Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the end of your statement. The procedure that we are now experiencing before this committee follows very extensive hearings on section 14(b). The committee met in executive session and voted out what we in our judgment believed to be a good bill, the repeal of section 14(b).

At the time the action was taken on that particular measure, there were no strings attached. We acted because we felt that repeal of section 14(b) was long overdue. In the hearings that we are now conducting on H.R. 8998, and in whatever subsequent action we take on this legislation, I would certainly agree with the chairman of the subcommittee that this is not going to be predicated on the desire to hamper the progress of action on the bill to repeal section 14 (b).

I think these two measures are completely separate and apart. While I am anxious to hear the testimony on H.R. 8998. I should like the record to show that I am not in any way bound to dispose of H.R. 8998 prior to any action on 14(b). I have already cast my vote in support of repeal of 14(b).

I just have one question to ask of the chairman. Will we have an opportunity as long as we are going to take testimony on H.R. 8998, to hear from the new Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? I certainly think that we ought to have his views on the act in its present form. If he feels that we need some additional amendments, I think we can all agree that it is somewhat a rather strange procedure to be amending an act here now that hasn't seen 1 single hour of daylight. This act was passed last year, and President Johnson has moved in good faith. He has appointed a Commission in which I think we can all place the highest confidence, that they are going to carry out the provisions of title VII. There is no reason for anyone to believe or suspect that the Commission is not going to do an effective job in this field, which is long overdue. I think we can all agree that we needed this legislation. This subcommittee, if I remember correctly, on two different occasions reported out sound FEPC legislation which I supported, simply because we felt that we needed this legislation, that it was overdue.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not want to interrupt the gentleman, and I will be glad to answer his question, but

Mr. PUCINSKI (continuing). I want the record to be clear. It seems to me that if we are going to move along with H.R. 8998, I would like at least to hear the views of the new Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I am glad that we have these two very important witnesses here today. I am going to be very interested in what they have to say. But I did want to clarify the record of my position on this bill.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have been authorized to state for the Chairman of the newly appointed Commission that he feels that at this time he cannot testify on these two bills, although his personal inclination is to say that he can see nothing which is not acceptable in them. He will then be subject to making other statements which, of course, until his Commission has actually had an opportunity to have some experience, he would be unable to do.

Mrs. Green?

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask only one question. In view of the comments which you made in your opening statement,

then may I ask the reason for hearings at 6:15 this evening, why the apparent haste, and what is the chairman's wish as to further hearings and the speed with which you want final consideration of this?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. In answer to the gentlelady's well put question, it is simply because the chairman of the full committee requested that certain steps be taken to bring this before the full committee at its meeting on Thursday of this week. He felt that if we could draw legislation which would have little or no opposition, that this might facilitate the passage of the repeal of 14 (b), and that he would therefore request this subcommittee to hear views on legislation and pass on whether or not we would recommend this legislation to the full committee by Thursday of this week.

Obviously, there was no other way to do it except by this procedure. Mrs. GREEN. Without commenting on the merits of either the bill before us or 14 (b), as a point of information, could the chairman advise me what the motion was in the full committee as to the reporting of 14(b)?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I assume the minutes that the clerk keeps will be more accurate, but my recollection is that the chairman was instructed to report the action of the full committee to take 5 legislative days to receive necessary reports, minority or any other views that might be expressed, and at which time, after that motion was carried, the chairman did make a statement which, in essence, said that unless some other action to improve the enforcement of title VII was taken, he would not take any action with respect to requesting consideration of the repeal bill by the Rules Committee.

Mrs. GREEN. I thank the chairman, because it seems to me that the exact motion should be made a part of this record, because it certainly would have an influence on the hearings here, the haste, and the decisions that this subcommittee might make.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Without objection, the Chair will instruct counsel

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I beg your pardon. That was an executive session, so I guess it cannot be made a part of the public record. The Chair will have to regret fully decline the request.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. BELL. The gentlelady from Oregon asked my question, and I think she asked it very well. I certainly concur with much of what she said. I also concur with Mr. Pucinski. I think if we are going to take up this matter, it is a very important matter, and I think it should be given due consideration.

Under those circumstances, I think that the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, should be here for hearings. I definitely get the implication from what you are saying that you are pushing this thing through overnight because the chairman of the full committee says it must be so. I object heartily to this type of action.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Let me just say the committee has the right to take whatever action it wishes to take. We will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock to take that action.

Mr. Reid?

Mr. REI. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you for the privilege of sitting with your distinguished subcommittee today, and

to say I am delighted to see Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP and Andy Biemiller of the AFL-CIO present.

I, too, should like to join in the remarks of the chairman to make clear my position with regard to 14(b), was evidenced by my vote, both in the subcommittee and in the full committee, voting for repeal thereof. I believe this measure is not connected to that.

With regard to the substantive question, I think the record, Mr. Chairman, is clear, and has been clear before the Congress for several years, that there is a need for the most effective and strongest FEPC that we can have. It is quite clear that while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an important and significant step forward, that the FEPC section did lack certain elements that are basic to a strong FEPC.

Specifically, the present act denies the Commission the right to issue cease and desist orders and, in addition, any material that that Commission develops cannot be introduced in the court proceedings. The court proceedings would have to start de novo. While it technically might be needed to have a lengthy period of trial under the Civil Rights Act, I think the plain facts of the matter are that the approach presented in a stronger Commission type FEPC has been thoroughly tested by the State of New York in its State commission, and in a number of other commissions. It was the sense of many of us in the Congress that a strong commission approach was more desirable.

