"Approach to a National Policy." You suggest first that the policy should be focused on the issues of individual growth and manpower resources, not on the racial question. And secondly, that the question of racial discrimination should be confronted and dealt with as a part of a larger issue. I suspect that the members of this subcommittee would agree with that, but unfortunately the way the problem is fragmented, as we approach it in the Congress in a good many of the committees dealing with various segments of it, that we can only cope in this committee with the strictly technical fair employment as distinguished from full employment part of the problem as a legislative matter. Though, of course, this subcommittee is dealing with the whole problem of employment and the utilization of manpower and resources, that when we come to prepare legislation it has to be on a piecemeal basis. I take it, however, that you would recognize that structural limitation and would nonetheless urge us to report out favorably a national FEP Act; is that right? Mr. DUNBAR. Oh, yes, indeed. I understand, if only superficially, the processes of Congress, and I know what the problems are. What I do think is desirable is that, well, I would make that stronger; what I do think is necessary is that in the place where the problems are thought of altogether, namely in the executive branch, that there be understanding of the connections. And in the leadership of Congress as well, that there be this kind of understanding. Senator CLARK. What it comes down to is this, if you can get the full employment you are going to enormously increase fair employment. Mr. DUNBAR. Yes. Senator JAVITS. May I have another question? I am anxious to get the next witness on and I would like to say a word about him. Mr. Dunbar, the statement with regard to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity reminds me of two things which I would like to ask you in series. You say: The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity has achieved some promising results, especially in the field of Government employment, but we have not yet been given by the committee the data which would make possible an intelligent appraisal of its effectiveness in combating racial inequities in the employment practices of Federal contractors. Having sat here and listened to the Secretary this morning, do you still adhere to that statement? Mr. DUNBAR. That is a true statement, Senator Javits. As I heard the Secretary this morning, I thought he did not disagree. He made the point, which I would certainly second, that he did not think that I meant here that information had been asked for and withheld. That is not the case. But it is the case, and I think he assented to this, that the committee has not yet, except in very fragmentary ways, sometimes in press release ways, the committee has not yet published the kind of overall data, the kind of absolute figures as distinguished from percentage figures, for any outside person to come to any kind of conclusion as to the effectiveness, overall, of what they have done. I also heard the Secretary indicate this morning that they intended to do so at some early date. Senator JAVITS. Could you do two things for us: One, could you put into the record the letter to which the Secretary referred and which we said you would would put in? Mr. DUNBAR. Yes. Senator JAVITS. What is the date of that letter? Mr. DUNBAR. I don't remember the date, I think he said March 29. That would be about right. Senator JAVITS. And secondly, could you frame a list of questions to the Secretary which would answer your question? And I will ask it, you frame that list and submit it for the record and I shall ask the Secretary those questions and we will try to get an answer. Mr. DUNBAR. I will be glad to do it. I am not quite sure a list of questions dealing with that matter of data Senator JAVITS. You say the committee has not published the data which would make it possible for an intelligent appraisal of its effectiveness. All right, you list questions and I hereby adopt them and ask them, and we will get them answered. (The material referred to follows:) Mr. HOBART TAYLOR, Jr., MARCH 29, 1963. Executive Vice Chairman, President's Committee on Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: It was a pleasure talking with you yesterday, regarding the Atlanta situation and other matters. We have been impressed by the promptness and the care with which the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and the Defense Department investigated the conditions reported in our January study, "Plans for Progress: Atlanta Survey.' By sending in February its own investigators to examine the local conditions, and then, when their findings showed that there were indeed problems, requiring full compliance reviews in March by the con, tracting agencies, you have certainly given an example of concerned and alert administration. We undertook the Atlanta study to explore further a question we had raised in an earlier publication of March 1962 ("Executive Support for Civil Rights": see pp. 36-37 enclosed); i.e., whether the pledges of the "Plans for Progress" had, in fact, the same meaning for the South as for the rest of the Nation. I don't need to tell you that in the past there have been all too many instances where national policies, both of Government and business, were implicitly intended to mean one thing for the non-South and another for the South. The present