party. The Equal Opportunity Administration as proposed by Senator Humphrey would be under the Department of Labor and therefor analagous to the Internal Revenue Service under the Treasury Department. This bill also sets up an Equal Employment Opportunity Board which would be similar to the Tax Appeals Board under the Treasury Department. After finding a case of discrimination, the Administrator may petition the Board for a ceaseand-desist order if the Administrator's rules and regulations are not carried out. Once the Administrator has made a finding, his ruling is final unless the respondent appeals such finding to the Board. The bill also provides for judicial review if the respondent gets an adverse decision from the Board and he may appeal the Board's decision to the court of appeals.

All modes and areas of employment seem to be covered by this bill with enough broad coverage for an Administrator to implement the law by rules and regulations which will cover any instances that will occur later. Another good feature of this bill is that the Administrator is equal in Government rank to an Assistant Secretary of Labor which gives the office a lot of weight and authority.

A couple of suggestions that occurred to me while reading this bill would be to give the Administrator the authority to set up regional advisory councils. The second thing that could be included in the bill is an express provision giving the Administrator authority to conduct vast educational campaigns in the employment relations field. The reason that I stress education is because I believe that many employers could do more to create a better image of minority groups through making an affirmative effort to recruit capable and talented minorities to work in all areas of their business. For example, in this area special emphasis could be put on the hiring of nonwhites in the television commercial area. I am referring to using Negro athletes, for instance, to advertise razor blades, cigarettes, etc

Senate bill 1211 establishes a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunities to promote equal employment in Federal employment, and employment under Government contracts, and in employment in programs supported, or in facilities constructed by Federal grant in aids, and for other purposes. Senate bill 773 also attempts to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. This bill also derives its authority from the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and also has the same coverage of commerce as I outlined in the Humphrey bill. This bill also creates in the executive branch of the Government a Commission to be known as the Fair Employment Practice Commission. This bill also gives the Commission authority to set up regional advisory councils to assist the Commission in gathering information in the employment relations field.

The features of this bill that should be strengthened concern the employers covered and the area of judicial review. The bill limits the jurisdiction of the Commission to employers of over 50 employees and also limits the jurisdiction to cover labor unions with memberships over 50. In this bill the Commission does not appear to have the quasi-judicial power that the Board has in the Humphrey bill. The orders of the Commission seem to lack the finality also. The judicial review in this bill also seems to be too long and drawn out and seems to lack the clear-cut precision and procedure.

Senate bill 1210 also proposes to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. This bill also derives its authority from the commerce clause as outlined previously. This bill also sets up an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission appointed by the President with power to investigate complaints of discrimination in employment. The bill also permits the Commission to set up regional advisory councils to aid it in studying employment problems

This bill also limits the Commission's jurisdiction in that employers of 50 or more employees are covered and excludes employers with less than 50 employees. This act does not seem to give the Commission broad investigating powers that a commission should have, and the Commission only investigates complaints, that is, written complaints of aggrieved parties. As in Senate bill 773, the judicial machinery in this bill seems also to be cumbersome.

All four bills are a step in the right direction. The best features in each would give us a fairly comprehensive law.

I wish that today's society were such that the only reason necessary for me to put forth in justification of fair employment practices legislation would be that

22-287-63-17

it is right. But since the conscience of our country is still not yet sufficiently clear to have this reason suffice, the following points are worth considering:

(1) This is the only issue in our land that is not marred by vested interest. Equal opportunity in employment would work for the benefit of all the citizens of the United States. The American Negro has not turned away from his allegiance to this country as a result of generations of denial of his rights. All he wants is guarantee and delivery of what is already rightfully his. The American Negro's primary interest is to save this Nation for all of its citizens. (2) International leaders look to us to set the pace for the rest of the world. Our diplomats, foreign service representatives, armed services personnel, Peace Corps men are ill equipped to explain the existence of second-class citizens in this Nation, where all citizens are "endowed with certain inalienable rights." They cannot tell a lie, yet they dare not tell the truth.

