enforcement of this act. And I am sure the sponsors of the act will say the same thing.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think the record should be made clear that there has been no evidence before this committee that the so-called Philadelphia plan has been a success, and for the gentleman from Illinois to cite this as a reason for opposing the transfer, I think is not supported by the record. But assuming that we take his position that the Philadelphia plan concept is good, and I supported the concept as it was presented to the Congress last time, and I assume the gentleman from Illinois did also, but assuming that the concept is good, it is only the intention of the sponsors of this legislation that that concept should be extended beyond the construction trades. Not every minority or every woman in the country is seeking a job in the construction trades. We certainly have indicated some progress, at least in a very limited field. But we have also indicated that this administration is only interested in Executive Order 11246 as it applies to the construction trades, but not to the great number of contractors doing business with the Department of Defense, for example, that controls 80 percent of the $50 billion of contracts let by this administration. If they want to enforce the Philadelphia concept, let them enforce that concept across the board and not just confine it to the Philadelphia plan. However, let us stipulate that you are right and that we want the Philadelphia concept. You are wrong in implying that H.R. 1746 deprives the Commission of the powers now enjoyed by OFCC.

It isn't a case of one or the other. Under this proposal the Commission will have. both the powers now enjoyed by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance as well as the machinery under title VII with cease and desist.

So if you are seeking strong enforcement, as your argument would tend to imply, then it seems to me you should join us in supporting H.R. 1476.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Clay?

Mr. CLAY. I would just like to comment on the Philadelphia plan. I think the record ought to show there has been a lot of talk about opportunity, but very little result. And since the inception of the Philadelphia plan this record ought to show that the membership of blacks in the construction unions has not increased but has decreased. I think that we can sit here all morning and talk about the Philadelphia plan and what it eventually may do, but the history of the plan has shown that black people have lost jobs in the construction industry since its inception.

Mr. HAWKINS. I was trying to be kind.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a comment relative to the comment Mr. Hawkins made a short time ago. The backlog in the EEOC is not because of the cease-and-desist orders primarily but because of the enforcement powers have not been available to them.

Now there is one other question I would like to ask in a rather facetious way, in as much as I represent a great deal of Hollywood. I note that you include among your working women, secretaries, lawyers, assembly line workers, clerks, teachers, and doctors, but there is no place in there where you include actresses.

Mrs. SHRIVER. We may have a few in our organization.
Mr. DENT. Is that a personal interest there?

Mr. Mazzoli?

Mr. Mazzoli. No questions.

Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly, Mrs. Shriver, for your very fine presentation.

At this time I see our colleague has come into the room and we are happy to have her as the next witness, the representative from the State of New York, Mrs. Shirley Chisholm.

Mrs. Chisholm, will you take the witness stand?

STATEMENT OF HON. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Gentlemen, I am very glad to have this opportunity to make this presentation this morning. I think it is one of the most vital issues concerning many people in this country today, including men, women, and minorities.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1746, as I was last year's bill, H.R. 17555 which, unfortunately, died in the Rules Committee.

We all know that the price of EEOC's being included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that the agency would not be accorded enforcement powers, quid pro quo. Able and dedicated people have worked at EEOC under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but without enforcement powers the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been a paper tiger. As Chairman Brown has remarked:

A respondent determined to maintain the status quo need only resist exhortations to change his ways and take refuge in the knowledge that eventually the Commission must withdraw. In most cases, the possibility of a pattern or praetice suit being brought by the Attorney General may be discounted for the simple reason that the Justice Department must be very selective in expending its resources. All that an intransigent respondent has to fear is the unlikely possibility that whomever he has discriminated against will take him to court. This has happened in less than 10 percent of the cases where we forward reasonable cause and attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful.

In funding year 1970, the EEOC processed 14,234 complaints and successfully conciliated only 342 cases during the same period. This quite dramatically illustrates the failure of the voluntary compliance remedy when it is not backed up by stronger authority.