administration has, as we understand it, adopted a different rule. We are glad to note, therefore, that the vigor with which you acted in Atlanta indicates that national standards are today meant to apply fully to southern operations. We concluded our report by stating that "interpretation of the voluntary and affirmative provisions of the 'Plans for Progress' is being left to the individual signers themselves." That is what we found in Atlanta at the time. I would suggest that the problem reflected here is one which bedevils any large program of any kind; i.e., the problem of communication, the problem of the transmission of the policies to the field and down to the local level. We hope that our report did something to highlight and resolve that problem. As the Government's program unfolds, and as intergroup relations specialists of the Defense Department are appointed to more field posts, communications will be, we are sure, steadily improved. There are some differences of findings between us and the Defense Department, such as we know theirs to be. Certain of these undoubtedly are due to the fact that when Defense came down in March, both we and your own investigators brought matters to the attention of the employers. Other differences of findings, although unresolved, seem to us of less importance than the central fact, which is that you have acted in Atlanta in response to the need to enforce impartiality and at all levels of operation the requirements of Executive Order 10925. With best regards. Sincerely yours, LESLIE W. DUNBAR, Executive Director. Hon. JACOB JAVITS, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COUNCIL, INC., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: At the close of my testimony, August 2, 1963, before the Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare you asked me to prepare, for your attention, questions to be put before the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Your suggestion had reference to a statement in my prepared testimony, as follows: "The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity has achieved some promising results, especially in the field of Government employment, but we have not been given by the Committee the data which would make possible an intelligent appraisal of its effectiveness in combating racial inequities in the employment practices of Federal contractors." I have given a great deal of thought to your suggestion. My feeling is that, although there are certain questions of detail one might like discussed by the committee, there is really, at this time, only one reporting issue of primary importance, and that is the question of what progress has been made by Government contractors. Specifically, the compliance report (standard form 40) requires each prime contractor and first-ties subcontractor (excepting some smaller ones) to report the numbers of its employees by race and sex for various job categories (question 25); also, totals must be reported for the year previous. For continuing contractors, at least two of these reports have now been filed, one for 1962 and one for 1963. The 1962 report should contain 1961 totals. This means that comparative data ought now to be in the committee's hands for a 3-year period. "Plans for Progress" contractors have not in the past been required to filestandard form 40. I am sure, however, that their reporting must be at least equally detailed. Processing this data is, of course, a huge job. The committee has, however, been operative for 21⁄2 years and a statistical report might well be feasible now, at least for a large sample of contractors. Needless to say, a public release of the statistics would be far more informative if it contained a State-by-State breakdown. With very best regards, Sincerely yours, LESLIE W, DUNBAR, Executive Director. Senator CLARK. You cannot get them answered if he does not have them. Senator JAVITS. I am telling him that is what I am willing to do if he goes to the trouble of framing them. Senator CLARK. All right. Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunbar, you have been very helpful to us. Our next witness is Mr. Jacob Sheinkman, National Community Relations Advisory Council. Mr. Sheinkman, we are happy to have you here. Mr. Sheinkman, we have your prepared statement which will be printed in full in the record at this point and we have now 40 minutes left and one witness after you. I am sure you can give us the benefit of your thinking on this matter in coming forward. (The statement referred to follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACOB SHEINKMAN, REPRESENTING CONSTITUENT ORGANIZATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL My name is Jacob Sheinkman. I am general counsel of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and chairman of the advisory panel of the Jewish Labor Committee. I have the honor to represent here today 6 national Jewish organizations and 67 Jewish community councils, all of which are affiliated together in the National Community Relations Advisory Council (NCRAC) and through which they concert their policies and programs. The constituent organizations of the NCRAC include the American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, and congregational bodies representing three wings of religious Judaism-Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform); Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and United Synagogue of America (Conservative). The 67 Jewish community councils joining in the present statement are: Jewish Welfare Fund of Akron. Albany Jewish Community Council. Federation of Jewish Charities of Atlantic City, N.J. Baltimore Jewish Council. Jewish Community Council of Birmingham. Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Boston. Jewish Community Council, Bridgeport. Brooklyn Jewish Community Council. Jewish Federation of Broome County, N.Y. Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Camden County, N.J. Jewish Community Federation, Canton, Ohio. Jewish Community Relations Council, Charleston, S.C. Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Detroit. Eastern Union County, N.J., Jewish Community Council. Jewish Community Council of Easton and Vicinity. Jewish Community Welfare Council, Erie, Pa. Jewish Community Council of Essex County, N.J. Jewish Community Council of Flint, Mich. Jewish Federation of Fort Worth, Tex. Community Relations Committee of the Hartford (Conn.) Jewish Federation. Indiana Jewish Community Relations Council. Indianpolis Jewish Community Relations Council. Jewish Community Council, Jacksonville, Fla. Community Relations Bureau of the Jewish Federation and Council of Greater Kansas City. Kingston, N.Y., Jewish Community Council. Conference of Jewish Organizations of Louisville. Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation-Council of Greater Los Angeles. Jewish Community Relations Council of Memphis. Milwaukee Jewish Council. Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota. Jewish Federation of New Britain, Conn. New Haven Jewish Community Council. Norfolk Jewish Community Council. Jewish Community Relations Council of Oakland, Calif. Central Florida Jewish Community Council (Orlando). Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County, Fla. Jewish Community Council of Paterson, N.J. Jewish Community Council of Peoria, Ill. Jewish Community Council, Perth Amboy, N.J. Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia. Jewish Community Council of the Plainfields, N.J. Jewish Community Council, Rochester, N.Y. Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis. San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council. Jewish Community Council of Toledo. Jewish Community Council, Utica. Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington. Jewish Federation of Waterbury. Wyoming Valley Jewish Committee, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Youngstown, Ohio. Jewish Community Council of Atlanta, Ga. All the constituent organizations of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, national and local, seek to promote good Jewish community relations. That is to say, they seek to create conditions in which individual Jews may enjoy equality of rights and opportunities with all other individual members of society and in which the Jewish group, as a group, may foster its distinctive group values while participating fully with other groups in the general life of our Nation. We are convinced that equal opportunity for Jews and a distinctive Jewish group life are best assured in a society which accords equality and justice to all, and in which individual freedoms and religious liberties are secure. Accordingly, we seek to foster equality of opportunity for all without regard to race, color, religion, or origin; to promote religious liberty; to advance freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and to encourage amicable relationships among groups with respect for difference. If racial and religious discrimination may be said to have certain major roots. then without a doubt one of them lies in this area: the denial of equal access to economic opportunity. The reason is apparent. One's capacity to earn a living determines very largely the kind of housing, education, recreation, and general mode of life one is able to enjoy. Varying degrees of racial and religions discrimination exist in all these fields, to be sure: for that reason we support all of the President's civil rights proposals. But it is the hard, inescapable fact that economically depressed minorities simply cannot move to desirable suburban communities, attend better schools, join golf clubs, or eat in fashionable restaurants no matter how free of discrimination these facilities may become. The door to these areas has a double lock, and the other key is employment opportunity. This is the most basic reason for the passage-the long overdue passage. I might add-of a national fair employment practices law. JEWISH COMMITMENT TO FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES As Jews, we are concerned with the question of fair employment practices in part because we are among the victims of job discrimination. A review of the latest reports of State fair employment practices agencies reveals that the se ond most numerous group of complaints filed with them were complaints alleging discrimination against Jews. The report of the President's Committee on Gorernment Contracts, covering 7 years of operation through 1960. shows that all complaints filed with the Committee, 23.4 percent charged discrimination the basis of religion and that almost all of these involved discrimination again Jews. Employment discrimination is an old problem for Jews. It is frequently ouflaged and less easily discerned than discrimination against nonwhites, but exists. We do not contend that the employment discrimination faced by J necessarily results in serious economic deprivation to the members of the Jewis |