It is my hope that this subcommittee, after a full exploration of the problems of employment bias, and the merits of a variety of remedial techniques, will find it possible to report favorably a fair employment practices bill adequate to our needs.

Senator Prouty.

Senator PROUTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should like to say at the outset that I am greatly concerned about all aspects of our unemployment and civil rights problems in this country, and because I am ranking representative on the Education Subcommittee and on this subcommittee as well as a member of the Commerce Committee, I am deeply immersed in all facets of the problem. I suppose I am uniquely so since each of the bills involving unemployment, education, and civil rights has kept me in committee chairs during almost this entire session.

In these hearings which begin today, the situation for me is beginning to jell. Here, unemployment and civil rights have merged and before we are through I would not be surprised if that does not also happen in the Education Subcommittee, on which I also serve.

We all recognize the existence of the evil of unemployment and the evils of discrimination on the grounds of race. But simply to recognize that the problems are complex and difficult will not make them go away. They are with us and their answers are elusive. Dealing with them constantly has not been easy and I do not expect that these hearings will be easy either.

In my first look over the bills now pending before us I see at least two concepts proposed which seek to get at the problem of discrimination in employment. They represent what has been termed a traditional and a new approach, and in many aspects they appear at odds with one another. It would seem, though, that what is traditional is not bad simply because it is traditional, and what is new is not necessarily bad merely because it is new.

As I see it, our immediate problem is to discover whether or not these two concepts are compatible and whether or not they can be synthesized; then I suppose we must decide whether or not they should be synthesized.

Thirdly, our job will probably be to see if we can work the pending bills in mesh one with another, and finally, whether that mesh itself will be necessary and appropriate legislation.

I am sure that these hearings will prove interesting; I know that they will be difficult, and there is no doubt that the challenge they represent will require us to prove ourselves equal to it. Thank you. Senator CLARK. I would like to associate myself with what Senator Prouty has said. We are engaged in an exploration here of these four bills and it may well be that as hearings proceed other suggestions will be made which we will look on with favor which are not included in any of the bills.

My own bill, S. 773, was in substance drafted in the fall of 1960 at the request of President Kennedy carrying into effect the platform amendments of the Democratic national platform of that year.

However, until this morning we have not had any comments from the administration on that or any other bill. I hope we will have them this morning.

Our first witness is the Honorable John F. Henning, Under Secretary of Labor.

We are very happy to have you here, Mr. Henning. I think for the record I should say that we had anticipated having Secretary Wirtz as our first witness, but he received a hurry call from the Commerce Committee to apear before them in connection with the recommended legislation dealing with the threatened railroad strike and rather than postpone these hearings, and knowing your own personal capabilities in this regard, we were happy to accept you as a very worthy substitute of your boss.

Mr. HENNING. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. We have your statement here with the charts. I will ask that it be placed in the record in full at this point, and then will you please proceed in your own way, sir?

(The prepared statement of Mr. Henning follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. HENNING, UNDER SECRETARY OF LABOR

President Kennedy said, in his message on civil rights and job opportunities: "This problem of unequal job opportunity must not be allowed to grow, as the result of either recession or discrimination. I enlist every employer, every labor union, and every agency of government *** in the task of seeing to it that no false lines are drawn in assuring equality of the right and opportunity to make a decent living."

Underscoring his words, the President stated:

"I renew my support of pending Federal fair employment practices legislation, applicable to both employers and unions."

I hope I may be helpful to this subcommittee by identifying the extent of this problem, and by developing in more detail the elements of the conviction the President expressed.

It is hard to measure accurately the extent of unfair employment practice, of unequal employment opportunity, of job discrimination. Perhaps the fairest. and sufficient, argument is simply that there is such discrimination, that any such discrimination is wrong, that it ought to be stopped, and the Federal legislative action is necessary to accomplish this.

There are, however, meaningful indications of the extent of discriminatory employment practices as between white and nonwhite employees. These indications are contained in the breakdown of the figures for white and nonwhite employment in various occupations and the figures for unemployment.

These figures reflect end results. They do not show reasons or explanations. But there can be no question about what they mean in terms of inequality of opportunity.

EXTENT AND CHARACTER OF MINORITY UNEMPLOYMENT

The unemployment rate for nonwhites as a whole is today over twice as high as for whites-in May, 10.3 percent compared with 5.0 percent. Among married men with family responsibilities, the difference is even wider, 8 percent compared with 3 percent.

The Negro's disadvantage is especially severe when it comes to the better paying, more desirable types of jobs. Chart 1 shows that among laborers the nonwhite unemployment rate is about one-third greater, and in the skilled occupations it is over twice as great.

Today's unemployment strikes hardest at younger workers. In May this year, as chart 2 shows, the rate for nonwhite teenage boys was nearly 25 percent, but 17 percent for white boys. For girls the difference was even wider-33 percent compared with 18 percent.

The nonwhite minorities suffer a disproportionate amount of the hard-core or long-term unemployment. Although they constitute only 11 percent of the work force, they make up 25 percent of all workers unemployed for 6 months or more.

