subject to pressures as the employment risk.
priation Act of 1957, which said, in effect, result of recent "reduction-in-force" or- I have no prejudice toward younger
that no part of any appropriation under ders issued by Federal agencies. The em- workers, but I believe our attitude to-
any bill could be used to compensate of- ployees may be transferred repeatedly, ward middle-aged and older workers is
ficers or emlpoyees of the Government be denied their right to "bump" employ- nothing short of a national scandal.
who establish maximum age for entrance ees with less exyerience, or be subject to Indeed, the problem has been magni-
Into the Federal Civil Service. This was veiled hints that their usefulness is at Jfied anuary during 6the last 2 or 3 years.
unem-
title subsequently codified in section 3307, an end.
title V of the United States Code. President Nixon has ordered a 5-per- ployment for persons 45 and older
On March 14, 1963, President Kennedy, cent cut in Federal manpower by July jumped 77 percent. Many of these people
in a memorandum to the heads of agen- of this year, and indications are that find themselves in a no-man's land-too
ties, affirmed the policy of the executive older workers are being asked to bear young to retire, too old to hire-and they
branch barring discrimination on the the brunt of the burden. Mike Causey, usually remain unemployed for longer
basis of age for employment and ad- writing in the Washington Post on Feb- periods than their younger counterparts.
vancement. ruary 11, notes that the Pentagon is Mr. President, I agree with President
On February 12, 1964, President John- alerting older and long-service workers Nixon that it is time to make the Age
son issued Executive Order 11141, which to volunteer for "involuntary separation" Discrimination in Employment Act more
declared that: that would qualify them for immediate comprehensive in its coverage. The com-
It is the polioy of the executive branch of pensions. Joseph Young, in a recent arti- mittee bill, which incorporates my
the Government that (1) contractors and cle in the Washington Star, notes that: amendment, would bring Federal em-
subcontractors engaged in the performance of In seeking initial appointments, transfers ployees under the coverage of a law spe-
Federal contracts shall not, in connection and promotions, older applicants and em- cifically directed at the overall problem
with employment, advancement, or discharge ployees find that regardless of their ability, and give some focus to other remedies
of employees . . , discriminate against per- experience and qualifications, their age is which simply have not done the job. The
sons because of their age . . an insurmountable barrier. measures used to protect Federal em-
The Senate version of the Civil Rights And the Carlson article, which ap- ployees would be substantially similar to
Act of 1964 provided that discrimination peared in the Wall Street Journal on those incorporated in the bill which ex-
on the basis of age would be prohibited January 20, notes that HUD and the In- panded the authority of the Equal Em-
along with discrimination on other terior Department are subjecting some ployment Opportunities Commission.
grounds such as race, religion, and na- older employees to extensive grilling At this time I want to express my ap-
tional origin, but that provision was about their jobs and engaging in a series preciation to the distinguished floor
knocked out in conference for lack of of subtle or direct pressures encouraging manager of the bill (Senator WILLIAMS),
hard evidence on the subject of age dis- them to retire. and to Senators EAGLETON and JAVITS, all
crimination. Instead a compromise was Mr. President, age discrimination of whom were instrumental in placing
adopted directing the Secretary of La- practices, whether they relate to the age the age discrimination amendment in
bor to make a report to the Congress on of hiring, restrictions on promotion, or the final draft of Fair Labor Standards
the subject. The report, which was filed direct and indirect "encouragements" to Amendments of 1972.
in 1965, did find a substantial age dis- retire, are not to be condoned. Many of Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
crimination in employment, almost all of our citizens are productive at 60 as they Senator yield?
it completely arbitrary. were at 25, and measures taken to re- Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the Senator
In 1967, the Age Discrimination in Em- move them from the work force are both from New York.
ployment Act passed the Senate without callous and unrealistic. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Sena-
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 July 19, 1972 Approved Form " q61AtL0 Ri&W16P73gME000400140016-6
tor from Texas made me a cosponsor of
S. 3318, and.I am very proud to have
been a cosponsor, and I think it is fair
to say that I did my very best to see that
'there were incorporated in this bill pro-
visions against age discrimination. I be-
lieve that I speak also for the manager
of the bill, the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. WILLIAMS), when I say that we
have no desire to be parochial about this
substitute, though we are opposed to it
for substantive reasons. If any Senator
wishes to seek to incorporate this pro-
posal as an amendment to the commit-
tee substitute, we feel that it would be
acceptable and desirable in any minimum
wage bill.
If the amendment is acceptable to the
authors of the Taft-Dominick substitute,
it is acceptable to me, and I hope the
Senate will approve it.
Mr. BENTSEN. I appreciate the Sena-
tor's statement in that regard.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN, I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Ohio for a question.
Mr. TAFT. I believe that this proposal
is a perfectly proper one to add to the
pending amendment, and so far as I am
concerned, I believe I speak for the co-
author of the proposed substitute, we will
be willing to accept it. If. there is no ob-
jection or request for further time, I am
prepared to yield back the time for this
side at this time.
Mr. DOMINICK, Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. This proposal, I be-
lieve, incorporates some of the provi-
sions already in the law prohibiting dis-
crimination on account of age, and I see
no objection to adding it here. I think it
is fair to point out that we have had an
administration proposal along this line.
It has been sent to the Congress this
week, I believe. I do not think it goes quite
as far as that of the Senator from Texas,
in that it affects only State and local
governments. But his proposal is not an-
tagonistic to anyone as far as I can see,
and as far as I am concerned, I would
be glad to incorporate it as a part of the
substitute and take it to conference if the
substitute prevails.
