the Federal agency ought to completely wash its hands of New York or Massachusetts or other States, because there might well be particular Federal construction projects, Federal activities of great scale where maybe the Federal agency ought to see to it that the proper things are done with a Federal contractor or a Federal grantee. But I am a great believer in States rights and local administration if only the States will take on the responsibility and carry out their responsibility in this area, and wherever any State is ready, willing, and able to do it I would think it would be wise administration for the Federal Government to leave it in State hands.

Senator JAVITS. So that you would feel-you are not able to bind the Commission, so I will just ask you as one of the Commission members that a suitable provision for cession of jurisdiction of the kind you describe would be a desirable element in the bill?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I thought it was in the bill now; as I read it, it seemed to me that it would enable doing just that. Section 13. Senator JAVITS. Section 13 relates to the effect of State laws, but it does not provide for a cession of jurisdiction.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I am a little hesitant about accepting the word "cession of jurisdiction." It seems to me that it is implicit in section 13 that the Federal agency and the State agency will come to some kind of decision as to which types of cases each agency will handle. There might, for example, be some matter which had great interstate implications, some single contract which involved Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, where it might be much more convenient for all concerned for the Federal agency to handle it.

I should think that this was essentially an administrative matter, and, incidentally, one of the reasons why a single administrator would be a very effective way to deal with it.

Senator JAVITS. I believe as a lawyer that it would be necessary to give the Administrator authority, even if he did not use it, to contract. with the State FEPC agencies for the purpose of having them enforce, within the State, broad provisions of a Federal FEPC law, and that that would be very helpful to the law.

What I am trying to ascertain now is that scheme of administration without regard at the moment to whether it is or is not provided for by S. 1937. Personally I think it is not. It would be something you would see would be helpful.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator, I find myself hesitant at that word "contract," because I think after the arrangement had been made, if the Federal Administrator found that the State people were not doing anything about it, that he ought to be free to move in and exercise the Federal authority and I would prefer something like "arrangement" or "adjustment"; indeed, I even take the position that "agreement" is a less strong word than contract.

Senator CLARK. It ought to be flexible.

Mr. GRISWOLD. It ought to be flexible, and it ought to be in such a way that the Federal agency can resume jurisdiction if the State agency does nothing.

Senator JAVITS. Commissioner. all you are doing is writing terms for such an agreement. I am willing to take your word "agreement": the important thing is that the Administrator shall have the author

22-287 0-63-32

ity to make it. He does, for example, under our amendments to the labor-management relations laws with State labor relations boards.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The problem is very similar to what is done in the labor-management law and I am not familar with the details of that but it would certainly be something to be considered in connection with this.

Senator JAVITS. I have in mind such an amendment and I wanted to get your view.

Finally, sir, has the Commission tried to do anything by way of rallying American business to what can be done in this FEPC field right now?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator, I do not believe the Commission has any power to do anything of that sort. The Commission's powers are rather narrowly stated in the statute and the Commission has tried to stay within those limitations, and those powers are to receive and investigate sworn complaints about denials of the right to vote and to investigate and report to the President and Congress about denials of the equal protection of the laws within the United States.

Now, that latter is rather broad but it does not carry with it any power to go out and persuade or negotiate with people outside. Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator CLARK. Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. No questions.

Senator CLARK. Dean Griswold, in view of the fact that we will put your statement in the record where it will be available for the committee and the staff, it is not necessary to ask you anything further unless there is some particular part of your testimony which you would like to emphasize for us.

At this time we will include your complete statement and the summary in the record.

(The complete statement and summary statement of Commissioner Griswold follow :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERWIN N. GRISWOLD, COMMISSIONER, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I am pleased to respond to your invitation to present our views on Federal policies which affect racial discrimination in the field of employment.

In connection with its forthcoming statutory report, the Commission has unanimously adopted a recommendation that

"Congress enact legislation establishing a right to equal opportunity in employment when that employment is assisted by the Federal Government or affects interstate commerce, with authority to initiate action and to issue appropriate orders vested in a single administrator located in the Department of Labor, and provision for appeal to an independent authority."

Senate bill 1937 is consistent with and would effectuate the Commission's recommendation. I therefore urge its enactment.

The economic disadvantage of Negroes is a fundamental cause of current social unrest, demonstrations, and protests. One week from tomorrow, the National Capital will be the scene of the largest civil rights gathering in our history. Thousands of Negro and white citizens from all parts of the country will come to this city under the banner of "Jobs and Freedom." The focus of the day will be employment opportunities as well as the broad range of civil rights issues now pending before Congress. In the South, demonstrators against segregated public accommodations have listed equal employment opportunity as one of their major goals. In the North, the demonstrations of

recent months have highlighted growing dissatisfaction with restricted employment opportunities and the high rate of unemployment among nonwhites. Few of us can honestly believe that we can somehow cure these symptoms without correcting those economic ills, from which, in large measure, they spring.