Chart 3 summarizes the unemployment story in a way which highlights discrimination. Year by year since 1947 the nonwhite unemployment rate has fluctuated at a level well above the white rate, but the gap between the rates has been least when there are employment opportunities for everyone, as during the postwar boom and the Korean war. Since the mid-1950's, with generally rising unemployment and slower economic growth, the Negro has paid a disproportionately higher price.

Two facts must be faced and faced squarely in evaluating the employment and unemployment figures. First, the disproportionate unemployment and underemployment of Negroes reflects, in part, the fact that a smaller percentage of Negroes are qualified for the jobs (above the unskilled level) which are available in today's work market. But second, the reason this is true is that previously discrimination has resulted, directly or indirectly, in Negroes either being denied equal educational and training opportunity or in their being discouraged from using the opportunity they had.

EDUCATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT

There is a clear and close correlation between employment and education. and the only long-range guarantee of equal employment opportunity is equal education and training; but we must be honest in the recognition that discrimination is a cause as well as a result of unequal education and training.

There is disquieting evidence, furthermore, that while education clearly improves a Negro's job opportunity, it does not improve it as much as it does for whites.

Chart 4 indicates that in 1940, only 7 percent of nonwhite men of working age had a high school education or more; by 1960, the percentage had risen to 20. In the prime working ages of 25 to 44, the increase was even more impressivefrom 8 percent in 1940 to 29 percent in 1960. In contrast, in occupations in which education is an important factor in hiring, job opportunities for these men opened up comparatively little in the two decades. The proportion of Negroes in the professional, technical, managerial, and clerical occupations increased from 5 to 11 percent of the Negro employed civilian labor force in the 20 years. Thus, although a much larger proportion of Negroes had attained the capability of performing in such occupations by 1960, relatively few were employed in them.

The percentage of Negroes in better occupations tends to rise, of course, with their education, but there is great disparity between the rates of improvement between nonwhite and white men as shown in chart 5. Among those workers with no high school education in 1962, 60 out of every 100 white persons were in semiskilled and unskilled occupations, compared with 85 out of every 100 nonwhite persons. At the upper end of the educational ladder, for those with 1 year or more of college education, the proportion of white men in these lower end jobs declined to 11 percent, whereas the proportion of nonwhite men dropped only to 33 percent. In other words, whereas the differential in occupational achievement between the races at the lower education levels was only about 40 percent, at the upper level the differential becomes 200 percent.

Nearly 33 out of every 100 nonwhite men who had gone to college ended up in some type of laboring or semiskilled occupation, more than three times as many as among white men. Only two-fifths of the nonwhite men with some college education were in professional and technical work, compared with threefifths of the white men. At every educational level, a much larger proportion of nonwhites than of whites falls into occupations offering the lowest status and opportunity.

Recent high school graduates would be the group in which we should expect improvement in occupational opportunity, if there had been significant changes in the attitudes of employers during the past few years. However, a study of those young people who were not enrolled in college does not indicate measurable advances. (See chart No. 6.)

At the very start of their working careers, fewer than one out of four of the nonwhite high school graduates obtained jobs in the clerical and sales field. as compared with 40 percent or more among comparable white youth. Almost one-half of the nonwhite high school graduates 16 to 24 years old were in service or laboring jobs.

One would expect that the older group of high school graduates, who had been in the labor force for several years, would have been able to move up into

But it

better occupations. This did happen among the white youngsters-only 11 percent of those who graduated before 1960 were at the lower end of the occupational scale compared with 20 percent of the more recent graduates. did not happen among the nonwhites; the ratio was close to 50 percent among both the newer and the more experienced graduates.

Evidence of the difference between earnings of white and nonwhite workers of similar education and occupation has been developed by Dr. Herman Miller, of the Bureau of the Census, who will discuss the data on this with you in some detail later this week. (See charts 7 and 8.)

In every occupational group, and in virtually every occupation, the median earnings of nonwhite male workers in 1960 were substantially less than the earnings of white men with the same education. If we compare the earnings in an occupation as between nonwhite workers two or three notches ahead of white men in schooling we find that the earnings of the nonwhite men with more school years are nevertheless almost always lower and often substantially lower. In many occupations the Negro who has some college education earns no more than white men with only an elementary school education. The average professional or technical worker who is nonwhite and has completed college earns less than a white worker in the same occupation who has completed only the 8th grade.

EFFECTIVENESS AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

However, there is a most revealing and notable set of exceptions, as shown in chart No. 8. In occupations such as mail carriers, protective service workers, and bus drivers-in which the workers are largely municipal or Federal employees and under fair employment practices regulations-the earnings of nonwhite men equal or are close to those of white men of similar education.

The need for legislation is demonstrated in chart 9. This chart shows that in the Federal civil service and in the Armed Forces, in which fair employment practices are mandatory and under review, Negroes have attained a substantially larger share of occupations requiring skill and responsibility than in the private economy.

