EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 362, Cannon Building, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins presiding. Present: Representatives Daniels, Hawkins, Ayres, and Martin. Also present: Jay Foreman, counsel. Mr. HAWKINS. The meeting will come to order. This is the meeting of the General Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor. It is a hearing on H.R. 405, the proposed Federal equal employment opportunity act; and in the absence of the chairman of the committee, Mr. Roosevelt, and also the senior member of the committee, I have been asked to preside this morning. We have also with us Mr. Ayres, the ranking minority member of the committee. The first witness is Hon. Charles Joelson, Representative from the State of New Jersey. Mr. Joelson, we are very pleased to have you as our first witness this morning. You may proceed to either read your statement or to make any such remarks as you care to make before the committee. Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Ayres. Mr. AYRES. I would like to say that Mr. Joelson is a former member of the Education and Labor Committee, a very valued member, and I know we shall be interested in his testimony. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you for those remarks, Mr. Ayres. Mr. Joelson. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. JOELSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. JOELSON. Thank you, sir. I may say, though I have moved over to the Appropriations Committee, I do miss the excitement and controversy that I suppose is necessarily a part of the Education and Labor Committee. I am going to be very brief. I don't have a prepared statement. But I do want to indicate for the record my very real interest in the legislation, H.R. 405. I feel that our Negro citizens will really be on the way to solving their problems when they get the unqualified right to vote and to work. And, of course, H.R. 405 concerns itself with their right to work. I feel once they have political justice and economic justice, everything else will follow. Now, it is very fine to talk about giving our Negro citizens housing opportunities and a college education, but unless they have the economic opportunity of taking advantage of new housing or educational opportunities that might become available to them, then it is just a pious hope. And I believe that once our minority groups, not only Negroes but all minority groups, have equal employment opportunities, we are going to be on our way. And I would say that it seems to me that some people who sponsor civil rights amendments, social legislation, are strangely silent when it comes to basic civil rights legislation such as this. Now, last week we had the aid to medical colleges bill and, of course, a civil rights amendment was offered and it got sizable support. And, yet, the very people who supported it on the floor are not in the forefront of the fight for H.R. 405. Some of them are, a handful of them are, but if those people were really concerned about civil rights legislation they would be here before this committee filing statements, testifying, because that is the way the solution can be obtained in basic civil rights legislation. So, gentlemen, I merely want the record to indicate that I feel that H.R. 405 is one of the most vital pieces of legislation that is before the Congress at the present time and I certainly wish that it could get out of this committee to the Rules Committee where, of course, it would have a very rocky path but I think, I know, that the first step is action by this committee which I urge you gentlemen to take, and I thank you for your courtesy. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Joelson. The Chair would like to defer to the senior member from New Jersey, Mr. Daniels, to preside. Mr. Daniels, I was merely presiding in order to await your appearance. Would you take over the chair, please? Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Joelson, I apologize to you for not being here at the time you commenced your testimony, but I was tied up in my office talking to a constituent, which was the reason why I was tardy this morning. Mr. JOELSON. I think you will survive without the benefit of my remarks. Mr. DANIELS. However, I did hear part of your testimony and am very happy to hear of the stand you have taken on this civil rights bill. I know that you have been a leader and in the forefront in this type of legislation. I recall your interest in the impacted area legislation and the fact you have been the first to file a bill with respect to the elimination of discrimination in that area. So, I want to compliment you for the stand you have taken. Mr. JOELSON. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Ayres? Mr. AYRES. Mr. Joelson, you mentioned that some of the people will support amendments, but when it comes to supporting bills they don't care to come before the committee. Do you feel that amendments are really the way to determine whether or not there is sentiment in the Congress for such legislation? Mr. JOELSON. No, Mr. Ayres. I really do not, because I think it is undisputed that many people support civil rights amendments to kill the bill under consideration. We had a refreshing display of candor last week when one of the gentlemen-I forget who it was-got up and admitted to the House of Representatives that he was backing the civil rights amendments offered last week in order to kill the bill. And I think he only differed from many of his colleagues in his candor. But I think many of them back civil rights amendments just for that purpose and if they were really sincere they would be backing basic civil rights legislation such as we have today before this committee. But I don't hear them making statements or see them filing statements. Their silence is deafening and I think it is very revealing. Mr. AYRES. Well, I think the remark made by the gentleman you referred to was unfortunate. I don't think he intended to say that. What he intended to say was he was against the bill, anyway. Mr. JOELSON. Maybe it was what we call a Freudian slip. Mr. AYRES. But I do think the amendment offered the other day was more basic to the problem than many other amendments offered in the past. Mr. JOELSON. There is no question about it. And that is why it is so difficult to vote on for me, because I am in favor of these amendments, but it is a deep problem for me because I know that. You take a housing bill. If the housing bill is passed, all citizens can benefit by it, white citizens, Negro citizens, in most sections of our