They said the following:

For every company which wants to keep its promise to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, there are several which view the plans lightly or show belief the program did not affect the Deep South operations. To sum up, indications are that the interpretation of a voluntary and affirmative provision of the program is being left to the individual signers themselves.

Now, Mr. Secretary, what is your comment on that, as of January 1963?

Mr. WIRTZ. It is, Senator, in two parts, first that nothing I say should properly be understood as in any way suggesting anything less than complete respect for the work of the Southern Regional Council because I think they have done a magnificent job.

The second part of my answer would be that you have referred to the opening chapter in a story which had a number of subsequent chapters because we took quite seriously the suggestion of the report of the Southern Regional Council, and therefore pursued that matter down to the detail of every single procurement contract we had in the Atlanta area. There is a very voluminous subsequent record on that which ends up, among other things, with a report by the Secretary of Defense about the facts as far as employees in that area are concerned. It ends up with a letter of May 29 from Mr. Dunbar, who will be testifying this morning, to Mr. Hobart Taylor, which reflects the subsequent investigations, all of which put a quite different light on this situation.

Senator JAVITS. Would you prefer to put that letter in the record or would you like Mr. Dunbar to do it?

Mr. WIRTZ. I would be glad to leave it to him.

Senator JAVITS. I hope you will ask for that, Mr. Chairman, when he takes the stand.

Now, Mr. Secretary, do you feel that this President's Committee needs additional power?

Mr. WIRTZ. I wonder before we leave that though, whether the letter from Secretary McNamara which covers the specific detail of the number of employees in these various companies in the Atlanta area should not be made a part of the record.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to see it if I may. I would have no objection to it.

Senator CLARK. Senator Javits said he would like to look at it before we decide whether or not to put it in.

Mr. WIRTZ. On the copy which you have, Senator Javits, there are several penciled marks, those reflect conversations that went on, and there are, I am advised, a subsequent letter from Secretary McNamara to the Vice President of a date shortly after the date of that letter; that, too, I would like to add to the record and it makes clear what these penciled notations imply.

Senator JAVITS. Do you want this letter put in without the penciled notations?

Mr. WIRTZ. Yes.

Senator CLARK. The letter will be admitted in the record with the penciled annotations erased, and the Secretary will furnish an additional letter which, as I understand, will explain the penciled notations.

(The McNamara letter referred to is as follows:)

The VICE PRESIDENT,
U.S. Senate.

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, April 26, 1963.

DEAR MR. VICE PRESIDENT: In accordance with your request, I've examined the survey made by the military departments of discriminatory employment practices in Atlanta, Ga. I have obtained the following information in response to the questions you put to me:

1. Twenty-four plants, or offices, employing 23,084 employees were surveyed. 2. Firms employing 18,325, or 80 percent of the total number of employees, were complying with their pledges to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

3. Thirty-two hundred additional employees (13 percent of the total) were employed by two companies, each of whom was charged with only technical violations, such as failure to post equal opportunity notices. These two companies have since arranged for the posting of such notices.

4. It is anticipated that the firms employing the remaining 1,308 employees (7 percent of the total number of employees) will have met the requirements laid down by the military departments, within the April 30 deadline established by the President's Committee.

Sincerely,

(Signed) ROBERT S. MCNAMARA.

(Subsequently the following memorandum and letter were submitted:)

At page 320 of the transcript, the Secretary stated that he wished to add to the record a letter from Secretary McNamara to the Vice President, which was a followup to, and contained corrections to figures set forth in a letter then being introduced by the Secretary. Actually, the followup letter containing these corrections was from Adam Yarmolinsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, to Hobart Taylor, Jr., Executive Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, and is hereby enclosed: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., May 31, 1963.

Mr. HOBART TAYLOR, Jr.,
Executive Vice Chairman,

President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR HOBART: Following our phone conversation, this is to report that in reviewing the material contained in the May 17 letter to you from the southern regional council and that contained in the "Agency Investigations of Plans for Progress Companies' Facilities" attached to your April 20, 1963, letter to the Vice President, we find that the data on General Motors do need to be corrected. The figure of 2,300 shown in the attachment to your April 20, 1963, letter to the Vice President is only the data for the Oldsmobile/Pontiac assembly plant.

