CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

August 24, 1966

Page 20490

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think that I have covered the entire subject, as referred to by the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], in the presentation of the amendment. The amendment is not entirely unrelated. I cannot agree to that.

This is a labor bill dealing with the terms and conditions and compensation of employees. It has many provisions with respect to overtime which relate to unionized employees, bus workers, and many other types of employees. The union collective bargaining problems are very real with regard to the bill.

But I would not pretend for a moment that this particular amendment which I propose to add is directly germane to the matter of minimum wages. It has a relevance to the labor picture, which is also dealt with in the bill.

I said clearly when I started that this is probably the only labor bill that will be passed this year and, hence, we are suggesting that it be used as a vehicle for something which seems to be generally agreed in both bodies of the Congress. It follows on the heels of an effort to do the same thing in the Senate, in the airlines strike bill, but it was aborted because the legislation was deemed to be not necessary in the House of Representatives.

I stated for myself that if it should appear in conference that this title would in any way interfere with the adoption of the minimum wage bill, I would be the first not to let it stand in the way.

Under those circumstances, it seems to me that what we are doing is entirely proper. This is not at all unusual in this body. We have done this time and again with bills that go to various committees to get a particular measure taken care of before Congress adjourns for the year.

The Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] is being incongruous. As I remember, he sought to override his own GI bill of rights, which was an excellent piece of legislation, by an amendment on the most ungermane piece of legislation which possibly could have been attached.

I did not object. No one else objected. We are accustomed to that in this body. Hence, I think that this objection is not an appropriate one in a matter of this kind where time is of the essence. If we let the situation go now, another year will pass and we will have another emergency. For example, American Airlines is on a standby order now until September 28. Again, we are dealing with a big segment of the air transportation industry. Let us get something started to get out of this cul de sac in which we are lodged.

As I have said, this should not be allowed to interfere with the minimum wage bill. I will move heaven and earth to see that it does not.

I can see the validity of the objection. The Senator is proper in making his objection if he does not wish to take the amendment, and we will have to have the Senate decide the matter.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, legislation by way of nongermane amendments in the Senate has become a very germane procedure of legislating in the Senate. We do it over and over again. Of course, it would be very helpful to have this amendment adopted by the Senate and sent to conference, because it would be a very respectful notice sent to the administration that we think it has a clear obligation to make its recommendations by January to the Congress as to what, if anything, it proposes to do about the legislation for the handling of emergency disputes when those disputes arise, either under the jurisdiction of the Taft-Hartley Act or the Railway Labor Act.

I very well understand the position of the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]. I have stood in his place as the floor manager of a bill many times and made the same sort of argument which he has made in opposition to this amendment as floor manager of the bill.

But the responsibility rests not on the floor manager of the bill but on the Senate as a whole, and I think this amendment should go to a vote.

Mr. President, if there are sufficient Senators to request a rollcall vote, I call for it.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that request and yield to me?

Mr. MORSE. I believe that the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] has the floor.

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. We have just had a very reassuring statement by the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] that if we would accept the amendment, that he, as the ranking minority member on the committee and one who is certain to be on the conference committee -- as would the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] -- would not let it stand in the way of a minimum wage bill if the House did not accept it.

If the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] makes the same assurance, as one of the leading conferees on the part of the Senate and the majority, we can take it to conference.

Mr. MORSE. I shall fight as hard as I can to get it accepted in conference. That is the only commitment I can make.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I would like to ask the senior Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] if he speaks for the minority party.

Mr. JAVITS. No, I do not.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have the floor. I shall yield to the Senator, but first, I wish to finish my statement.

I think that my attitude is the same as that of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], but I do not speak for him. I speak for myself.

I, too, will fight very hard, to the limit of my power, to get this accepted by the conference, but I will not allow the minimum wage bill to fall because of my devotion to the amendment, if that is the way it should develop. I would not wish to be responsible, by my devotion to the amendment, for the minimum wage bill not being enacted. That is the meaning of my intention, and I restate it. I cannot speak for the Senator, but I feel as the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] does. I will fight to the limit of my power.

Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator reads the twinkle in the eyes of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] -- which will not appear in the RECORD -- he will have all the assurance he needs.

Mr. MORSE. Do not be fooled by twinkle.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. My opposition to the amendment has been based on its lack of germaneness, but it is deeper. The amendment presupposes that we do need legislation in this field. We have had no testimony in this connection on the Fair Labor Standards Act. There has been no testimony whether an amendment is needed to the Railway Labor Act or the Labor-Management Relations Act. I personally am not willing to prejudge the matter and say that we need an amendment and we want the administration to tell us that.

I think this is a complicated field and I would not vote for any amendment until after there was a complete hearing and a showing as to what kind of amendments were needed. I think the field of free collective bargaining is one of the basic freedoms in our entire American free enterprise system.

On the assurance of the distinguished Senator from New York that he will lead the conference representing his party, and that he will not, so far as he is personally concerned, let an amendment which is on an unrelated and ungermane subject stand in the way of a minimum

wage bill, I will agree to take it to conference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TYDINGS in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New York.

The amendment was agreed to.