nite forward step in the overall goal of guaranteeing equal employment opportunity in all sectors of the American economy.

A NATIONAL PROBLEM

Nevertheless I believe the facts fully substantiate the position that a comprehensive program to provide equal opportunity-particularly in the nongovernmental areas of employment-must be enacted by Congress. The challenge is clearly national in scope. It is not confined to one region of the country. It is not limited to any particular industries or occupations. The total American economy is involved and only the Federal Government possesses the resources and the authority-as contained in the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (art. I, sec. 8)-that are required to achieve meaningful results. It is this Senator's opinion that we must begin to consider a program of Federal fair employment practices geared to an economy vastly different from the one existing in the late 1940's when the initial State FEP commissions were created.

We must begin to think in terms of establishing a Federal program that will operate simultaneously in two fronts. First, we must be able to insure equal employment opportunity in an economic system where certain types of jobs are suddenly disappearing and other totally new categories of jobs are being created. This is an immensely complex and challenging task in itself. We must be prepared to think in terms of all incidents of employment, hiring, transfer, recruitment, training, promotion, and apprenticeship. In other words, the employment process must be viewed in its totality. And when you discuss fair employment practices now you discuss the total process, not just the matter of applying for the job. We must understand that every aspect of the process has a definite relationship to the existence of equal employment opportunity.

Second, we must continue to fight all forms of job discriminations and restrictions based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Unfortunately in all sections of the country and in almost all occupations, overt racial discrimination is still a standard practice. We have made definite progress and the rate of progress is accelerating. But much remains to be done and we can scarcely afford to postpone our responsibilities much longer.

According to the traditional approach emphasis has been placed upon the adjudication of complaints, and here is where any legislation differs from what we have been considering. The traditional approach that I have always supported and I think that has had the broad support of many others is to place the emphasis upon the adjudication of complains filed by aggrieved individuals. Conciliation between the two parties-employer and applicant, employer and employee, or union and apprentice candidate has been the primary basis of action. Experience has suggested that the complaint-centered approach is not sufficiently productive in itself and in many instances administrators of State FEP commissions and Federal agencies have increasingly tried to deal with discrimination on an industry or pattern-centered basis. In other words, not to wait for the complaint to be filed and for a commission to act like a court.

Complaints are filed due to a lack of understanding. Many complaints that come to official notice are lacking sufficient merit or have been filed too late to reach at satisfactory solution. Those with merit often require formal adjudication to resolve. The number of complaints acted upon by all 22 States and by 10 Federal committees over the past 20 years has not averaged 100 per month. I think this tells its own story; obviously there are patterns of discrimination that are much deeper and much deeper than a hundred complaints a month. Over the same period, the number of hearings or appeals actually held by all of the State FEP commissions or Federal committees has not averaged 12 per year. Moreover, the process of identifying problems, analyzing specific employment practices or personal procedures, working out adjustments, is not-in my opinion-a process that is effectively administered or controlled by an independent multimember hearing board. For these reasons, the legislation I introduce today provides for a single administrator with authority to initiate surveys, studies, and investigations and to issue appropriate remedial orders as well as the more traditional authority of responding to individual complaints of discrimination.

Senator CLARK. We are certainly going to take a very hard and careful look at those provisions of your bill. I would point out for the record the S. 773 in section 7-b at line 11 on page 10 does authorize written charges to be filed by a member of the Commission or by an officer, agent, or employee of the Commission. This, in fact, is selfstarting complaint procedure without the need for adversary complaint being filed by an aggrieved individual.

However, it may well be that your language would be more comprehensive and we are certainly going to give it very careful consideration. Senator HUMPHREY. I am aware, may I say, Mr. Chairman, of that language in S. 773 and I agree with you that it does permit and authorize self-starting action or initiative on the part of a member, an agent of the Commission, or the Commission.

