Some time limits for the Commission's action should be written into the law. Section 702 of the existing legislation should be clairified in order to make it There can be no justification for those who teach and preach in the name of democracy, equality and love to be exempted from practicing their dogma by hiring persons without regard to their race or color. We would hope that the provision giving to the Attorney General the authority and duty to conduct all litigation arising under the EEO Act would be modified to allow Commission to handle its cases at least to the level of the Courts of Appeals. Most Federal regulatory agencies handle litigation of their own cases. We see no reason for an exception here. The Commission will have the benefit of its own investigation of cases and the expertise in the handling the problems of employment discrimination. The Department of Justice could, of course, retain the right to intervene in cases that it feels relate to issues of national importance. The Department of Justice has under existing law the authority to institute litigation involving a pattern or practice of employment discrimination. The extremely selective and limited use that the Department has made of this authority indicates to us that it would be wise to allow the Commission to share in litigation as the agency involved in the on-going program to eliminate employment discrimination. The provision of Section 7 (c) of S. 1308, taking from the Commission the right to hire personnel and vesting it exclusively in the Chairman is, we believe, illadvised, and, we hope, unintended by the drafters of the legislation. The adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the rights now exercised by the Commission members collectively and seems to imply that they have not exercised it properly. We are sure that this is not the intention of the authors of the bill. The transfer of exclusive hiring authority to the Chairman could subject him to extreme pressure from patronage-seekers, a situation that should not be allowed in an agency dealing in this sensitive area of national affairs. While we have every confidence in the integrity of the present Chairman to resist such pressures, we do not know what the future may bring in a change of chairman, and we would not wish to run the risk that someone of lesser sensitivity may be exercising this broad grant of power. The Congress set the Commission up as a bipartisan body. We believe that this spirit of bipartisanship can be best preserved by allowing all members of the Commission to participate in selecting personnel. Further we believe that the existing harmonious relationships among the members could be adversely affected by this proposed change. All of these proposed changes we consider of importance. But of primary importance to us, as it has been through the years, is the idea of effective administrative enforcement. Therefore we consider the heart of the bill to be the grant of authority to the Commission to enforce its orders. Because of their importance to the aggrieved employees or job applicants, we ask that these administrative procedure provisions be amended to afford additional protection. We believe this could be affected by granting to the charging party the same right that is given the respondent the right to be a full party in the procedures before the Commission. If this right is granted to the charging party once reasonable cause is found, it would follow that he would have full opportunity to protect his rights, including the right to be a necessary party to any conciliation agreement, to participate and be representated by counsel in the hearing and to petition for enforcement or review of Commission orders. We respectfully urge that these rights be afforded him. In advancing these suggested changes, I trust that I have not diverted attention from our basic objective of assuring adequate enforcement of existing prohibitions against employment discrimination. I reiterate our long-standing support of a grant of adequate investigative and enforcement authority to the administrative agency enforcing the basic fair employment law. This is embodied in S. 1308. The enactment of these provisions into law would mark another giant step forward in our nation's continuing effort to extend the benefit of full equality to all of its citizens. PREPARED STATEMENT OF WHITNEY M. YOUNG, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; my name is Whitney M. Young, Jr., and I am Executive Director of the National Urban League. We appreciate your invitation and the opportunity it provides the Urban League to support this vitally needed legislation. To be effective, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needed enforcement power from its inception. We also wish to take this opportunity to commend Senators Clark and Javits, who are responsible for introducing this important piece of legislation. The legislation to which we address ourselves would make an indispensable contribution toward the protection of the equal employment rights of individuals. The major provision is that which grants EEOC the power to issue cease and desist orders. We believe that President Johnson, in his message to Congress, emphasized the need for cease and desist order power when he stated: "Unlike most Federal regulatory agencies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not given enforcement powers. If efforts to conciliate or persuade are unsuccessful, the Commission, itself, is powerless. For the individual discriminated against, there remains only a time consuming and expensive lawsuit." It is increasingly apparent, from the EEOC's brief operation, that more effective machinery for enforcement authority must be given to the Commission to bring about conciliation. We note that of thirty-five (35) States with EEPC laws, twenty-eight (28) provide for enforcement procedures. Of the