Mr. BENTSEN. I appreciate the sup-
port of the distinguished Senator from
Colorado, the author of the substitute
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do all
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this
expression of dealing with discrimination
because of age is certainly a principle we
all support. We take every opportunity to
strike at any possible discrimination.
;Elere is another opportunity. I certainly
support the Senator from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if there
is no further request for time, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. TAFT. I yield back the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has been yielded
back. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Texas
to the Taft-Dominick substitute amend-
ment. On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
'The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
ANDERSON), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. CHILES), the Senator from Louisi-
ana (Mr. ELLENDER), the Senator from
Arkansas '(Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS), the Sena-
tor from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN), the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE), and the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. PELL), are necessarily ab-
sent.
I further announce that the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN), is
absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
ELLENDER), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
GRAVEL), the Senator from Washington
(Mr. MAGNUSON), and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), would each
vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CUR-
TIS) is detained on official business, and
if present and voting, would vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 86,
nays 0, as follows:
[No 277 Leg.]
YEAS-86
Aiken Fannin Moss
Allen Fong Nelson
Allott Gambrell Packwood
Bayh Goldwater Pastore
Beall Griffin Pearson
Bellmon Gurney Percy
Bennett Hansen Proxmire
Bentsen Hart Randolph
Bible Hartke Ribicoff
Boggs Hatfield Roth
Brock Hollings Saxbe
Brooke Hruska Schweiker
Buckley Hughes
Burdick Humphrey
Byrd, Inouye
Harry F., Jr. Jackson
Byrd, Robert C. Javits
Cannon Jordan, Idaho
Case Kennedy
Church Long
Cook Mansfield
Cooper Mathias
Cotton McClellan
Cranston McGee
Dole McIntyre
Dominick Metcalf
Eagleton Miller
Eastland Mondale
Ervin Montoya
Anderson
Baker
Chiles
Curtis
Ellender
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Spong
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Young
NAYS-O
NOT VOTING-14
Fulbright McGovern
Gravel Mundt
Harris Muskie
Jordan, N.C. Pell
Magnuson
S 11255
perfecting amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1204 proposed by the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. DoMINIcx)
to S. 1861, and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ROTH). The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
S. 1861
On page 4, line 9, after the word "em-
ployee" insert the following: "in retail or
service establishments or seasonal recrea-
tional establishments or education institu-
tions".
On page 4, line 14, strike out "80" and
insert in lieu thereof "85".
On page 4, line 16, beginning with the
word "or" strike out through the word
"higher".
On page 4, line 25, strike out "80" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "85".
On page 5, line 2, beginning with the word
"or" strike out through the word "higher".
On page 5, line 5, strike out "80" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "85".
On page 5, line 15, before the period, insert
a colon and the following: "Provided, That
such regulations shall. not restrict full-time
student employment by any employer to a
level below that provided for under this
section prior to the effective date of the Fatr
Labor Standards Amendments of 1972".
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. HOL-
LINGS) be added as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the pur-
pose of the amendment is to modify the
provisions concerning the youth differ-
ential wage which appear in the pro-
posed substitute bill. That substitute
would change existing lawin three ways:
First, it would reduce the differential
rate from the present 85 percent of the
prevailing minimum wage to 80 percent.
Second, it would extend coverage to
all employers of young people in place
of. the present restriction to retail and
service establishments, educational in-
stitutions, and seasonal recreational
businesses.
Third, the substitute would eliminate
the requirement that employers have
Labor Department certification before
making use of the youth differential
provision.
By contrast, my amendment would
retain existing law with respect to both
the wage differential itself and the scope
of coverage. The differential would re-
main at 85 percent and its application
would be limited to retail and service es-
tablishments, educational institutions,
and seasonal recreational businesses,
just as it is now.
The only change in existing law under
my amendment would be to eliminate
the cumbersome Labor Department cer-
tification requirement that was intended
to guard against abuses of the youth
differential but which has actually
worked to discourage full-time student
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 S 11256
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 19, 1972
employment. It Is clear that unlimited
use of youth employment is not desir-
able, but it is equally clear that bureau-
cratic redtape should not undermine the
program itself.
My amendment attempts to simplify
matters by eliminating the precertifiea-
tion requirement and substituting for it
authority on the part of the Labor De-
partment to issue such regulations and
standards as it feels necessary to prevent
abuses. For example, I would think the
Labor Department would require some
kind of notification procedure. This
would promote enforcement by providing
for the identification of youth employers
but would not stifle the employment op-
portunities themselves as the present
certification procedure does.
In short, my amendment proposes to
go to a general standards approach to en-
forcement instead of the present ease-by-
case review.
Mr. President, there Is a good basis for
having a youth differential and that is to
create more job opportunities for young
people who are without work experience
and job skills or who are full-time stu-
dents. Unemployment among young peo-
ple today is more than three times that
of the overall labor force. Young blacks
are especially hard hit with ,an average
unemployment rate over the past 5 years
of about 27 percent.
The youth differential, which is now
part of the law and which by implica-
tion is fully endorsed by the committee,
serves a useful purpose. But it serves no
purpose to entangle the program in bu-
reaucratic redtape and procedures. All
my amendment seeks to do is to allow
employers to make maximum use of this
worthwhile incentive program while
guarding against abuses.
Mr. President, I have discussed this
amendment with a wide range of individ-
uals and I have found a surprising con-
sensus on the part of businessmen and
young people alike that it is a worthwhile
approach to the issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield my
self 3 minutes.
. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The S
ator from Ohio is recognized for 3
utes.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, while cer-
tainly feel that the Senator fro Vir-
ginia has the same motives t t the
sponsors of the substitute have I have
some difficulty in accepting th amend-
ment. On balance, I feel I mfg t have to
oppose it.