The persistence oaf economic injustices, the disparity between white and Negro income levels, and the rising unemployment rate among Negroes now urgently demand of Congress speedy corrective action. In addition, the changing patterns of the job market foreteli mounting economic deprivation for Negroes rendered jobless by automation and increasing technological change. Testimony has already been presented before this committee substantiating the well-known fact that the Negro "still ranks among the poorest of the poor in the United States and that his economic status relative to whites has not improved for nearly 20 years." Whatever improvements Negroes have achieved in occupational levels and in incomes have tended to result from general shifts in the economy rather than from any significant lessening of the economic disparity between Negroes and whites. It is still a fact that one-third of employed Negroes are service workers, compared to 11 percent of employed whites; and that only 17 percent of employed Negroes have achieved the status of whitecollar workers, compared to 47 percent for whites. The unemployed rate for nonwhites has remained twice as high as the rate for whites, and among young Negroes has shown a disturbing tendency to increase persistently. Finally, the income of nonwhites has remained at 50 to 60 percent the income of whites, and in fact, since the midfifties, the gap has widened.

But even more disturbing to Negroes than this general economic disparity is the discrepancy in earning power between Negroes and whites with the same number of years of schooling or performing the same kind of work. It is disturbing to realize that in his lifetime a Negro college graduate will earn less than the white who did not go beyond the eighth grade. And that even with the same years of schooling. Negro teachers, physicians, clerks, sales workers, bus and truck drivers, and household workers all earn less than their white counterparts.

There is reason for further concern in the fact that the manpower trends predicted for the future indicate that there will be even greater problems in this area unless firm steps are taken to improve the situation. The very areas of employment where Negroes made gains during World War II and thereafter (production jobs) are the areas where employment opportunities appear to be shrinking. At the same time, opportunities are expanding in the categories where Negroes have yet to make significant advances (professionals, managers, clerical and sales workers).

All of us recognize, of course, that the economic disparity between whites and nonwhites is not entirely attributable to employment discrimination. Inequality in education bears its share of responsibility for this current situation, as well as the general erosive effects of segregation which have too often sapped the enthusiasm, interest. and aspirations of Negroes in every age group. Nevertheless. the evidence already presented to this committee substantiates the conclusion that regardless of educational attainment, Negroes continue to be denied equal employment opportunities because of their race and color.

Further substantiation. if any were needed. is provided by the experience of Negroes in the Armed Forces when contrasted with those in the civilian labor market. The armed services, particularly the Army and the Air Force. have demonstrated the improved utilization of Negro manpower which is possible when policies of equal opportunity are followed. A detailed Commission report will soon be released on this subject. I might briefly summarize the major findings here.

While there are many pitfalls in comparing civilian and military occupations, the evidence shows that both Negro enlisted men and officers have attained higher occupational levels than have Negroes dependent upon the civilian employment market. This is so in every clerical, technical, and skilled field for which the data permit comparison, including technicians in electronic, drafting, medical, and dental fields: aircraft and automotive mechanics: electricians and communications linemen: construction and related craftsmen: and printing craftsmen. The performance of the Army in utilizing Negro manpower is exceptionally outstanding. In nearly all of the occupations studied, the Army's proportion of Negroes was two, three, or even four times

higher than the proportion of Negroes in the discriminatory environment of the civilian economy.

Negro military personnel have conclusively demonstrated that given equal employment opportunities they have the education, skill, and capacity to perform at managerial, scientific, and technical levels. Our civilian economy could only be greatly strengthened by a similar effective use of Negro manpower.

Faced as we are with the current racial disparity in the civilian economy and with the projected manpower trends which will intensify the problems of occupational status, unemployment, and income for the Negro, establishment of equal employment opportunities becomes imperative. Nothing short of a nationwide affirmative and conscious effort by Government, employers, unions, and others as called for by this bill-will avoid the economic waste and social unrest which await us. No American community can justify its claim to democracy nor long preserve peace and order when one-fourth of Negro youth are unemployed, and when many other Negroes are employed at less than their full capacity.

It

Senate bill 1937 embodies a bold and fresh approach to the problem but no more than is necessary to cope with the magnitude of the issues we face. preserves those features of the State commission approach which have been most effective and incorporates improved features to cope with the current issues on a national level. The question before this committee is not whether Federal action is needed to promote equal employment opportunity but rather whether the particular form that Federal action takes will be equal to the task. This bill appropriately emphasizes the positive concept of equal employment opportunity. The current economic and employment status of Negroes is not simply the result of employers refusing to hire qualified Negro jobseekers. It is more the result of restrictive practices of labor unions, both as to membership and apprentice training, and of other personnel and manpower systems established by tradition, habit, or convenience which by their operation have the effect of excluding Negroes from employment opportunities. The goal is not merely to insure nondiscriminatory treatment of the Negro applicant when he arrives at the personnel office, but rather to insure that Negroes as well as whites will know of job vacancies, will be referred by placement agencies, and will possess the requisite training to qualify. Nondiscrimination alone will not solve the problem we face if Negroes never learn of jobs, are denied referrals by employment agencies, and are barred from training facilities. Equal employment opportunity is properly defined by the statute in terms of the entire employment process.