country. And that is why it is so difficult for me to decide how to vote because, on the other hand, I see that passage of the bill will result in added opportunities for all of our citizens. Yet, at the same time, philosophically, and in my conscience, I am in favor of the amendment. But I believe the way to do this thing is, first, to pass the legislation, get the legislation on the books, and then to offer civil rights measures which I did last year, for instance, on the impacted areas bill. I voted for the impacted areas bill, but then I offered a separate bill which would bar impacted areas' money to districts which failed to obey the mandate of the Supreme Court concerning integration. And the strange thing is that all these people who offer civil rights amendments to social legislation failed to support this rather simple and direct approach that I had offered. So therefore I question their good faith and I am not-I might say—I want the record to indicate that I am not referring to our chairman of this committee, because the chairman of the committee favors not only the so-called Powell amendment but he favors civil rights legislation generally. I am talking to the people who favor only the Powell amendment but fail to support general civil rights legislation. Mr. AYRES. But I think it is unfortunate when we have those arguing that the answer to this problem is education and then we fail to guarantee these citizens the right to that education where Federal funds are involved. So I think the Congress has been a little inconsistent in many of its views a majority of the members have accepted in the final analysis because that is the way the vote has come out. 22-652-63 4 That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Hawkins, any questions? Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Joelson, I assume what you are saying is that, regardless of whether or not a person might have been sincere in supporting the so-called Powell amendment the other day, or to any other bill, that the bill before us, H.R. 405, is at least a bill which the honest supporters of civil rights have the opportunity of supporting and that those individuals who, in all sincerity, regardless of who they may be, have this opportunity, that your experience has been, in the past at least, that they have not come forward on this occasion. Is that the situation? Mr. JOELSON. That is it exactly. I feel that this bill presents an undiluted test of whether or not a Congressman is a friend of civil rights or is not a friend of civil rights, extraneous of side issues. It is a purely civil rights bill. Hr. HAWKINS. Would it be your conclusion that an individual who supports the so-called Powell admendment and who then opposes this approach more or less convicts himself as not being sincere? Mr. JOELSON. Yes. I would concur there and I would use the word "hypocrisy." Mr. HAWKINS. Fine. Thank you. Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Joelson. It is a pleasure to have you here. Our next witness will be Congressman Ogden Reid. Mr. Reid represents the 26th Congressional District of New York. We will be glad to hear your testimony at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. OGDEN R. REID, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, as former chairman of the New York State Commission for Human Rights and as Representative from the 26th Congressional District of New York, I am happy to have the opportunity to testify on behalf of fair employment practices legislation. It is clear that we need equal opportunity-based on meritfor all Americans in employment and in apprenticeship training. The State of New York, on July 1, 1945, was the first State in the Nation to pass FEPC legislation. Since that time, more than 20 other States have adopted legislation in this field. It is of interest, I believe, to note that in the State of New York some 7,725 cases in employment have been brought before the State commission. I include a chart to show the commission's success in conciliating and resolving the vast majority of these cases where probable cause was found to exist. State commission for human rights employment complaint statistics, July 1, 1945, to Dec. 31, 1962 Total number of employment complaints filed__. Probable cause found: 7,725 (a) Adjusted by conference and conciliation (18.8 percent). ------ 1, 405 (b) Complaints ordered for public hearing and consent orders issues (0.9 percent) –– 64 No probable cause and no other discriminatory practice found by investigating commissioner (51.1 percent)--. 3, 811 Lack of jurisdiction found (5.2 percent) – 387 171 No probable cause but other discriminatory practices found and adjusted by investigating commissioner (21.7 percent) Complaints ordered for public hearing and consent orders issued__. 1, 620 1 64 1 In the 37 cases ordered for public hearings, the following statistics are pertinent: Complaints settled before or during hearing after having been ordered for public hearing---. Hearing completed and order entered_ 27 3 The State of New York also enacted on March 20, 1962, the first State statute in apprenticeship training. The case here for Federal action is equally persuasive. The best available estimates indicate that only 2 percent of those undergoing apprentice training in the United States are Negro and that out of a Negro work force of some 7 million-11 to 20 percent are unemployed-twice that of other workers. Apprentice training in all its respects covers well over one-half million jobs a year. Where discrimination exists in this area it prejudices American society from the home to the school and wastes some of our best human resources. It is my hope that the Congress will enact this legislation, as the right—on merit—to seek gainful employment is basic to our concept of democracy and the denial of this right to join a union or to participate in joint labor-management programs hurts the individual, family, and community. Mr. DANIELS. Thank you. I am sure that you have made a fine contribution to the deliberations of this committee. We will now hear the statement of the Honorable Clifford Case, a Senator from the State of New Jersey. Senator it is a pleasure to welcome you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator CASE. On behalf of myself and several colleagues, I have introduced three bills which aim at elimination of discrimination in employment. Survey after survey has confirmed what has long been obvious. The nonwhite is the last hired and the first fired. The recent Manpower Report of the President contains some telling figures on this point. |