Air Force, as backup for their investigations, submitted four of their AFS forms 74 relating to General Motors. Personnel data contained in these forms show the following:

The 5,932 total is slightly different from the 6,490 total listed by the southern regional council in their May 17 letter to you. This may be attributable to the fact that at times the assembly plants work on a double shift.

Using the 5,932 figure for General Motors, the summary data in Mr. McNamara's April 26, 1963, letter to the Vice President should be corrected as follows:

"1. Twenty-four plants, or offices, employing 26,716 [23,084] employees were surveyed.

2. Firms employing 18,325, or 68 percent [80 percent] of the total number of employees, were complying with their pledges to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

"3. Six thousand, eight hundred and thirty-nine additional employees (about 26 percent [13 percent] of the total) were employed by two companies, each of whom was charged with only technical violations such as failure to post equal employment opportunity notices. These two companies have since arranged for the posting of such notices.

"4. It is anticipated that the firms employing the remaining 1.301 [1.308] (about 5 percent [7 percent] of the total number of employees) will have met the requirements laid down by the military departments within the April 30 deadline established by the President's Committee."

It is unfortunate that the figure contained in the backup paper on General Motors was in error, and we should have caught it when you sent it over. The above revision should clarify the matter.

Sincerely yours,

ADAM YARMOLINSKY.

Senator JAVITS. Coming to our question again, Mr. Secretary, what additional powers do you feel the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity needs to do its job more effectively?

Mr. WIRTZ. I think the establishment of the statutory base which would give us a better approach to some of the things we have mentioned here. There would be no additional powers which would be required.

Senator JAVITS. You need a statutory base essentially to give you subpena power and similar authority, and money and staff; is that correct?

Mr. WIRTZ. And the aegis of the Congress which is obviously important in a matter of this kind.

Senator JAVITS. And the administration is now persuaded that it does need as a serious and important element of the civil rights program a statutory base under the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity?

Mr. WIRTZ. Yes, sir. I am not sure whether your question meant. to move into the area of the chairman's questioning about its relationship to the Fair Employment Practices Commission, but satisfying that point my answer would be "Yes."

Senator JAVITS. We want to satisfy that point, I think there is no question about that.

I know from reading this letter that there is some reference to an April 30 deadline established by the President's Committee: I am referring to the letter signed by the Secretary of Defense dated April 26, 1963, which is now in the record.

Do you wish to make any explanation of that for us, Mr. Secretary? Mr. WIRTZ. I am embarrassed by the fact that that is the only copy of the letter I have here, too, Senator.

We asked the various procurement agents who had any contracts. in that area to give us a complete report on the matter by that date, and the reference in the letter is to the date set by the Committee for a report by the procurement agency.

Senator JAVITS. Was that report made?

Mr. WIRTZ. Yes, it was.

Senator JAVITS. Are we at liberty to see that report?

Mr. WIRTZ. I will be glad to add complete detail about it, every single thing we have about it.

Senator JAVITS. You mentioned five firms that were put on some kind of a list. What kind of a list did you call it, Mr. Secretary? Mr. WIRTZ. They were simply advised that if their present practices continued, there was there would be no more Government contracts put to them.

Senator JAVITS. Which they could participate in?

Mr. WIRTZ. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. Was that a matter of public record or was there anything secret about those proceedings?

Mr. WIRTZ. A matter of public record and I will be glad to supply the names.

Senator JAVITS. Will you then submit the names and the circumstances under which they were notified and under which the notice was later stricken?

Mr. WIRTZ. I will supply the names now and supply for the record the complete detailed chronology of the company.

Senator JAVITS. And the reasons why they were stricken from the list?

Mr. WIRTZ. That is correct.

The companies are the Comet Rice Mills Co. of Texas; the Danley Machine Co. in Illinois; the P. Lorillard Co. in North Carolina; Blue Bell, Inc., of North Carolina; Gulfport Ship Building of Texas.

What I will supply, Senator, will be copies of the notices which were sent both to the companies and to the contracting agencies of the Government.

Senator JAVITS. I am interested more than that in the reasons why they were placed on the list and in the reasons why they were later stricken.

Mr. WIRTZ. We will have a complete compliance report for you in each of these cases.