I do not believe our Nation can continue indefinitely to waste the human resources when equal opportunity can be furthered by stronger action. Therefore, I think the case for the approach should stand on the need for it, and I believe a stronger FEPC would well serve the Nation and all America.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Mitchell, we are happy to have you with us. We beg your pardon for keeping you so long. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NAACP, REPRESENTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and chairman of the legislative committee of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. I appear here today in response to the invitation extended by the subcommittee chairman to the leadership conference to testify on H.R. 8998 and H.R. 8999.

I should like to say, also, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, that here with us today are a great many of the colleagues representing various organizations who meet regularly and work as a team in trying to get civil rights legislation through. They are all very dedicated people and the fact that they are present at this hour is an indication of their interest.

The telegram requesting our testimony was received Friday past. Despite the short notice, the leadership conference was able to schedule an early meeting on Monday of its Washington representatives to discuss this legislation. The position I present today was adopted at that meeting without dissent.

The leadership conference supported the inclusion of title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a constructive step in the direction of employment equality. While it did so, it reiterated its long-held position that to be fully effective any fair employment legislation must contain maximum coverage of employers, labor unions, and employment agencies and must be enforcible through administrative action, including the authority of the enforcement agency to issue cease-anddesist orders. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when I say the leadership conference favors strengthening of title VII.

We, therefore, welcome the introduction of H.R. 8998 and H.R. 8999 by Chairman Roosevelt and Congressman Reid-the two bills that are the subject of this hearing as well as the bills introduced by Congressmen Frank Thompson and James O'Hara which also have as their objective the strengthening of title VII.

Despite our agreement with the objectives of these bills, however, we have concluded that the bills under consideration present problems that could not be resolved without further consideration by our constituent organizations.

H.R. 8998 and H.R. 8999 would add a third method of enforcement of the existing equal employment legislation. It would result in the same administrative agency attempting to conciliate complaints, processing them through to enforcement on its own initiative and through its own administrative machinery, or referring them to another agency-the Department of Justice--for court enforcement. While creating possible administrative confusion, this would fall short of our previously adopted position of seeking full administrative enforce

ment.

Some organizations within the leadership conference have expressed concern over the specific exemption given in the present legislation to government agencies. This has been highlighted by the recent firings in Virginia, North Carolina, and other Southern States of colored teachers in the process of school desegregation.

In raising these questions, we reemphasize our position in favor of the strongest possible fair employment legislation. At such time as serious congressional consideration of this subject is likely, I am sure that the constituent organizations within the leadership conference will agree on the details of a program they could all support and the proper time to implement such a program. The arrival at such a consensus, however, would require further consideration within the conference. If the subcommittee so requests, we will explore these questions further with our member organizations.

It is no secret that an effort is being made to require the passage of the legislation before this subcommittee as a precondition to further action on the passage of H.R. 77, to repeal section 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. We believe that each of these pieces of legislation should be considered by Congress on its own merits, and the passage of one should not be contingent on the passage of the other.

On May 27, I appeared before the Special Subcommittee on Labor to present a statement on H.R. 77 for Roy Wilkins, executive director of the NAACP; A. Philip Randolph, president of the American Negro Labor Council; Rev. Martin Luther King, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and James Farmer, national di

rector of the Congress of Racial Equality. In the course of that statement I expressed their combined views as follows:

We know after many long years of experience that so-called right-to-work laws do not give Negro workers the right to work. These laws are of no value in ending discrimination. We shall proceed, as we have in the past, on our efforts to eliminate discrimination by some employers and by certain labor unions, but we also wish to assist in helping to build a truly democratic American labor movement that is based upon the principles of racial and economic justice.

The leadership conference is on record in support of the strongest possible safeguards against discrimination by employers and labor unions. Many of its member organizations support repeal of section 14(b). We ask that Congress address itself to these objectives as separate legislative items of business.

Because of the shortness of time, it was not possible to follow the usual practice of clearing this statement with all members of the leadership conference. The following organizations were represented at the Monday meeting at which the statement was approved:

NAACP; AFL-CIO: National Urban League; Japanese-Americans Citizens League; IUE and AFL-CIO; Anti-Defamation League; Amalgamated Clothing Workers; National Association of Colored Women's Clubs; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees; National Council of Churches; Industrial Union Department and AFL-CIO; ACLU; Southern Christian Leadership Conference; United Steelworkers of America; National Council of Negro Women; ADA; United Auto Workers; Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workers; Zeta Phi Lambda; Delta Sigma Theta; Jewish War Veterans; National Council of Agricultural Life & Labor; American Jewish Congress; Citizens Lobby for Freedom & Fair Play; American Jewish Committee.

With your permission, I would like to add the International Ladies' Garment Workers to the list presented, and the National Council of Jewish Women, which inadvertently was omitted from the list.

One organization represented, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), reserved the right to present a separate statement of its position.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. I am pleased to note that you feel, Mr. Mitchell, that the two pieces of legislation, H.R. 77 and the bill under consideration, H.R. 8998, are two separate pieces of legislation, that they should be treated separately, and that the passage of one should have no bearing on the other.

I concur in your views on that matter.

You did mention that the leadership conference, of which you are the secretary, deals in other areas in which it feels the Employment Opportunities Act should be strengthened. Does your leadership feel that it desires to go into that and that it should be incorporated in this bill that we are now considering?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Daniels, I think that would be the sentiment. of those who comprise the leadership conference. The chairman has pointed out that the new act is just getting underway. It is no secret, because it was mentioned on the radio Sunday by the chairman, the Commission has assembled a team of lawyers. Their objective is to

53-267-65- -2