remaining seven (7) that had initially relied upon voluntary compliance, four (4) have amended their laws to provide for enforcement procedures. Federal enforcement toward Equal Employment Opportunity continues to be a major issue with minority citizens. While the employment status of Negro workers has improved considerably during the past two decades, there remain significant differentials between white and Negro workers. In spite of the Nation's improved economic status, the employment position of Negroes continues to lag behind their white counterparts. Nation-wide studies document that they are still confined largely to the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, when employed. They are employed fewer hours per week and their unemployment rates are twice as high as those of whites. Negro men continue to earn sixty percent (60%) as much as white men, while Negro women earn a little more than half as much as white women. The lower earning power of Negro men makes it necessary for more Negro women to work than white women. Even more striking data is available on employment and unemployment from a recent study, conducted by the Department of Labor, entitled "A Sharper Look at Unemployment in U.S. Cities and Slums". Gathered from the twenty (20) largest U.S. Metropolitan areas, it reveals an unemployment rate that varies greatly from two point seven per cent (2.7%) in Washington, D.C. to five point two per cent (5.2%) in San Francisco and six per cent (6%) in Los Angeles. In ten (10) of these areas, the rate is significantly above the national averaET df about 3 to four per cent 47. In five 5. t is about the same it. significantly lower. Ave 3 others it The non-white unemployment rate is about three times higher that the white unemployment rate in eight (8 of these areas, two 2 times higher it. sx more and fifty per sem (50%, higher in two (2) others. This study partially corrects. for the first time a fant which had heer discovered in the 1960 Census-le, the missing completely of a large number of Negroes; one out d every six (6) Negro mer between the ages of tweng (20) and thirty (30), This means that past nor-white unemployment figures have understated the ETRATION SUDSTAntaly The highest employment rates in the twelve (12) larger areas, covered by the study for fouter 14 Innereer 19 year-old non-whites range from. egieen point four per cent 16.4% in Washington, DC, I thirty-six per cent 3 in Philadelphia. The rate is above thirty per cent 30%) in seven (7 of these areas. Vary of the differentials in the employment status of Negroes are due to their inability to obtain jobs commensurate with their training. Likewise, discrimingtory hiring practices adversely affect both the Negro individually and the tomat esinomy. They account for the disproportionate representation on the pnhầë welfare rolls. Discrimination in employment has a greater direct and indirect impact on the AFDC Program than any other single socio-economic factor. It canses desertion, divorce and unwed parenthood with all their concomitant personal, social and economic costs. It also has similar significant causal relation ships to memployment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established, engendered great hope that this mechanism would deal meaningfully with the problems surrounding discrimina tion in employment. The actual agency experience, which has demonstrated that the Commission cannot enforce compliance, has given rise to distlusionment and lack of confidence. These conditions have led the American Negro to suspect that legislation, supposedly guaranteed to provide equality of opportunity, is full of loopholes and political terminology. He is rapidly losing faith in the democratic process to achieve his goal of equality of opportunity, Within the next few months, the Federal Government will sponsor a Concentrated Employment Program in nineteen of our major cities throughout the country. The Government will spend from two and one-half to eight million dollars in each selected city. The ultimate objective of this program is to make it possible for the unemployed slum residents to obtain and hold regular jobs, primarily in the private sector of the economy. The immediate short range goal is to provide twenty-five thousand to forty thousand new jobs for previously unemployed slum residents. Many of the people participating in this crash effort will be Negroes, who, because of prior deprivation and discrimination, need all of the legislative tangibles to assist them in becoming productive and useful citizens. They cannot become discouraged. in their desires to attain full equality of opportunity, by additional "token legislation" to appease the wishes of a few, while ignoring the crying needs of the disadvantaged poor. The Urban League's fifty-seven (57) years of existence have been dedicated to the cause of equality of opportunity. Through our Job Development Program, Skills Bank Program, and more recently, our On the Job Training Program, we have worked with thousands of business and industry personnel. In these efforts, we have been and are still being thwarted by subtle and overt discriminatory practices, that are perpetrated by biased employers who hide be hind the legislative jargon, to deny compliance. At present, we have no leverage which requires violators to terminate their unlawful policies and practices. We feel that the proposed legislation improves tremendously upon the present Act. Therefore, we are in general agreement with most of its provisions. How ever, we would like to submit some suggestions regarding the provisions listed below. It seems appropriate that there should be a provision for the Commission to effect its own litigation. This should also include employers who hold government contracts and are under Executive Order 11246. This would serve as a dual control to insure maximum compliance under the law. We