community. There is abundant evidence that Jews are as fully employed as the rest of the American people. But the very fact of discrimination is utterly inconsistent with the American ideal of equality of opportunity. It also frequently works a real hardship on the individual who sets out to enter a particular field but finds himself forced to accept employment elsewhere despite his possession of all the necessary skills or professional qualifications for his first preference, and notwithtanding a need for qualified personnel in that category. The Bureau of Jewish Employment Problems in Chicago, reports that firms place discriminatory job orders with employment agencies and refuse to fill vacancies with racially or religiously "unacceptable" applicants in spite of a desperate need for qualified personnel. The bureau reports such actual notations as the following on job-order cards of employment agencies: "Says is desperate, but not desperate enough to hire Jews," or "Protestant preferred-will take a Catholic in a pinch--but not Italians."

Yet, we recognize full well that our problems in the area of employment discrimination are much less severe than those of the nonwhite minorities. For Negroes, job discrimination does mean economic deprivation of the most serious kind. It is a major factor in their alarmingly high rate of unemployment.

We know that this committee is familiar with the economic facts that Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz has called to the attention of Congress, and we shall limit ourselves to underscoring what he has said about their significance and the urgency of action to correct the gross inequities that they portray.

Job discrimination is but one of the aspects of the problem of economic disadvantages suffered by Negroes. Inadequate training is another; the lack of full employment in the American economy as a whole is a third. We favor a massive attack on the entire problem, but limit ourselves in this testimony to the first question. We believe that Congress can do something right now to effectively curb job discrimination.

Fortunately there is no need to speculate about solutions to the problem of job discrimination. A body of experience is available from almost half the States in the Nation from which to learn what work and what doesn't. Those States have been the Nation's laboratory and their experiences prove that the most reliable and workable approach to the solution of the problem of job discrimination is a strong fair employment practices law. The experiences of the States also provide the most compelling single reason for the adoption of a Federal law; namely, the very fact that those States most in need of FEPC are precisely the ones that do not have it. Moreover, with perhaps a few exceptions, these same States show no sign of being willing to adopt such laws. If the members of minority groups in these States are to obtain relief from the acute problem of employment discrimination then they must secure it from the Congress of the United States.

EXPERIENCE OF STATE FEPC PROGRAMS

The experiences of the more than twoscore States that have fair employment practices laws reveal:

1. In those States that have adopted strong FEPC measures, previous dire predictions of employers and others as to any harmful effects that might ensue have proven to be without foundation.-Companies and unions have testified frequently to the value of FEP laws in helping to create an improved race relations atmosphere and to deal with grievances in an orderly and just way.

2. To be really effective, the Commission created to administer the fair employment law must be empowered to initiate complaints and investigations and it should take what we may call a "pattern approach" to the problem of job discrimination.—Experience has repeatedly shown that there is a much greater incidence of discriminatory practices than the number of individually filed complaints would indicate. The reason for this, though varied, are largely due to the fact that many persons have come to expect discrimination and are not fully aware of their rights under the law. Also, many persons shy away from the actual filing of complaints for fear of becoming involved in timeconsuming redtape. Further, the evidence indicates that the number of complaints filed are fewest where discrimination is most widespread and its victims are historically the most disadvantaged and downtrodden. Since this is especially the case in those States that do not have their own FEPC's, and

one of the urgent reasons for a national FEP law is to cover those very areas, it is essential that a national FEP Commission have the right to initiate complaints.

If the Commission is to do an effective job of eliminating employment discrimination, it must be given responsibility for dealing with the hiring prac tices of an employer or an industry in general, and not just the specific complaint that happens to be filed. Otherwise, it will find itself trying to empty an ocean with a spoon. While we should be very much concerned with every case of injustice, the chief objective of legislation should be to come to grips with the whole pattern of job discrimination and to bring it into line with national policy.

3. The law must have workable enforcement provisions.—Merely to announce a policy of fair employment practices and to rely upon persuasion alone is tanamount to making a promise that cannot be kept. Such an approach is bound to reap a bitter harvest of disappointment and frustration in the Negro community precisely at a time when we ought to be eliminating the causes of existing frustrations, not adding new ones. Proper enforcement procedure requires that the Commission shall have the right to go to court to seek an injunction or other court order to enforce its ruling, as is true for the National Labor Relations Board. The court procedure ought to provide for the acceptance of the findings of fact of the Commission rather than to require a trial de novo. The latter course would involve the almost impossible task of digging up, months later, the original evidence and witnesses who may no longer be available. By the same token, of course, simple fairness requires that the Commission's orders should be subject to appeal in the courts by the respondents. The point is not to weight justice toward one side or the other, but to see to it that justice is done, speedily and evenhandedly.