Mr. President, the diificu y, it seems
to me, with the measure is that it per-
petuates the discrimina on between
youths seeking employme t who are in
school or in a student st us and youths
who, are not in that stat
One of the advantages of the youth
differential provision fivhich we includ-
ed in the substitute ~mendment is that
it applies to all youth under the age of
18 and full-time students under the age
of 21.
It seems to me that while the pur-
poses of the pending amendment are
meritorious, the fact that it has a limited
effect would mean that it probably would
not go as far as the current provision of
the substitute. It leads me to the con-
clusion that the amendment has no
merits over and above those of the sub-
stitute. While there are some provisions
in it that I think are desirable, on bal-
ance I do not feel that I can support it.
Mr.. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield 4
tally agree with the Senator from O io.
I think that the amendment, if a reed
to, will complicate rather than e a the
ability of young people to find jo s.
I would say to' my friend, t distin-
guished Senator from Virginia, at there
is one other technical proble with the
amendment which I think c ates really
quite a serious difnculty. he Senator
has stricken on pages 4 an 5 of our pro-
posed. substitute the word "or whichever
is higher," leaving the imum at a flat
85 percent or whatev the minimum
The net result of striking the "or
whichever is higher' is that some stu-
dents who might be iced under this pro-
vision could not ge ess than the present
amount they are ntitled to get under
the minimum wa a law.
Our youth dill rential provision, by re-
quiring that a s dent under 21 or a youth
under 18 be p id 80 percent of the new
rates establis ed by this bill, or the pres-
ent rate, w chever is higher, makes it
clear that o youth could receive less
than he is aking now.
That is why we had the $1.60 as a
floor and 0 percent of whatever the min-
imum 4ght be, and similarly $1.30 as a
floor o agricultural labor. For exam-
ple, t e substitute would increase the
mini um for nonfarm workers covered
prio to 1966 to $1.80 per hour. Eighty-
fiv percent of that comes to $1.53-less
th n the current $1.60 minimum. And
w get into the same problem with ax-
is a serious problem.
The basic problem that I see with it-
which forces me, reluctantly, to feel that
I must oppose it-is exactly as the Sen-
ator from Ohio has described. The high-
est unemployment rates in this country
are among our youth. And to the extent
that we narrow the areas in which they
can be hired at less than the increased
minimum wage rates, to that extent we
decrease their viability in the labor mar-
ket.
They cannot get the work experience
necessary to move up the ladder. For that
reason, I feel the application of the youth
differential in our substitute should ap-
ply to all types of employment.
I realize that many of the labor unions
do not like the youth opportunity pro-
vision and they have very strongly op-
posed the youth opportunity provision
that we have tried to include in the sub-
stitute. However, the fact of the matter
is that it is not those people who are
working within the labor unions who
are largely the unemployed. it is the
youth and particularly the ethnic or
minority groups since they have less
skills than most union members who
have gone through apprenticeship
schools and other institutions in the
union. They/are not going to be hired
at the same rate.
It is for that very reason that we
adopted an 80 percent, rather than 85-
percent differential. For the very rea-
son,,of trying to simplify the administra-
tigll of it, we broadened its present ap-
fields they might seek jobs.
Because I have high respect for the
Senator from Virginia, it is with con-
siderable reluctance I must oppose the
amendment because I feel that he has
made a technical mistake and has de-
creased rather than increased the op-
portunity for youth employment.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I yield
myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I want to
say that the substitute measure retains
most of what is my understanding of the
present law.
I think that we want to encourage
youth to find employment in many fields
of endeavor. And those fields are spelled
out in my amendment retail, service
establishments, educational institutions,
and seasonal recreation jobs. However, I
think that if a young person is employed
in certain other types of endeavor, In
construction work, for example, they are
entitled to the full minimum wage and
not 80 percent of that wage.
I want to point out to the Senate that
we now have a differential of 85 percent
and that the substitute being offered by
the Senator from Colorado and the Sen-
ator from Ohio reduces that to 80 per-
cent. So on the one hand we would be
reducing the differential that could be
paid, and on the other, extending it to
certain other areas of employment which
I think represents discrimination
against young people, because these
other types of work generally involve
full time, and not seasonal, student
employment.
I share with the Senator from Colo-
rado his concern about students who need
work. In my remarks I pointed out we
have a 27 percent unemployment rate
among young people in the black com-
munity. I also would point out to the
committee chairman that if the sub-
stitute prevails in its present form we
will be reducing the differential rate
from 85 percent to 80 percent, and
second, in my judgment, we will be en-
couraging employers in other fields to
hire youth in place of adult employees
because they can pay them a lower wage
for full-time employment.
I think what we want to encourage is
seasonal and part-time employment for
youth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SPONG. I yield myself 1 additional
minute.
I gather that the sponsors of the sub-
stitute and the Senator from Virginia are
in agreement that certification is a cum-
bersome procedure. It is one that I
believe the Labor Department itself in
past years considered doing away with.
What my amendment seeks to do is
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 August 1, 19A7proved For R l~l 4'G C- 1 00400140016-6 x 7033
SGT. GARY L. RIVERS
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 12638)
for the relief of Sgt. Gary L. Rivers, U.S.
Marine Corps, retired.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia?
There was no objection.
SEAVIEW ELECTRIC CO.
The Clerk called House Resolution 943,
to refer the bill (H.R. 3462) entitled "A
bill for the relief of Seaview Electric
Co.," to the Chief Commissioner of the
Court of Claims.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the resolution
be passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia?
There was no objection.
ELMER ERICKSON
The Clerk called the bill (S. 889) to
restore the postal service seniority of El-
mer Erickson.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia?
There was no objection.