(3) By refusing equal opportunity in employment to one-tenth of this Nation's citizens we are taking the fair fruits of labor away from 10 percent of our people. Denial of equal opportunity in employment subsequently denies the wherewithal for equal housing, makes equal education unequal, and imposes a blight on our entire society. If a man had 10 children and refused to allow 1 of them to sit at the table with the family, or to go to the movies with his brothers and sisters, or to do family chores that were commensurate with his abilities, how do you suppose that child would feel toward his fatherand, for that matter, toward the rest of the family? What would his contribution to the firm foundation of family solidarity be?

(4) A Federal statute is needed because not all States in the Union have fair employment practices legislation. It is not fair that workers in Mississippi do not have the same job opportunities and opportunity to develop that workers in Minnesota have.

Senator CLARK. Off the record for a moment.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator CLARK. On the record.

The panelists have kindly agreed to confine their statements to 10 minutes. We will hear them in turn and I will withhold my questions until all five have finished and will suggest to my colleagues when they come in they do the same.

Mr. Male, it is a great pleasure to have you here with us, and would you please start off?

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND MALE, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, TRENTON, N.J.

Mr. MALE. Thank you, Senator Clark. I speak, Senator, today as commissioner of labor and industry for the State of New Jersey, and I am here at the request of Gov. Richard J. Hughes, of New Jersey, to express our position in connection

Senator CLARK. You are not here in your capacity as a consultant to the former mayor of Philadelphia?

Mr. MALE. No, I am not. Those were happy days.

I would like to apologize for the fact that my statement did not reach the members of the subcommittee for their study. I wonder if the committee would permit me to file that statement late as it were? I did not have copies of the bill as of Friday.

Senator CLARK. Please do.

Mr. MALE. I would like to point out also, that, unlike the colleagues on the panel here this morning, I am not the administrator or a member of the staff of a State FEPC agency as such. But as commissioner of labor and industry in New Jersey I am obviously in the middle of the equal opportunity problem.

Senator CLARK. Do you have a State FEP law?

Mr. MALE. We do. We have had three, Senator, and I thought, perhaps, in a moment or two I might detail briefly the route we have traveled at the State level, perhaps in a sense that Justice Holmes said, "States are really laboratories.'

Senator CLARK. Actually that is what we want out of the whole panel. We want to know your experience.

Mr. MALE. First I would like to point out that, if we go back into the New Jersey experience, my predecessor as commissioner 60 years ago devoted about half his annual report to this very problem, and the blueprint that he set forth with respect to equal opportunity and apprenticeship and manufacturing employment and in office and other commission endeavors, looks like a blueprint for today rather than 60 years ago, but our legislature first took action in 1938, when, by joint resolution, it set up a good-will commission with a small but dedicated staff. However, after a few years of trying to solve this problem by love and persuasion the legislature decided to take a stronger tack and it set up a division against discrimination which it placed in the department of educa tion at the State level. This was done in 1945.

This division had a larger staff, it went through certain name changes and it became a division on civil rights rather than a division against discrimination, and it had a widened power in it which might be of interest to this committee. It provided that either the commissioner of education or the commissioner of labor of the State of New Jersey, could, on their own motion, initiate complaints and file changes rather than waiting for an aggrieved individual.

This provision was never used until last year when the commissioner of labor used it in several score occasions to test out the effectiveness of the provision, and I notice that this would be quite similar to one of the proposals pending before this committee.

Actually that second phase did not reach a solution or make as much progress as something New Jersey wanted, so when Governor Hughes was seeking the office of Governor 2 years ago he stated that if elected he would seek to strengthen this agency, to have it moved to the law enforcement of the State government, so we now have that division on civil rights as a part of our department of law and public safety since May of this year.

I point those out quickly merely to show that we have been casting about at the State level in New Jersey for a proper solution.

Now, I think one thing that has been asked back in New Jersey is, Why do we need Federal legislation in this area? I thought perhaps in the few minutes we have here I might at least indicate our concern and interest here.

I have been as you probably know, 20 years with a State government, so I guess I could qualify as a guy who is very much interested in States responsibilities and obligations and opportunities.

The fact is that the field of fair employment is much wider than any one State or any few States can handle, and I have been convinced by, among others, the distinguished Secretary of Labor of the United States, Mr. Wirtz, who told us in New Jersey not long ago that in addition to the moral and ethical considerations that should be watched in this, that if we wanted to view it from the

strictly business standpoint we could see that the lack of opportunity, full opportunity, for men and women anywhere in the United States makes them pretty poor customers, as he said, for the products of our State.