Since the act broadens the usual concept of nondiscriminatory employment practices and seeks to encourage a review of basic personnel and manpower systems, the Administrator should be authorized to acquaint persons subject to the act with these objectives and with methods by which these objectives may be achieved. The bill does not so provide and might well be amended accordingly.

A second significant feature of the bill is the administrative structure proposed. The Commission has recommended, and S. 1937 so provides, that the agency responsible for the administration of the statute be located within the Department of Labor so that the many skills and services of the Department may be effectively utilized to achieve equal employment opportunity. Public employment agencies, apprenticeship training, and manpower development all have a vital role to play in influencing and affecting the personnel systems of our economy. The Department's policy decisions and programs in these areas and the activities of other bureaus of the Department have a profound impact on equality of opportunity which must be coordinated with the program of the Equal Employment Opportunity Administration. Placing the Administration within the Department of Labor will make this possible.

Furthermore, vesting administration in a single administrator responsible to the Secretary of Labor is an improvement over the sometimes cumbersome multiheaded policymaking commissions. The Administrator is properly made responsible for planning, developing, initiating, and executing the program necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act, and he is given the discretion and authority to accomplish this objective. This approach is vital to the success of the agency.

The provision of this bill granting the Administrator authority to decide whether or not to receive an individual complaint is sound. The Administrator

must exercise initiative in directing the resources of the agency to those fields and to those problems which careful study and research have indicated are of prime importance. The program and direction of the agency should not be determined by individual complainants. In addition persons subject to the act should be protected from the harassment of disgruntled and misguided individuals.

Also, reliance on the complaints of individuals focuses attention on questions of employer and labor union guilt or innocence. The far more important issue is whether all persons are afforded equality of opportunity. The emphasis of the bill is properly on affirmative action. At the same time, ample opportunity is afforded for the correction of violations, however uncovered, through persuasion and conciliation, thus preserving a feature of State commission procedures which has proven effective.

It is recognized that under the provisions of this bill the Administrator has been granted considerable authority and discretion. This is essential and proper provided adequate review of his actions, orders, and decisions is possible. With minor exceptions, the powers of the Administrator are adequately circumscribed by administrative and judicial review procedures. For instance, if the Administrator issues any remedial or cease-and-desist order, the person against whom the order is issued has the right of appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Board. If the Administrator rejects an individual's complaint, finding no violation of the statute, the complainant may appeal to the Board. No order of the Administrator is enforcible unless it has been reviewed and affirmed by the Board. The Board hears each case de novo, and parties have the right to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The Board may affirm, modify, or reverse orders of the Administrator.

The very nature of the Board as an agency independent of the Administrator, separating the prosecuting and judging functions, further insures the adequacy of the review of the actions of the Administrator. This structure is consistent with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission and with the Administrative Procedure Act, and is properly extended to the sensitive area of equal employment opportunity.

Finally judicial review of the orders of the Board by a court of appeals serves as a final check on both the Administrator and the Board. Under these circumstances the grant of authority to the Administrator will not endanger the rights of persons subject to the act.

However, there are three areas where the committee might well want to enlarge the opportunity for appeals to the Board in order to give ample protection to the rights of all parties.

1. Since the Administrator may refuse to receive written complaints from an individual, the complainant should have the right to appeal his decision to the Board. The decision of the Administrator not to investigate a complaint should not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

2. Only persons "against whom an order is issued" may appeal to the Board (sec. 6d). Either complainant or respondent should have the right of appeal if dissatisfied with the order of the Administrator. Perhaps the more desirable language "person aggrieved" should be used in this section as is used in section 9a governing the right to judicial review by the court of appeals.

3. Regulations issued by the Administrator should not become effective unless reviewed and approved by the Board.

Two additional suggested changes may be mentioned for consideration by the committee. Section 16c of the act refers to the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. The Commission on Civil Rights has recommended the establishment of the President's Committee by statute. However if this bill were enacted and if the Administrator were authorized to act on behalf of the contracting agencies, there would be no need for the President's Committee and its current activities could then be terminated. The duplication of Federal agencies should not be encouraged.

Also the coverage of this bill, while comprehensive, including employment resulting from Federal contracts would not cover employment resulting from Federal grants. The distinctions between contracts and grants do not appear to warrant the differential treatment.

In conclusion, the solution of the economic and moral issues we face would be advanced by the enactment of S. 1937. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights supports and recommends such action.