RITA ROSELLA VALLERIANI
The Clerk called the bill (S. 2704) for
the relief of Rita Rosella Valleriani.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
WILLIAM JOHN WEST
The Clerk called the bill (S. 2575) for
the relief of William John West.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
WALTER EDUARD KOENIG
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 14173)
for the relief of Walter Eduard Koenig.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a p
The SPEAKER. The gent
state it.
ferred without prejudice until the next
cell of the Private Calendar.
The SPEAKER. That rule, the Chair
will advise the gentleman, does not relate
to bills on the Private Calendar; it re-
lates to bills on the Consent Calendar.
Mr. HALL. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
There was no objection.
Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Speak-
er, I ask unanimous consent that the
further call of the Private Calendar be
dispensed with.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Michi-
gan?
There was no objection.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
H.R. 7378, COMMISSION ON REVI-
SION OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS
OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 7378) to establish a
Commission on Revision of the Judicial
Circuits of the United States, with Sen-
ate amendments thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendments, and request a con-
ference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the gentleman from New York? The
Chair hears none, and appoints the
following conferees: Messrs. CELLER,
BROOKS, HUNGATE, MIKVA, MCCULLOCH,
HUTCHINSON, and MCCLORY.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
H.R. 15586, PUBLIC WORKS FOR
WATER AND POWER DEVELOP-
MENT AND ATOMIC ENERGY COM-
MISSION APPROPRIATIONS, 1973
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to take from
the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 15586)
making appropriations for public works
for water and power development, in-
cluding the Corps of Engineers-Civil,
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonne-
ville Power Administration and other
power agencies of the Department of
the Interior, the Appalachian regional
development programs, the Federal
Power Commission, the Tennessee Val-
ley Authority, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, and related independent agen-
cies and commissions for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and for other pur-
pose", with Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee? The Chair hears none, and ap-
points the following conferees: Messrs.
EVINS of Tennessee, BOLAND, WHITTEN,
S CK, PASSMAN, MAHON, RHODES, DAVIS
of Wisconsin, ROBISON of New York, and
MOTION TO REQUEST CONFERENCE
ON H.R. 7130, FAIR LABOR STAND-
ARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1972
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, upon di-
rection of the Committee on Education
and Labor, I move to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7130) to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to increase the minimum wage
under that act, to extend its coverage, to
establish procedures to relieve domestic
industries and workers injured by in-
creased imports from low-wage areas,
and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendments, and request a con-
ference with the Senate thereon.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I
make a point of order against the mo-
tion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, the
motion to request a conference is not in
order until a motion to disagree to the
Senate amendments has been made and
disposed of. I should like to be heard
on the point of order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear
the gentleman on the point of order.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, Jef-
ferson's Manual, section 535, on page 265,
states:
The motion to ask a conference is distinct
from motions to agree or disagree to amend-
ments of the other House and is not in order
until the House has disposed of the preferen-
tial motions to agree, recede, or insist.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman
restate his point of order?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order against the mo-
tion since it includes aS a part of the
motion that the Hoiise ask for a confer-
ence with the Senate on the grounds that
that part of the motion is not in order
until the motion to disagree with the
Senate amendments has been disposed
of.
I refer in that point of order to sec-
tion 535 of the precedents, Jefferson's
Manual, and I will repeat:
The motion to ask a conference is distinct
from motions to agree or disagree to amend-
ments of the other House and is not in order
until the House has disposed of the preferen-
tial motions to agree, recede, or insist.
The SPEAKER. The rule which the
gentleman is talking about has been su-
perseded by clause 1 of rule XX which
provides a procedure for sending bills to
conference. The Chair overrules the
point of order.
The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Kentucky.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Is there time to de-
bate the motion offered by the gentleman
from Kentucky?
The SPEAKER. It is under the 1-hour
rule. The gentleman from Kentucky con-
trols the time. The gentleman from Ken-
tucky is recognized.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion of
the gentleman from Kentucky on the
grounds that the gentleman from Ken-
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 H 7034 Approved Foc S$Q L1Q(ECM 7&H2 ;6R000400140At4j6cst 1, 1972
tucky has informed me, and he has in-
formed the House last week when I re-
served the point of order and directed
the question to him, that it is his inten-
tion to recommend to the Speaker the
appointment of 10 conferees on the part
of the House. The 10 conferees on the
part of the House that the gentleman
from Kentucky will recommend will con-
sist of six from the majority party and
four from the minority party. The gen-
tleman is recommending six managers
on the part of the House who oppose the
position of the House as revealed by the
vote of the House on the adoption of the
substitute bill during the consideration
of the bill in the House.
The precedents are clear, I think, in
this case. Section 536 of Jefferson's Man-
ual states that the Speaker appoints the
managers of the House, selecting them so
as to represent the attitude of the ma-
jority and the minority of the House on
the disagreements in issue; and while
it is usual to represent the party divisions
of the House, the representation of the
opinions as to the pending differences is
rather the more important consideration.
Again from volume 5 ,of the precedents,
section 6336, it states that-
In the selection of the managers the two
large political parties are usually represented.
Also care is taken that there shall be a rep-
resentation of the two opinions which al-
most always exist on subjects of importance.
Of course the majority party and the pre-
vailing opinion have the majority of the
managers.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is the preroga-
tive of the Speaker to appoint the con-
ferees. It has been the practice for the
Speaker to follow the recommendations
of the chairman of the committee in re-
questing the appointment of the confer-
ence and conferees. If the Chair should
follow the recommendations of the gen-
tleman from Kentucky, the majority of
the managers on the part of the House
would be those who have taken a posi-
tion contrary to that of the majority of
the House.
Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice
all too often in this House for conferees
to be appointed who will agree in con-
ference to those matters that the House
has insisted upon that they disagree even
when motions to instruct the conferees
have been made. All too often the con-
ferees will disregard those instructions.
They are not legally bound, I under-
stand, but all too often the conferees will
disregard the instructions of the House
and will agree to matters that the House
does not care to have them agree to.
I maintain that the only way we may
protect the prerogatives of this House
is to have a majority of the managers
on the part of the House those who sus-
tain and support the position of the
House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am
asking that the House turn down this
motion, vote "no" on the motion, and
I will ask for a rolleall vote.
If we refuse to send the bill to con-
ference at this time then we may receive
assurances in the future that when the
buz docs o,3 to conference a majority of
that the House will be properly repre-
sented in conference.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 3 minutes.
First, Mr. Speaker, the argument of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERtEN-
BORN) in my judgment is farfetched and
not to the point. The conferees that I
have suggested to the Speaker were
suggested in accordance with the rules
of the Committee on Education and
Labor which direct that members of the
subcommittee having jurisdiction over
a bill shall have preference when con-
ferees are selected. The sole purpose of
the conference is to compromise or to
work out the differences between the bills
of the respective bodies. I regret to see
the gentleman from Illinois suggesting
action that would tie the hands of the
conferees in working out the differences.
And that is all we intend to do. To sug-
gest to the Speaker that the conferees
are not eligible is an absurd statement in
my view.
I do not think we need to discuss this
issue any further, Mr. Speaker. We ought
to get along with this conference, and
work out a compromise between the
House and the Senate, and that is all
we intend to do.
Mr. RUTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. PERKINS. I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. RUTH).
Mr. RUTH. Mr. Speaker, this is not
a new dilemma to the House of Repre-
sentatives, for if the Members will recall
we made an effort to instruct conferees
in the higher education bill, and none
other than the distinguished Speaker of
the House himself said that he could not
force the conferees to follow the will of
the House.
It seems to me it is time we took a step
in the right direction to see that the
position of the House is upheld more
strongly in the conference, and I see no
reason that we should be represented
in the conference by conferees who did
not vote the will of the House. I strongly
urge that we follow the suggestion of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
and get a little teeth in the position of
the House when we go to conference.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, the position of
the House, as I understand it to be, is
the vote of the House on its last and
final vote on a proposition that is before
it.
If the House position is to be measured
on every vote on every amendment that
is offered to the bill before its final pas-
sage, then it might be very difficult to
find in this House enough Members to
represent a majority on all of the amend-
ments that were offered and who voted
upon them.
It so happened that only 78 Members
of this House voted against the House
position on this bill. I think the vote was
something like 330 to 78.
port of the House position on a rollcall
vote except one. That is one of the Mem-
bers on the minority side who has voted
against the whole bill-if he is named to
the conference-he voted against the
complete bill as it came up, so he there-
fore is definitely against the House posi-
tion and, yet, on the minority side I
understand he is to be named as one of
the conferees.
It has always been my position to go
to a conference to measure what can be
best for the total good-the question of
whether or not the legislation does
greater good than it does harm in each
section of the bill, and to say that our
position is totally right is to say that the
Senate position is totally wrong. To say
that the Senate position is totally right
is to say that our position is totally
wrong.
I have never come back to this House
from a conference where there have not
been charges that were approved by the
House in the final vote on the conference.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
in light of the gentleman's recent state-
ment, which he just made, I am a little
confused.
I have here in my hand a UPI discus-
sion of the pending matter,. and I will
quote from this UPI statement, which
includes a quotation from my distin-
guished friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Let me read it to you.
Mr. DENT. I will give it to you if you
do not want to read it.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. This reads as
follows:
"A conference with the Senate would not
take more than 20 minutes," Dent said re-
cently. "We'U take the Senate bill entirely."
Now how do you reconcile that quota-
tion with the statement that the gentle-
man just made?
Mr. DENT. All I can say to the gentle-
man is that it is the usual newspaper re-
porting.
This reporter or somebody in the crowd
came up and said to me, "We understand
PHIL BURTON is going to move to go
ahead and accept the Senate provision."
I said, "If that is the case, the confer-
ence won't take more than 20 minutes,
and we will have to accept the Senate
position."
If there is anything wrong with that
statement, it is only because it was re-
ported in such a context.
You know I am not going to buy the
Senate position, as it is. You know me
better than that. You know how I have
fought for many years to make the mini-
mum wage bill a reasonable approach.
The SPEAKER.-The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
gentleman 3 additional minutes.
Mr. DENT. The record shows that the
minimum wage bill has always been and
will always be controversial. But, if you
will note over the last year since I have
been handling it, a great majority of this
House-the greater majority by 75 per-
cent to 90 percent, has supported the
the managers will fight for the position
the House had taken, and that is the
only way that we can have an assurance
every person who has been suggested by
the seniority rule as being a member of
the conference is, and has been, in sup-
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 August 1, AA proved For ReC"pqk3&0M9 .CAMR-yB0 Mt W0400140016-6
final product that we have been able to
come before this House with. That
speaks well for our position in confer-
ence. I would not go to a conference
blindfolded or handcuffed any more
than the gentleman from Illinois would,
because he has protested that very posi-
tion on the floor.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Does the gen-
tleman go to conference feeling a per-
sonal obligation to uphold the views of
the. House as the bill was passed by the
House?
Mr. DENT. Wherein the views of the
House in comparison with the views of
the Senate are inferior to what the Sen-
ate is doing for people covered by the
act, I will not oppose it.
Wherein they are favor of and do
good for the people covered by the bill,
I will uphold it. That is why you are
sending me to conference and I will not
go under any other condition.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Let me ask
the gentleman one further question.