I wanted to bring this point out because I think this is in a sense the heart and core of what we are trying to do here. It is not just a matter of whether it is a commission or a single administrator. I think that is debatable which is desirable. I think the important thing is that whether it is a commission, a multimember commission, or a single administrator in charge of FEP programs, that the Commission or the Administrator have the authority and be so directed to seek out necessary discriminatory patterns and seek remedies for them, and to promulgate remedies and regulations and studies and surveys. And why do I say this? The patterns of discrimination are not only socially undesirable but they are economically costly. They are a burden on the economy. I do not think you can have economic growth in this country as you need it, and economic development as you need it, and the best use of your manpower resources, unless you have the proper agent or instrumentality of Government to promote the maximum use of our economy and to promote the better use of our personnel or our manpower; that is why I think this emphasis is so required.

Senator CLARK. This so-called self-starting complaint procedure is in many ways, is it not, analogous to the powers that you propose to give the Attorney General under what has been come to be called part 3 of the civil rights legislation? Some years ago the Senator will recall

that that became a very controversial matter. I always thought it was highly desirable. Is this not pretty much the same thing in an administrative field?

Senator HUMPHREY. It is very much the same thing because it permits a responsible officer or instrumentality of Government to seek out the areas of difficulty and to propose remedies, solutions or adjustments. I think that if you really want to get at the problem you have got to have that kind of authority.

Senator CLARK. One of the objections which no doubt will be raised, I do not share it, but it will be raised, is that we are giving a dual function to this administrator or commission in that he sits in a quasijudicial capacity to pass on complaints and to issue administrative orders which in turn are subject to appeal to the courts; but also we give the initiating authority to start a complaint itself which is to some extent at variance with the quasi-judicial nature of the administrative body.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes; the Board under S. 773 would do that, but in my bill the Administrator would have the authority to initiate the studies, the surveys, and the actions; however, there is proposed in my bill a fair employment board of appeal to which an individual can appeal any Administrator's ruling or an industry or an occupation group.

Senator CLARK. Would this be analogous to the procedure before the National Labor Relations Board?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes; somewhat.

Senator JAVITS. Would the Senator allow me to interject at this point that we have done something like that in the State of New York, and as a matter of experience for the committee I would like to note for the record the new procedure in New York State for initiating employment practices cases. Governor Rockefeller has just used his executive authority to expand the power of our State Human Rights Commission with respect to this very thing, working in cooperation with the industrial commissioner.

Senator CLARK. I will point out to the Senator that the New York State commissioner will be before us next Monday.

Senator JAVITS. I just thought in bearing out Senator Humphrey's idea, we have just had to do that in New York. The power to issue complaints or even the question of general policies which involves discrimination had to be vested in the State Human Rights Commissioner.

Senator HUMPHREY. You found that through the experience of the application of the law?

Senator JAVITS. Exactly, it bears out what the Senator has said. Senator HUMPHREY. Let me just describe the scope of the proposed Administrator's duties in my bill.

I think it has become increasingly evident that many of the problems associated with the lack of employment opportunities result from the existing practices in the process of public and private employment. practices not directly related to overt discrimination. For example, there are recruiting systems which never locate qualified Negro technicians and typists because Negroes normally do not attend the trade and technical schools on the recruiter's schedule. Whether or not

stenography courses are offered in vocational high schools where Negro students are concentrated, whether or not trainees for new jobs are selected only from departments where Negroes have never worked, whether or not promotions are based upon job experience in assignments which Negroes have never held each of these examples illustrates how broad employment and personnel systems have direct impact upon equal employment opportunities. In short, willful discrimination is often commingled with many impersonal institutional processes which nevertheless determine the availability of jobs for nonwhite employees.

Therefore, this legislation departs from the traditional concept of enforcing nondiscrimination in employment and seeks to establish the broader and more comprehensive obligation of promoting equal employment opportunities. Instead of, in other words, being the policeman, you are in a sense here being the affirmative worker. Thus the administrator is charged with the responsibility to see that no person subject to the act denies equality of treatment in employment and all incidents of employment including not only hiring, promotion, transfer, and seniority, but also the related areas of recruitment, recruitment advertising, apprenticeship, and training opportunities, membership in employee and labor organizations, and equality of access to the various facilities and services of employment agencies. This is his job, to see that there is no discrimination in any of these activities.