Much remains to be accomplished even in the civil service and the Military Establishment, but substantial progress has been made, and the pace has quickened in recent years. Virtually all of the change in the extent of Negro employment has occurred in the civil service since President Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802, June 25, 1941, creating a Fair Employment Practices Committee; and in the armed services as a result of President Truman's Executive Order 9981 of July 1948. Before 1948 the Armed Forces were largely segregated and before 1941 few Negroes could be found in skilled crafts, clerical, or professional civil service jobs in the Federal civil service.

It is obvious that without uniform guidelines, and without enforcement and review procedures, little is accomplished. One waits for the other. Private industry needs these guidelines on a common basis, just as the Federal establishment needed them.

ECONOMIC NEED FOR FAIR EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

The process of equal opportunity for employment can and must be speeded up in the interests of the present and future of the Nation's economy. Some will ask how, when unemployment rates are high, nondiscrimination in hiring, by itself, can create jobs and contribute to economic growth. The answer is easy. It arises from the need for improving the utilization and therefore the productivity of the labor force. Many technical and professional jobs are available and cannot be filled because minorities are not traditionally chosen to fill them. Negroes who are forced to take jobs beneath their capabilities and cannot aspire for advancement do not inspire their children to improve their education to meet a similar blank wall. In this way, many talented professional and technical people may be lost to the labor force from lack of incentive.

This does not mean that Negroes do not aspire for whatever advancement or opportunities exist. Witness the impressive mass migration of Negroes, particularly the younger adults, from the South. Some of this migration can be held to have harmed the national economy. Industry has been seeking labor and markets in the South, but according to recently released census statistics for 1960, 12 percent of the young nonwhite people age 25-29-those most recently and probably better educated-left the South for other regions of the United States within the previous 5 years. Much of the South's future pool of trained

and resourceful labor is drifting away. The growing trend toward expansion of industry to the South could well be hampered by lack of recruits. At pres ent many technicians are imported by southern firms at great cost.

Statistics, necessary and useful as they are, are poor vehicles for projecting the very human stories that they represent. The dramatic numerical disparities contain countless instances of frustration and disappointment for the individuals who labor under the disadvantages of inequality. They reflect a situation which exits despite the dedicated efforts of many public and private agencies and individuals, such as State and local fair employment practices agencies and the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

FUNDAMENTALS OF EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION

These facts call for speedy action now to fashion a remedy in the form of a law. The bills to provide this remedy lie before this committee now.

S. 773 and S. 1210 contain the basic elements for an effective Federal law to deal with this situation.

First, the legislation should have broad coverage, including not only employers, but employment agencies, labor organizations, and apprenticeship programs, but leaving Government agencies and contractors under title VII of the President's Civil Rights Act of 1963.

Second, it should provide for the full use of conciliation to effect compliance, but it must also contain effective enforcement procedures for those cases which cannot be settled by conciliation. Experience under State laws shows how much can be done through conciliation where legal sanctions can be invoked.

Third, enforcement of a fair employment practices law should be vested in an administrative agency whose decisions are enforcible through the Federal courts of appeal. This is the pattern that has been used in similar social legislation such as that directed against unfair labor and unfair trade practices. This type of administrative enforcement is best suited for the complicated questions which will arise and makes possible uniformity of application throughout the country.

Fourth, the administrative agency must be given authority to act in the public interest and not be limited to remedying the complaints of individuals. We cannot rely exclusively on victims of discrimination to effectuate the public policy insuring true equality. In this connection it is important that the agency be given authority to deal with patterns of discriminatory practices where they exist and not merely isolated instances of individual discrimination.

There will necessarily be differences on the details of fair employment legislation, but I pledge you every assistance that this Department can render in working on whatever problems must be solved.

The time for action has come.

The country is ready. Why are Negroes accepted in certain occupations and not in others in many cities? A report by the Florida Council on Human Relations tells about a young Negro woman, hired as a maid by a jewelry store, and required to wear her maid's uniform, who does all of the store's bookkeeping and earns a bookkeeper's salary. In Houston it was considered a breakthrough in Negro employment when a large supermarket recently hired a Negro girl with a college degree as a checker. Negroes do not qualify as telephone opera tors in New Orleans, but have been accepted in Memphis. What but ridicule can be made of this?

Without statutory support, many States, localities, and individual employers and labor unions who want to do the right thing cannot or will not move.

This Nation can no longer afford the economic waste and the human misery that result from discrimination in employment.

According to recent estimates of the Council of Economic Advisers, the gross national product could rise by 2.5 percent if the educational achievements of nonwhite workers were fully utilized by removing discrimination in employment. This estimate is conservative as the Council points out. It would be much higher, if one could quantify the effect of discrimination on uneconomical labor mobility and on the dampening of incentives.

But the most compelling argument for this legislation is neither to remedy economic problems nor to alleviate hardship-it is to secure justice. The administration, and I personally urge early enactment of fair employment prac tices legislation because it is right.