The record shows that the gentleman
voted one way when we had the bill be-
fore the House and a majority of the
Members in the House on both sides of
the aisle voted differently, and the final
version of the bill reflected a view dif-
ferent than the bill did as reported by
the Committee on Education and Labor,
I ask the gentleman again, does he
not feel a personal obligation, despite his
personal conviction, to uphold the views
of the House when he as the head of the
managers on the part of the House meet
with managers of the other body?
Mr. DENT. If I remember right, you go
to conference to work out the disagreeing
points in the bill between the House and
the Senate. If I were to say to you that
I would go to any conference tied down
to a single position, then I would not be
telling you the truth. I might say to you
that I have served on conferences with
the very persons who are demanding
that I take a position without any elbow
room to move toward what I think is
better for the greater number of people,
and then have gone into that conference
and have tried to put in amendments to
the conference report after they were
defeated soundly on the floor. They have
never been tied to the position of the
House and the majority. They have al-
ways tried to put their view into the
bill.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania has expired.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
would the distinguished chairman of the,
Committee on Education and Labor yield
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 5
additional minutes?
Mr. PERKINS. I yield the gentleman
as much time as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania requests.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Would the
gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to
me?
Mr. DENT. Yes, surely.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. There were
several very, very critical Issues that
were debated and voted on when the
House considered this important legis-
lation. One of them was the amount;
whether it should be $2 or $1.80. In the
Anderson of Illinois amendment to the
Erlenborn substitute, the gentleman
voted against the Anderson of Illinois
amendment. The majority of the House
voted for the Anderson of Illinois amend-
ment. That is a critical point, and is an
important difference between the House
version and the Senate version.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
have an obligation as a manager on the
part of the House to strongly represent
the views of the House on this critical
point?
Mr. DENT. The question is this: Am
I going to support what you call the An-
derson of Illinois view of the escalation
of the increase in pay, or am I going to
support the Senate view?
I was hoping that in the conference
we could strike a middle ground more
in keeping with the needs of the moment
than either of those views, in my posi-
tion. I would say to the gentleman that
were he in my position he would have
voted the same as I did because my sub-
committee voted to support the view
that I presented to the floor of the House.
The full committee of the House Labor
and Education Committee voted to sup-
port the view that I had taken. The com-
mittee rejected the substitute in commit-
tee and so, therefore, my position was just
as strong then as it must be now to
support that which we believe to be the
greater good for the greater number.
I see neither the position of the House
as represented by the Erlenborn sub-
stitute or the position of the Senate as
doing the greater good for the greater
number of people.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Would the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Under no cir-
cumstances am I challenging the in-
tegrity or the sincerity or the personal
views of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, but when a person is apopinted
as a manager on the part of the House,
he has the greater obligation over and
above his own personal convictions and
feelings.
All I can ask from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is that he go to that con-
ference, whether it is on the Anderson of
Illinois amendment or on the Erlenborn
substitute, which includes the youth dif-
ferential and the elimination of some of
the other broadening of coverage; that
he go there in good conscience with that
higher obligation than his own personal
conviction, because he is one of 10 that
must represent a majority of the views
of 435 Members of this body.
Now, I know he is an honorable man,
and I know he knows he has a respon-
sibility over and above his own personal
feeling, and I only urge that he assume
that responsibility in the high and fine
way that I know he will.
7035
I will probably be only in the position
of a supporting cast in this matter.
I would hope that the gentleman from
Michigan will not feel any different
about my actions after the conference
than he has intimated that he feels
before.
Mr. RUTH. Mr..Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. DENT. Yes, I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. RUTH. Mr. Speaker, my good
friend, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, has made the point on two occa-
sions about how solidly this'bill came out
of the committee and how there were
only 78 people who voted against the bill.
By this same token, does not the gentle-
man feel it is a little unfair to have con-
ferees stacked with people who voted
against the Erlenborn amendment?
Mr. DENT. My dear friend.
Mr. RUTH. I get scared when the gen-
tle}nan starts that way.
Mr. DENT. The gentleman from North
Carolina has not served here as long as
I have, and when the committee goes
back to demanding conferees on other
than the basis of seniority, the only way
we can get a majority of those who did
not vote in favor of the Erlenborn amend-
ment as it appeared in the final bill as it
came before the House is to have an
election and get new Members, because
there are no members on either side of
the committee, outside of the gentle-
man's side, who voted against the posi-
tion of the House. The position of the
House was the Dent bill as amended by
the substitute, so in the committee we are
at liberty to confer with the Senate to
try to get the best bill we can, and I can-
not do any more than that.
Mr. RUTH. If the gentleman will yield
further, I think he made my point very
well for me, that the Erlenborn amend-
ment is the thing we are talking about,
and It is the House position, and that is
why I am urging people to support the
Erlenborn position, because we do not
have to get conferees from the Educa-
tion and Labor Committee, and if we do
we are stuck. We are trying to get a vote
in such a way as to get those people-is
the gentleman from Pennsylvania cut-
ting off his friend from North Carolina?
Mr. DENT. I have only a. minute re-
maining.
Mr. RUTH. The gentleman yielded and
now he is cutting me off.
Mr. DENT. I might say to the gentle-
man we can sing together but we cannot
shout together.
I will say in all kindness we will do
the best we can so we get the best bill for
the country.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Louisi-
ana.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, there
is one thing that needs to be said at this
point in time. There is no Erlenborn
amendment pending at the present. The
Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman for motion before the House is a motion by
his very complimentary remarks, but I the chairman of the House Committee on
might say that it Is my understanding Education and Labor to take the House-
that the chairman of the full commit- passed bill from the Speaker's table and
tee is going to assume the responsibility to ask for a conference with the Senate.
of the managership of the conference, so If we do that, here is the position the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 I~ 7036 Approved F CO Release IONALI0C $DP77BU 96R00040014021C~-pit 1, 1972
House is going to be left with and find
itself in.