4. The law should apply both to employers and unions.—While the hiring of new employees is almost always the prerogative of companies and not of labor organizations, there are instances in which unions do play a key role in hiring procedures and these should be covered as well. Furthermore, unions are involved in determining in-plant conditions of work and upgrading procedures and these should be included in the provisions of the law. Obviously, it is the American way to promote employees according to their effort and ability and not on the basis of their skin color or their religious beliefs or their place of origin or that of their parents. This is a most important aspect of fair employment practices. There are far too many plants and offices in this country in which a dark-skinned person cannot get beyond the most menial and low paying jobs and in which white Protestants seem to be the only ones who qualify for entry into the executive suite.

Apprenticeship programs, which are so important in training young people for some highly skilled and high paying jobs, ought also to be included under the law.

5. Finally, it is essential that employment agencies, both public and private, come under the provisions of the act.-We are convinced, on the basis of experience with State fair employment practices laws that employment agencies are a most important key to equal job opportunity. Strict provision should be made for the vigilant enforcement of a prohibition on their handling of discriminatory job orders or discriminating among those who come to them seeking employment.

RECOMMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

It is our view that the general structure of a national fair employment prartices agency ought to include appropriate subdivisions for carrying out three separate but coordinated functions. The first, of course, should be an enforc ment division, equipped with the powers outlined above.

The second should be an investigation division adequately equipped with the funds and manpower necessary to survey employment practices in American dustry, commerce, and labor, much as the Minimum Wage Division surveys 2 dustrial compliance with the minimum wage law. The work of this dive should be very closely coordinated with that of the enforcement section, whic would rely upon it for the information necessary to carry out the "pattern #7 proach" toward the elimination of employment discrimination.

A third subdivision should be charged with the responsibility of conducti educational and informational programs with the public in order to overce

some of the deficiencies which handicap members of minority groups in qualifying for decent jobs. Studies show that the lack of skills and vocational information among Negroes is a most important contributing factor to their high unemployment rate and low earnings. President Kennedy, in his proposals to the Congress, has recommended new training programs and there are several already in existence in the Departments of Labor and Commerce, that have begun to deal with this problem. We favor continuance of these programs and urge that the President's proposals be enacted into law. In addition, we suggest that a national fair employment practices program should include provision for imparting information about occupations and training resources to members of minority groups. This is clearly related to the other functions of the Commission, for where discrimination is found to exist as a historical pattern, members of minorities have tended to shy away from preparation for entry into that particular branch of industry. This is understandable since an individual is not likely to spend years training for a trade that is barred to him because of the color of his skin or his religion. Consequently, the lowering of discriminatory barriers alone will often be meaningless unless minority group members are (1) counseled as to the new employment opportunities available to them and (2) offered the opportunities to gain the skills necessary for entry into the particular employment field.

We do not suggest that an FEPC, even with an effective and comprehensive program such as we propose, is a panacea for the solution of the vast problem of employment discrimination and economic deprivation that besets minority groups in America. The problem is too deeprooted for any quick and easy solution. But we do maintain that a bold start simply must be made if our Nation is to avoid what may yet become the greatest domestic crisis we have faced in this century. We must take action to correct these injustices because it is right to do so. Ours is a great Nation because at every critical juncture we have done what we deemed to be right, just and fair. We have learned from experience that invariably the right course is also the prudent and practical one. Prudence and justice combine here, too, in support of the prompt enactment of a strong national fair employment practices law.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, as I shall have to leave I would like to welcome Mr. Sheinkman. I know his organization. It is outstanding, and his testimony, I know, will be very helpful to us, because it marshals the sentiment of a tremendous number of Americans who feel very deeply on this subject.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF JACOB SHEINKMAN, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. SHEINKMAN. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the National Community Relations Advisory Council, the coordinating agent for six national Jewish organizations, which include the American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., and congregational bodies representing three wings of religious Judiasm in the United States; namely, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which is reform, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the United Synagogue of America, which is a conservative.

We also represent some 67 Jewish community councils across the length and breadth of the United States.

We appear here today as we have on previous occasions to support fair employment practices legislation. Because on every ground, moral, economic, self-interest, and national self-interest generally, such legislation is long overdue.

As Jews, we are committed by religious beliefs and immemorial tradition to a deep regard for the sanctity of the individual. We, therefore, derive a particular concern from the preservation of human rights.