strongly recommend that greater consideration be given to the "charging party" involved. Under the proposed legislation, the charging party has little involvement with conciliation and agreements can be worked out between gov ernment representatives and management. We also strongly feel that an aggrieved person should be able to institute a civil action against the respondent named in the charge in the appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any state or local court of competent jurisdiction. This protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of the nature and size of the act. The National Urban League's experience demonstrates the need for the pending legislation. I wish to thank you for inviting me to present this testimony, in behalf of the National Urban League. The problems we face in the coming months and years may well rest in your hands. In addition to the moral implications, there is a dollar-and-cents logic to equal employment opportunity. There are some costs which taxpayers are shelling out, because of Jim Crow, that could easily be eliminated. There are the billions spent on public welfare; there is the cost of public housing, much of which would be unnecessary if more Negroes could buy their own homes; there is the cost of sending thousands of building inspectors into the field every day to ferret out violations of slum landlords; there is the cost of arresting, jailing, trying, and paroling teen-age colored boys for purse snatching because they can't find work. These items in America's Bigotry Budget cost taxpayers more than twenty billion dollars a year. This twenty billion dollars, which we are virtually throwing away, is equivalent to all U.S. exports abroad with all the one hundredthirty nations of the world. In the opinion of W. W. Heller, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, lifting the income of Negroes to that of whites would double their current rate of economic growth. If the non-white labor force earned as much as their white counterparts, Negroes would spend an additional three point six billion dollars on food; one point seven billion dollars on clothing; one point five billion dollars on housing; one point three billion dollars on household operation; one point two billion dollars on cars and transportation; one point two billion dollars on recreation and amusement; five hundred million dollars more on utilities; and eight million dollars more on personal care and miscellaneous items. You have an obligation, I believe, to give a ray of hope to the deprived— those who have been deprived, by circumstances, in the past. You must make sure that disadvantaged persons will have the full equality of opportunity, that our economy demands. Thank you. Senator CLARK. Gentlemen, in addition to your general comments supporting the administration bill, each of you has made specific recommendations for amendments. Mr. Young, as I read his statement, makes three suggested changes, Mr. Greenberg seven, Mr. Wilkins seven, and some if not all of these changes overlap. They are all useful and provocative. Some of them are pretty technical. I am going to ask counsel for the subcommittee to analyze these proposed amendments and make a report to the subcommittee advising as to which of the amendments should be adopted. I will also ask counsel for the subcommittee to confer with the administration witnesses, Mr. Shulman, Secretary Wirtz and the Attorney General, to see to what extent these changes are acceptable to the administration. Mr. Rauh and Mr. Mitchell did not submit prepared statements and I would suggest, gentlemen, that you pick a leader and let him start the discussion going forward. Since, as is sometimes the case, I am the only member of the subcommittee present and I have read the statements, it does not seem to make much sense to read them again; so that I would ask you gentlemen to proceed in your own way. You have plenty of time. On the other hand, I hope we will not go over, to too great an extent, ground which is already covered in the statements. Mr. Wilkins. A PANEL CONSISTING OF ROY WILKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. WILKINS. Senator Clark, it is our understanding that the papers Senator CLARK. I hope you are not Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Mr. WILKINS. But, in any case, we thought we would have just a STATEMENT OF JACK GREENBERG, DIRECTOR-COUNSEL, NAACP Mr. GREENBERG. Mr. Wilkins, I am astonished. It is the first time that "g" has been first in the alphabet. Senator CLARK. You are lucky you haven't a Clark down there. Mr. GREENBERG. I would only like to say a word or two to emphasize several matters in the prepared statement. As you have indicated, some of the observations in the prepared statements are substantive and some more or less technical. I would like to say a word or two about some of the substantive matters. To me the most important substantive contribution that this new bill makes is that it gives the power to the Commission to bring cease and desist proceedings against offenders. Long ago we learned in the implementation of public law in America the public policy of the United States cannot be enforced unless it is enforced by the Federal Government as, for example, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Labor Relations Act, and so forth, and I think it is entirely appropriate with So grave a problem as title VII addresses itself to, and at least as serious, unquestionably more serious than some of the other subjects, that the EEOC under this new bill would have power to enforce over a broad scale throughout the country the law far more pervasively than any private parties can do. At the same time, we enforce another provision of the law which we think is equally important and that is that provision of the law that preserves the right of private suit. Private suit, I should say, has been |