We are going to have a situation some-
what similar to the conference on the
higher education bill. If we pass this mo-
tion, if we ask for a conference, the House
having passed its minimum wage bill
prior to the passage of the Senate bill,
the conference report papers will, when
the conference has been completed, go
to the Senate for action, and the House
will be left with the situation of having
an up or a down vote on the conference
report.
We will not have an opportunity,
should there be some item of disagree-
ment in the conference report, for the
House in any way to work its will on the
conference report. We cannot move to
recommit the conference report with in-
structions. And the House having passed
the bill first, I feel it incumbent upon the
Senate to ask for the conference with the
House and let the House have a chance
to work at least in a limited way its will.
This is the reason I have decided since
this debate has begun that we must reject
the motion by the gentleman from Ken-
tucky, because at least the House is en-
titled to have more than an up or a down
vote on whatever the conference report
might in the final analysis turn out to be
especially in view of the fact that a ma-
jority of the conferees to be recommend-
ed did not support the House position
when this bill passed the House.
I know when they are going to con-
ference somebody is going to have to
make some sort of compromise with re-
gard to the money in the bill and with
regard to the exemptions involved in the
bill. I urge this House to vote down the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Kentucky so this House can have at least
some opportunity to work its will on at
least a portion of the conference report.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, let me
make an observation. I can assure the
membership of this House when this bill
comes back there will be changes, and
I would hope that the Members would not
go off on tangents here, and that they
will let us work out a compromise that
will meet with the approval of the ma-
jority of the Members of this House.
After making that statement, Mr.
Speaker, I move the previous question an
the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. PERKINS).
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. The vote is on the
question of the adoption of the motion
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
to send the bill to conference?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, on
that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 190, nays 198, not voting 44,
as follows:
Abourezk
Abzug
Adams
Addabbo
Anderson,
Calif.
Annunzio
Ashley
Arpin
Aepinall
Bad illo
Barrett
Bc 'ich
Bell
Bur gland
Brvill
(Roll No. 2901
YEAS-190
Gaydos Murphy, Ill.
Giaimo Murphy, N.Y.
Gibbons Nix
Gonzalez Obey
Grasso O'Hara
Gray O'Konski
Green, Oreg. O'Neill
Green, Pa. Fatten
Griffiths Pepper
Gude Perkins
Halpern Peyser
Hamilton Pike
Hanley Podell
Hanna Price, Ill.
Hathaway Pryor, Ark.
Hawkins Pucinski
Jones, Ala.
Karth
Bi:aster Heckler, W. Va. Rangel
Bingharn Heckler, Mass. Rees
Br,ggs Helstoski Reid
Boland Ilicks, Mass. Reuss
Bulling Hicks, Wash. Riet;le
Brademas Hillis Rodino
Brusco Holifield Roe
Brooks Horton Roncalio
Burke, Mass. Howard Rooney, Pa.
Biaclison, Mo. Hungate Rosenthal
Burton Ichord Rostenkowski
B^ rue, Pa. Jacobs Roush
Carey, N.Y. Johnson, Calif. Roy
Carney
Celler
C'nisholm
Clark
Collins, Ill.
Conte
C,:uyers
C,rman
Cotter
C,alver
Danielson
Davis, S,C.
Delaney
D,-Hums
Duunholm.
Dent
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Dow
Drinan
Kastenmeier
Kee
Kluczynski
Koch
Kyros
Leggett
Lent
Link
Long, Md.
McCloskey
McCormack
McDade
McFall
McKay
McKinney
Macdonald,
Mass.
Madden
Mailliard
Roybal
Runnels
St Germain
Sarbanes
Saylor
Seiberling
Shipley
Sisk
Slack
Staggers
Stanton,
James V.
Steed
Steele
Stokes
Stratton
Sullivan
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, N.J.
Tiernan
Udall
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Vigorito
Waldie
Whalen
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wolff
Wright
Yates
Yatron
Dulski Matsunaga
Dwyer Mazzoli
Eckhardt Melcher
Edwards, Calif. Metcalfe
Eilberg Mikva
Evans, Colo. Mills, Ark.
kvins, Tenn. Minish
I'ascell Mink
Flood Mitchell
Foley Mollohan
Ford, Monagan
William D. Moorhead
Fraser Morgan
Germatz Moss
Abbitt
Abernethy
Anderson, 111.
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Archer
Arends
Baker
Baring
Belcher
Bennett
Betts
Blackburn
Bow
Bray
Brinkley
Brotzman
Brown, Mich.
Brown., Ohio
Broyhill., N.C.
Broyhill., Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burleson, Tex.
Byrnes, Wis.
Byron
Cabell
Camp
Carlson.
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
NAYS-198
Chappell Ford, Gerald R.
Clancy Forsythe
Clausen, Fountain
Don H. Frelinghuysen
Clawson, Del Frenzel
Cleveland Frey
Collier Fuqua
Collins, Tex. Galiflanakis
Colmer Gettys
Conable Goldwater
Conover Goodling
Coughlin Griffin
Crane Gross
Curlin Grover
Daniel, Va. Gubser
Davis, Wis. Haley
de la Garza Hall
Dellenback Hammer-
Dennis schmidt
Derwinski Harsha
Devine Harvey
Dickinson Hastings
Dorn Heinz
Downing Henderson
Duncan Hogan
du Pont Hosmer
Edwards, Ala. Hull
Erlenborn Hunt
Esch Johnson, Pa.