EEOC must have cease-and-desist powers. Just having them will create a better mood of voluntary compliance and, of course, will provide an additional remedy in instances of intransigence.

The expansion of EEOC's jurisdiction to include Federal, State, county, and municipal employees is important and necessary. There are over 9.5 million persons employed in 81,000 State and local governmental units.

Although the Federal Government has a better record of equal opportunity than the private sector, it only looks good by comparison. Blacks account for only 1.8 percent of Federal employees at a GS-12 level or above. 20.5 percent are concentrated in the four lowest grades. In the beloved National Aeronautics and Space Administration, only 2.9 percent of the employees are black, including 0.8 percent of its employees at the GS-12 level or above. So much for the trickle-down

theory. The only jobs created by the Space Agency for blacks are the maid and janitorial jobs in the hotels and motels in Cape Kennedy and Houston.

In State and local government units, the situation is much worse. In the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report "For All People *** By All the People," they reported that in seven urban areas located throughout the country-north as well as south-discrimination in public employment was serious and pervasive. In six of the seven areas studied, blacks constituted over 70 percent of the common laborers.

The extension of authority to employers and unions with eight or more members is another important refinement. Discrimination is not confined to big companies. This amendment will extend coverage to 912 million more workers.

The amendment to eliminate the existing exemptions for teachers in educational institutions is especially important to women. Representative Edith Green, in her excellent series of hearings last year on discrimination against women, carefuly documented the impact this exemption of teachers has had on women as individuals and in the education field.

I would like to add at this time that despite the fact that 23 percent of the charges received at EEOC have involved sex discrimination, EEOC, like the OFCC, the Justice Department and the civil rights section of HEW, have been less than aggressive in pursuing sex discrimination cases. The conventional wisdom seems to be that racial discrimination is more important than sex discrimination. I think these agencies should note that one-half of every minority group is made up of women and that women compose slightly more than half of our total population. Discrimination in the marketplace has terrible consequences. Women work not because they want to but because they have to work. They are cobreadwinners with their husbands or, in many instances, the sole support of their families. Among black families, over one-fourth are headed by women. If the family assistance plan is successful there are going to be some 2,500,000 more women out there looking for jobs.

For those who think that the women's liberation movement is a joke vaguely connected with burning bras and getting in the "men only" bars, may I disabuse you of that notion; it is about equal pay and equal opportunity in the job market.

The transfer of EEOC employment opportunity functions of the Civil Services Commission would help to shake up some of the rather stale and rigid personnel procedures which have been ongoing for some time. EEOC would offer a fresh, critical exposure of the state of the Federal Government's own house. As Justice Brandeis put it, "Sun light is said to be the best of disinfectants."

Transfer to EEOC the functions of the Attorney General with respect to pattern or practice suits is logical and necessary. The record of the Justice Department is not impressive. Because of limited manpower and the many responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Employment Opportunity suits are not accorded any kind of priority.

Now, we come to the discussion of the most crucial amendment, one which was not in last year's bill. I am speaking of course of the proposed transfer of the functions of the OFCC to the EEOC.

The first Executive order requiring nondiscrimination in hiring by Federal contractors was issued in 1941 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in response to a threatened march on Washington led by A. Philip Randolph. The authority of Executive Order 11246 now resides in the Office of Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor.

Interestingly, that contract termination power has never been used in all the time it has been in existence. As was stated in the testimoy of the U.S. Commission Civil Rights:

The Federal Contract Compliance program has suffered from the great reluetance of administrators to use such an extreme measure as the contract termination sanction.

To say the least, that is extremely delicately put. In point of fact no administration has ever really put itself on the line and indicated that it was really serious about enforcing the authority of Executive Order 11246. Every administration has played games with this issue.

If the Government in reality acted just three, four, five, or six times and actually terminated or refused to let a few Federal contracts, industry would get the message. There would be a flurry of minority hiring. Industry needs to know that the Government is serious. They need a few good examples.