(Senator Javits requested information regarding companies from which further contracts had been ordered withheld until reports of corrected practices were submitted. Subsequently the following memorandum containing the requested information was submitted:)

Blue Bell, Inc., Greensboro, N.C.

An investigation by the Defense Supply Agency in June 1962 disclosed that this Government contractor with 31 plants in 10 States was in substantial noncompliance with Executive Order 10925. Among the conditions listed were overt antagonism by officials to a program of equal employment, failure to establish an effective policy of equal employment opportunity, and refusal to make commitments for corrective action of noted deficiencies.

When subsequent inquiry and negotiation failed to secure necessary action, the Executive Vice Chairman issued an order on November 8, 1962, to all Government agencies requiring submission of compliance reports by all facilities of the company prior to award of further Government contracts.

In December the company submitted the required reports and in addition submitted a detailed program for affirmative action consistent with the spirit of Executive Order 10925.

On January 11, 1963, the Executive Vice Chairman rescinded the order against Blue Bell, Inc. based upon its affirmative commitments. The Defense Supply Agency was assigned to a continuing monitor of this corporation.

On May 21, 1963, the company's first report of progress in carrying out its program was received. The report indicated the following:

1. The company has held management conferences in all manufacturing and administrative divisions covering all points of policy affecting equal employment opportunity.

2. Two Negro female applicants have been hired in Abingdon, Ill., as sewing machine trainees, a previously all-white category.

3. Three Negro female applicants have been hired at Greensboro, N.C., as sewing machine trainees.

4. Two Negro clerical workers at the corporate offices, employed as such prior to the committee's order, have received salary increases based on merit. 5. Five Negro women were employed as sewing machine operators at Lenoir, N.C.

6. Recruitment sources for all plants, particularly State employment offices, have been furnished with copies of the company policy on equal employment opportunity and are referring applicants without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.

The Defense Supply Agency is continuing surveillance of the contractor and will forward periodic reports of progress.

Danly Machine Co., Chicago, Ill.

An investigation by Department of the Navy disclosed that this company had taken virtually no steps to afford equal employment opportunity. It employed 1,389 persons, none of whom were Negro, even though it was located in an area of substantial minority group population.

Negotiations and persuasive methods failed to achieve more than minimal corrective action by the contractor. Therefore, on March 9, 1962, the Executive Vice Chairman issued an order to all agencies requiring submission of a compliance report by the company prior to award of any further Government contracts. Shortly afterward it was determined that the company was bidding on further Government contracts. On May 4, 1962, the company filed compliance reports and noted actions it was taking to correct noted deficiencies. On May 16, 1962, negotiations were held in which the company committed itself to a comprehensive program of affirmative compliance with Executive Order 10925, which was subsequently confirmed in writing. Based on the company's commitments, the Executive Vice Chairman's order to Government agencies was withdrawn on May 18.

On June 5, 1962, the company forwarded commitments in writing, detailing its positive program for compliance. Following are corrective actions taken by the company:

1. The company established contact with sources of minority group recruitment for referral of qualified minority group applicants.

2. The company eliminated all requests for information concerning race from its preemployment forms.

3. The company issued for all employees an effective policy statement of equal employment opportunity and established a program for delegation of responsibility for compliance throughout all levels of supervision and personnel authority. It established effective measures of feedback and control to see that this program was adequately carried out.

4. It notified in writing all sources of recruitment that it expected referral without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.

5. It broadened the base of its advertising and recruitment activities to include periodicals reaching the minority group community and colleges with substantial minority group enrollment.

6. The company hired Negro applicants for machine operator and machine operator trainee positions.

7. The company notified unions with which it deals of its program for compliance and received their immediate endorsement of its program.

On November 5, 1962, the company's report of progress in its program for compliance was received and reviewed. The following progress was noted: Additional Negro applicants had been hired as vacancies occurred; one man hired as a trainee had been promoted into the company's apprenticeship program; another machinist trainee was hired and subsequently promoted to a milling machine operator position; another applicant was hired as an accountant; another applicant was hired as a mechanical assembler.

An additional verbal report of progress from the company in July indicates that further Negro applicants have been hired for semiskilled, skilled, and trainee positions. In addition, the company reports the following minority group employees currently on its rolls:

18 Latin-American employees, both skilled and unskilled (increase of 6). 1 Nigerian student employed for summer work.