Eshleman Jonas
Findley Jones, N.C.
Fish Kazen
Fisher Keating
Flowers Keith
Kemp
Pickle
Stanton.
King
Pirnie
J. William
Kuykendall
Poage
Steiger, Ariz.
Kyl
Poll
Stephens
Landgrebe
Powell
Stubblefield
Latta
Preyer, N.C.
Talcott
Lennon
Price, Tex.
Taylor
Lloyd
Purcell
Teague, Calif.
Lujan
Quie
Terry
Mcclory
Quillen
Thompson, Ga.
McCollister
Railsback
Thomson, Wis.
McCulloch
Rhodes
Thone
McEwen
Robinson, Va.
Veysey
McKevitt
Robison, N.Y.
Waggonner
Mahon
Rogers
Wampler
Mallary
Rousselot
Ware
Mann
Ruppe
Whalley
Martin
Ruth
White
Mathias, Calif.
Satterfield
Whitehurst
Mathis, Ga.
Scherle
Whitten
Mayne
Schmitz
Widnall
Michel
Schneebeli
Wiggins
Miller, Ohio
Schwengel
Williams
Mills, Md.
Scott
Wilson, Bob
Mizell
Sebelius
Winn
Montgomery
Shoup
Wyatt
Mosher
Shriver
Wydler
Myers
Sikes
Wylie
Natcher
Skubitz
Wyman
Nelsen
Smith, Calif.
Young, Fla.
Nichols
Smith, N.Y.
Zion
Passman
Snyder
Zwach
Pelly
Spence
Pettis
Springer
Alexander
Hagan
Minshall
Anderson,
Hansen, Idaho
Nedzi
Tenn.
Hansen, Wash,
Patman
Ashbrook
Harrington
Rarick
Blanton
Hebert
Roberts
Blatnik
Hutchinson
Rooney, N.Y.
Broomfield
Jarman
Ryan
Caffery
Jones, Tenn.
Sandman
Clay
Landrum
Scheuer
Daniels, N.J..
Long, La.
Smith, Iowa
Davis, Ga.
McClure
Steiger, Wis.
Dowdy
McDonald,
Stuckey
Edmondson
Mich.
Symington
Flynt
McMillan
Vander Jagt
Fulton
Meeds
Gallagher
Miller, Calif.
So the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs :
On this vote:
Mr. Rooney of New York for, with Mr.
Hebert against.
Mr. Ryan for, with Mr. Hagan against.
Mr. Fulton for, with Mr. Dowdy against.
Mr. Daniels of New Jersey for, with Mr.
Jones of Tennessee against.
Mr. Blanton for, with Mr. Ashbrook against.
Mr. Blatnik for, with Mr. McClure against.
Mrs. Hansen of Washington for, with Mr.
Vander Jagt against.
Mr. Harrington for, with Mr. Steiger of
Wisconsin against.
Mr. Nedzi for, with Mr. Hansen of Idaho
against.
Mr. Meeds for, with Mr. Flynt against.
Mr. Anderson of Tennessee for, with Mr.
Hutchinson against.
Mr. Symington for, with Mr. Roberts
against.
Mr. Smith of Iowa for, with Mr. Stuckey
against.
Mr. Edmondson for, with Mr. Jarman
against.
Mr. Clay for, with Mr. McMillan against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Minshall.
Mr. Miller of California with Mr. McDon-
ald of Michigan.
Mr. Caffery with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Broomfield.
Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Davis of Georgia.
Mr. Patman with Mr. Rarick.
Mr. SAYLOR changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400140016-6
 ^ UNCLASSIFIED IN?ERNAI. ?n
PIP lM9/01/10 ? CID_RfP73 99 (Rdi1M1R_RI-1 SECRET
nnrnvvPd Fn &
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
Director of Personnel
EXTENSION
NO. ... / /
04 C.
5 }{.+ 56 Hqs
j n N 9
DATE V JAN
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
DATE
building)
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
STATINTL
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1. OLC
Hqs
't J) ~35
We foresee no unfavorable
"
2.
impact{
the pending legislation
with respect to the raise in
minimum wage. However, the
3.
legislation is in conflict with
the present law and CSC
regulations for federal employees
4.
which limits overtime to one
and one-half times the minimum
rate of GS-l0.
5.
We understand OGC is also
pointing this out and suggesting
6.
that it be brought to the
attention of appropriate members
of the House Civil Service
7.
Committee. We concur with this
action.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
- DP7
B00296R000400140016-6
FORM 61 0 USE PREVIOUS INTERNAL
3-62 EDITIONS [I SECRET ^ CONFIDENTIAL ^ USE ONLY ^ UNCLASSIFIED
 Cl WECLASSI F
roved r F 1'd&WX2002/01/10: CIA-RDR BQ flf WPfi jgAl40016-6 0 SECRET
l__t USE ONLY
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
OLC 71-2121
OLC 7D35
DATE
22 Dec. 1971
ro; (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.) b
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
i.
OGC
2/22/7
k
Attached is a bill (H. R. 7130)
amending the Fair Labor
2.
Standards Act of 1938. Of interest
J SW
0"
7 /
S
to us is that the bill carries
de
h in
l
hi
t
d
c
u
s w
amen
men
c
3.
Federal employment under the
0
L
minimum wage and overtime
.
4.
provisions of the Act as amended.,
May we have your views one
the impact of the pending legis-
5,
lation and your recommendations.
6.
7.
8.
9.
'10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Approved For Rele
se 200
/01/10:
IA-RDP
3B00296R000400140016-6
F~'It t t ,~4t rcE sus SECRET f l C FIDI IMTERNAtl,