So, from that standpoint we are interested in seeing this done. My own view is colored perhaps by the fact that I sit now in one of those situations where we have, as your statistics I am sure prove, large unemployment among minority groups, a lack of full opportunity for them, and at the same time a great shortage of many skills in New Jersey. So, we are concerned that these opportunities for using these people fully be opened up.

I would like to speak specifically to a couple of points that are in the bills under consideration, some of them in, I believe, Mr. Humphrey's bill, in which you share, Senate bill 1937, if I may.

I personally feel strongly that having an administrator of this program in an administrative agency of the Federal Government in the executive branch would be an important step and I would applaud seeing this position equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of Labor in that Department, as this is the Department that has many arms which can help to insure full employment opportunities, including the vast network of public employment agencies operated by the Bureau of Employment Security, as well as the measurement of opportunities through the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A number of others which might be mentioned.

I think another thing is that I think if we wait for the processing of individual complaints we found at the State level that this is not always an effective way. Many times the aggrieved individual cannot be found, his grievance is a silent one and he does not feel that he can, in effect, "fight city hall," so that we feel that provision of a Federal bill should make it possible for somebody on a wider horizon to initiate the complaint.

Senator CLARK. ˆWider than what?

Mr. MALE. Wider than merely an aggrieved individual or group of individuals. In other words, not waiting for someone who failed to secure an apprenticeship agreement or a job with an industry, but allowing the Administrator and his staff to move in when he sees the situations that need correction.

So that you could have some specific help on this I might just mention two things that have happened in New Jersey under our law. One was that using the New Jersey provision the commissioner of labor and industry filed charges against certain private employers where it was felt that discriminatory employment orders had been placed through a free enterprise employment agency. Of course, this developed that in large measure the problem was kind of a mutually shared one. The private agency-many of them who have admitted now to past practices and have agreed to correct themfound themselves in effect prisoners of discriminatory orders filed with them. On the other hand, the employers had been following a tradition in the pattern over many years and just needed something to break that cycle.

To wait for an individual worker to break such a system probably world have taken generations. But actually, by focusing on the problem itself, in this case the practices of employment agencies,

public and private as well as the placing of orders through that medium, helped bring to our attention the steps that were needed to correct it.

We can do that in an individual State, but I think the problem is wider than one or two States where this has been given attention. I do not want to take the time of the other panel members. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Male. That is very helpful. Mr. Spitz.

STATEMENT OF HENRY SPITZ, GENERAL COUNSEL, NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. SPITZ. My name is Henry Spitz, I am the general counsel to the New York State Commission for Human Rights, known by this name since 1962 and previously known as the New York State Commission Against Discrimination.

I have served as general counsel to the commission since its inception in 1945, a period of 18 years.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Spitz, do you have a civil service rating or like most lawyers you just

Mr. Sprтz. All members in the legal division are in the competitive civil service class except the position of general counsel which is the exempt class and I may say that during the period of my tenure I have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I was appointed by Governor Dewey during his administration and served through the Harriman administration and now under the Rockefeller administration.

The New York State law came into being in 1945 as a result of a study made by a temporary commission against discrimination to study the need for such legislation in the State of New York. The temporary commission came to the conclusion that there was a need for such legislation. It drafted a bill and then held public hearings on the bill in various cities throughout the State.

At these public hearings the consequences of enacting a law against discrimination were expressed by many elements in the community in the most dire terms. It was predicted that if such a law were enacted it would increase and aggravate racial and religious tensions rather than minimize such tensions. It was argued that blood would flow in the streets of the city and State, that the law would immediately be declared unconstitutional, and that business would leave the State rather than submit to an infringement of its prerogatives to choose or reject whomsoever it saw fit as employees for any reason or

no reason.

I am pleased to note that after 18 years of administration, none of these dire consequences has come to pass. Business has not left the State but has increased, and the law has not been attacked and never has been attacked as unconstitutional.

The statute in New York State was the first of its type to be enacted anywhere in this country or in the world. Since its enactment, more than 20 other States have adopted similar legislation with the same salutary results and more than 30 cities have enacted such fair employment practice legislation.