This has been one of the basic tenets of our cultural heritage. Hence, even if we enjoy full employment, which we do not, these matters would be of vital concern to us.

We have learned from bitter experience that the expression of concern for individuality, let alone life itself, can only be assured in society in which freedom and justice and equality is guaranteed all the citizens of the land. It is for this reason that the NCRAC seeks to assure human rights and liberties for all of our citizens and to encourage amicable relations between the various diverse and hetergeneous groups of our country and at the same time learn to respect and treasure their differences.

The problems which Jews face in employment may not be as dramatic nor as pressing as those faced by our nonwhite brothers. Jews, I am happy to say, are by and large gainfully employed.

They have shared by and large the expansion and prosperity that our Nation has enjoyed in recent years. Yet the fact remains that Jews are still denied employment opportunities although discrimination may be more subtle and less obvious than those confronting our nonwhite citizens.

We wish to make clear that we do not look upon the enactment of equal employment opportunity legislation as a panacea but as one of the many steps which must be taken in this vital area, and we, therefore, support wholeheartedly the President's program on civil rights. Yet, we are convinced that access to equal employment opportunity can, in large measure, determine one's housing, education, and general outlook upon life.

The key to the door will not, however, be opened but a crack if steps are not taken on a much broader front: namely, training to meet the technological advances of our society, and at the same time, as you have indicated, and numerous other witnesses have indicated, full employment in our economy.

Since the 79th Congress there has been introduced legislation similar to that being considered by this committee. Reports have been issued of a favorable nature, yet the Congress has yet failed to act. We can see no reason for any further delay or procrastination. Congress wi!! not be innovating in this vital area. On the contrary we have an expertise of more than 20 States to draw upon, not to count the many municipalities which have their own fair employment practice ordinances. The reason we call for a Federal law is quite obvious; the States which are in need of such legislation unfortunately do not have it.

Experience over the last 17 years when the first fair employment practices legislation was enacted on a State level has shown us that the prophecies of doom and gloom are groundless. They also show us that any commission established by the Congress must not only have the power to investigate individual complaints but must be able to ge into this problem on the basis of pattern discriminations. Otherwise, we would not be making a sufficient dent in this most vital area.

Senator CLARK. What do you mean by pattern problems, Mr Sheinkman?

Mr. SHEINKMAN. For instance, you can take as an example that which was discussed earlier. In addition, there is a plant that we know of which was reported by the Civil Rights Commission in Atlanta, Ga., where an assembly plant contained no Negro production employees. The skill required for these jobs was semiskilled, and did not require any particular degree of education which unfortunately some of the Negro citizens do not have in terms of qualifications for jobs. There are problems as was pointed out earlier, for instance, that in certain building and construction trades unions, Negroes are not admitted. These are patterns which with proper investigation discrimination can be ascertained.

We also are convinced that persuasion is not enough. There must be enforcement legislation and we, therefore, wholeheartedly concur in the fact that findings by the Commission should be enforced by appropriate circuit courts.

In this connection we also favor that the bill provide that the circuit court should not have the power to more findings de novo, and it should be placed in the position of deciding on the findings presented by the Commission as in the case of the National Labor Relations where, if there is substantial evidence in the record on the whole, the NLRB's findings must be sustained. The law must not only apply to employers but unions alike. By and large, in most industries, it is the employer who determines employment opportunities and access to employment; it is quite clear that in certain other limited employment situations unions do control that, and as such should be covered by the law. Likewise, all unions by the nature of their collective bargaining agreements can determine advancements and improvement in the job opportunities under their collective bargaining agreements. Here I would like to make a particular comment.

I notice in the bill that you submitted, Senator, and the bill submitted by Senator Case, do not, I believe, because of certain legal problems apply to States or instrumentalities of States. Yet it is interesting to note in reading the Commission on Civil Rights' report that the USES, which does not control the bureaus of employment security at the State level but supplies the funds for these State instrumentalities has not been able to enforce or promulgate rules and regulations which would prohibit discrimination practices on the part of these State agencies.

Now, the USES, through the bureaus of employment security are a major source of providing manpower to employers throughout the country and if provision is not made, whether in this bill or by some other means to cover these particular State offices, which are State agencies, and, therefore, do not come under Federal aegis, other than in terms of funds provided, you would be leaving a large loophole in terms of this particular problem.

Senator CLARK. I think you are right.

Mr. SHEINKMAN. We also are convinced that the Commission must have sufficient funds and manpower to carry out not only its investigative and enforcement provisions but at the same time to conduct educational and informational programs which would inform members of minority groups of the employment opportunities and training programs which they must have in order to qualify for a particular job.