Now this administration did take a step in that direction. Although the Philadelphia plan has not been terribly effective-only 41 minority group members have been placed because of it-it was, nevertheless, a serious step in the right direction. The administration and especially Assistant Secretary of Labor Arthur Fletcher and OFCC director John Wilks are to be commended. I mean that sincerely.

Of course, we also have to realize that it probably wasn't a complete accident that the administration chose to focus its attention on the building trades field. Everyone knows that for many years the labor movement has strongly supported the Democratic Party and that in the past labor has provided support for Civil Rights legislation. But the Philadelphia plan has alienated labor from civil rights movement in this instance on many levels.

Although the Philadelphia plan has not been remarkably successful, it has very much upset the building trades unions and they in turn have applied pressure on the AFL-CIO to advocate this transfer of OFCC to EEOC.

I think there are several things that have to be brought out in the open. There are many things we skirt around that we don't bring out in the open. I think we have to do that.

Now I, for one, have supported and participated in a number of union management battles. I have stood on the picket line with the drug and hospital workers; I have supported Caesar Chavez' farmworkers, but I think we must recognize that there are unions and there are unions. We Members of the House, in my humble opinion, and the Senate must be selective in determining whether every issue raised by labor deserves our support.

The labor movement which was young, progressive, and forwardlooking in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, has now become part of the establishment. If you attend labor conventions these days, the union leaders, with few exceptions, are all dressed in fine suits and have generous expense accounts. Some of the charges of exclusivity and status

quoism which labor has aimed at management can now be aimed at parts of the labor movement.

This is certainly true of the building trades. A report by the EEOC last month showed that the rate of black membership in the building trades unions declined from 7.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 1969, a year when the Government sponsored a major push to increase black membership in the building trades unions. We must recognize this move to put the functions of OFCC under EEOC for what it is: a building trades amendment which was generated by their outrage over the Philadelphia plan.

There are several problems with this amendment. First, OFCC's authority comes from an Executive order by the President. Does Congress have the power legally to transfer an Executive order? And if we legislated the authority of this order over to EEOC, could not the President just transfer it right back to Labor or any other Department that he wished?

Second, it is entirely possible that if this amendment is included in the bill that it would generate enough pressure against the bill to defeat the whole package. Even now when EEOC has no real power or clout, it faces a serious fight on every appropriations bill. Surely this is a good indication of the attitude of the Congress toward EEOC. Some members of this august body might think that cease and desist pattern and practice suits and contract termination was a bit more than they could swallow. This tactical question must be considered. However, if labor really is serious and sincere about its support of EEOC having the OFCC powers, I ask them if they would support codifying the language in Executive Order 11246 and transferring that codified language to EEOC's mandate? If not, then I submit that labor's support is disingenuous.

Thank you.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mrs. Chisholm. I want to congratulate you on your statement. It is very forthright and, as always, aimed right at the core of the problem.

I note on page 4 you call attention to the fact that at no time has the termination power been used nor has the power of refusing to let a contract ever been used. Under this order and preceding orders, not once has the Government used its power to terminate or to refuse to let a contract. The President's order just about 3 weeks ago on Davis-Bacon contracts has already been so effective that I, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the act, have a whole stack of mail pertaining to contracts that have been refused although their bids were put out before the President's Executive order. They say they don't want to use that extreme measure to force compliance with the Federal Government's civil rights and equal opportunities, but they are using it with a vengeance right at this moment in hundreds of construction contracts all over the United States of America as a so-called anti-inflation measure. The contract termination is exactly the same extreme power in one case as it is in the other.

They are saying we are going to force these particular workers to work at below the prevailing wage by stopping a contract before it starts. They can do the very same thing in the case of equal opportunity. And I hold that there has been something lacking in the administrative effort. That is one of the reasons we want the transfer. As far as