The administrator has the authority to initiate appropriate investigations to insure that persons subject to the act provide full employment opportunity. Whenever he has reason to believe that equality of employment opportunity does not exist, he has the further responsibility to determine whether or not this actually is the case and, if it is, to issue appropriate remedial orders. The administrator is empowered to act on his own initiative and reach findings without lengthy administrative proceedings. However, as explained later, full opportunity is provided for administrative appeal and judicial review. As I have already indicated, the problem of equal job opportunity is clearly a national problem and a Federal responsibility. Therefore, it is appropriate and desirable that an Equal Employment Opportunity Administration should be located within the Department of Labor. The existing administrative machinery and professional expertise in the Department will be available in achieving the comprehensive objectives of the legislation. The criterion of equal employment opportunity can be coordinated and correlated with the other national employment policies and decisions that come within the purview of the Department.

For instance, the resources of the Federal-State employment services must be brought to bear in the administration of the act. Additional areas of departmental responsibility that relate to equal employment opportunity include the activities of the new Manpower Administration, the new manpower training programs, the regional efforts designed to stimulate additional youth job opportunities, the technical and analytical expertise of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the inspection skills of the Wage and Hour Staff, and the operation of the Farm Labor Services. All of these in the Department of Labor

and all of them, may I say, directly related to the achievements of the objective of equal employment.

In short, the experiences of the States and the experience of the Federal Government teaches us that authority for comprehensive, direct, speedy, and flexible administrative action is needed with due and proper provision for appeal and judicial review. My bill creates. an independent Equal Employment Opportunity Board to provide for such appeals of orders issued by the administrator or in the cases where the administrator fails to uphold the complaint of the allegedly aggrieved individual. This Board would operate in the fashion of an administrative court, concerned solely with reviewing and enforcing decisions of the administrator, somewhat as the Tax Court reviews and enforces the judgments of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Board would have no policy or operating responsibilities. Provision has been made for the Board to appoint hearing examiners and to delegate to such examiners the authority to issue decisions in the name of the Board. Finally, decisions of the Board can be taken to the appropriate Federal circuit courts for final enforcement.

However, if past experience of State FEP commissions is relevant, the authority of the administrator to initiate action to correct employment practices that deny equal job opporunities will prove to be a sufficient remedy in most cases. Skillful persuasion and conciliation, backed up by the knowledge that sanctions exist if needed, should achieve a satisfactory resolution of the situation in most instances. In any event, it is clearly not the intention of this legislation simply to transfer the duties of the traditional FEP commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Board. The burden of implementing the policies of the act will lie entirely with the administrator and the Equal Employment Opportunity Administration in the Department of

Labor.

The proposed legislation is comprehensive in coverage. Persons subject to the provisions of the act include any employer engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce or any Government contractor, Federal agency, labor organization, and employment agency. The bill does not contain categories of exemptions, such as private employers not doing business with the Government or employers of a certain size or engaged in certain types of activity. Often such exemptions have tended to create invidious and competitive comparisons with those industries and persons covered. The failure to include labor unions, employment agencies, or training programs closely associated with employment has created uncertainties as to responsibility and actual coverage.

President Kennedy specifically urged the Congress in his recent civil rights message to enact fair employment practices legislation. I hope we are sufficiently aware of the nature of the civil rights crisis to heed the President's wise counsel. There is an urgent need to guarantee every American the opportunity to hold a job when he possesses the requisite training and experience. He also has the right to expect an equal opportunity to acquire training and experience that will qualify him for personally and economically satisfying work. No one seeks charity for any group or segment in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I ask permission of the subcommittee that the text of the legislation that I will introduce this afternoon be printed at the appropriate place in the hearing.