The effect of continuing widespread discrimination against the Spanish surnamed in Federal employment upon the Spanish-speaking community is devastating. Spanish-speaking people represent 6 percent of the Nation's population, and they should hold at least 6 percent of the Federal jobs. Instead, they are only 2.9 percent of the Federal workforce. It has been estimated that this discrepancy of 3.1 percent represents more than 80,000 jobs and a loss in take home pay of over $13 billion since World War II. My subcommittee has received many recommendations for improving the deplorable Federal record in hiring the Spanish surnamed and I intend to press for immediate implementation of the best of these. I also surge President Nixon to investigate the failure of his 16-point program and take immediate steps to provide for its implementation. The 16-point program is a good program; the problem is that it is being ignored. The President must act to show the Federal agencies that he is seriously committed to increasing the employment of Spanish-surnamed Americans by the Federal Government. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. DON EDWARDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 21, 1972. Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee No. 4, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the recent hearings before our subcommittee on the problems of employment among Spanish-surnamed Americans, I became increasingly concerned over the fact that too little attention was paid to the progress which the Federal Government has made in this area over the past few years. No one can deny that America's record of providing employment training and opportunities for her Spanish-surnamed citizens has been imperfect. On the other hand, no one should ignore the fact that in the past few years, more Spanish-surnamed Americans have been employed by the Federal Government than ever before-and considerably more of them are occupying policy-making positions than at any previous time in our history. The present Administration's record in hiring the Spanish-surnamed was stated by Civil Service Commission Chairman Robert E. Hampton in a letter of December 29, 1971, to Senator John Tunney: [President Nixon's] Sixteen-Point Program is a special effort to assure that Spanish-surnamed Americans have a full and equal opportunity to compete for Federal employment. Spanish-surnamed Federal employment has not remained constant. It increased from 2.2 percent in 1962 to 2.9 percent in 1970. . . . From November 1967 to November 1970, the number of Spanish-surnamed employees increased by about 7,000 to a total of 74,449. Significantly, this increase occurred at the same time that overall Federal employment decreased by over 50,000. Between May, 1970 and May, 1971, Spanish Speaking people have registered an increase of 1,571 in federal employment, the largest gain of any minority group. The present Administration's record in hiring Spanish-surnamed citizens for policy-making positions is also far better than that of any previous Administration. Under President Johnson, only six Spanish-surnamed persons occupied high-level positions, and none of them was a member the White House staff. Under President Nixon, twenty-eight Spanish-surnamed Americans hold policy-making positions, and among them are three White House staff members, the first Spanish-surnamed citizens ever to work as Presidential assistants. Among these Nixon appointees are: Romana Banuelos, Treasurer of the United States; Bert Gallegos, General Counsel, Office of Economic Opportunity; Henry Ramirez, Chairman, Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Armando Rodriguez, Assistant Commissioner of Education; Philip Sanchez, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity; and Raymond Tellez, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We must continue to make greater efforts to train, recruit, and hire Spanishsurnamed Americans for government service. But we must also recognize that in the past three years, the Federal government has made large strides toward this end. I hope that you agree with me that our endeavor should be to build on present policies were foundations for real progress have already been laid. Sincerely yours, ROBERT MCCLORY, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Hon. ROBERT MCCLORY, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCCLORY: In response to your inquiry, I am providing the following comments regarding the statement made by Mr. Edwards concerning President Nixon's Sixteen-Point Program to assure equal employment opportunity for Spanish-surnamed persons. Contrary to Mr. Edwards' statement, the program has been taken very seriously by Federal agencies and the results in terms of increased employment of Spanish-surnamed persons despite a decrease in total Federal employment reflect a serious commitment to the purposes of the program. During the period, May 1970 to May 1971, the number of Spanish-surnamed employees in the Federal Government increased by 1,571 in the face of a decline in total Federal employment of nearly 15,000 jobs in the same period. As a matter of fact, approximately 1,100 of the net increase in Spanish-surnamed employment came in the last six months of that period, immediately following the announcement of the SixteenPoint Program. Spanish-surnamed persons represent 2.9% of total Federal employment as of May 31, 1971. It is completely inappropriate, in our judgment, as a measure of success of the program, to relate this employment figure to an assumed 6% of the nation's population as Spanish-surnamed, as Congressman Edwards does in his statement. According to the Census Bureau, Spanish-surnamed persons are 4.4% of the total population. Further, it is inappropriate to relate the 2.9% in Federal employment to this figure since it should be related to the number of Spanish-surnamed persons in the workforce, which would exclude persons under 18 years of age and others who are not in the workforce for one reason or another. Congressman Edwards said only three staff members are assigned to the implementation of the Sixteen-Point Program. This is another unfair statement since it does not represent the full truth. As was pointed out to Congressman Edwards before the Civil Rights Oversight Subcommittee, while there are only three people in the Office of the Director of the Spanish-Speaking Program, many more persons are concerned with carrying out the program. For example, we currently have underway a nationwide review of the implementation of the program. Personnel Management Specialists from our central office as well as each regional office of the Commission across the country were engaged in this review, As another example, the Intergovernmental Training Center was set up in San Antonio to carry out Point No. 14 of the program. This Center was established by personnel in the Commission's Bureau of Training who worked long and hard to get the Center underway and in operation. Our Bureau of Recruiting and Examining is engaged in furthering recruitment efforts for Spanish surnamed persons. In short, many parts of the Commission other than the Office of Spanish Speaking Program are engaged in carrying out this program. To say that only three people are so engaged is simply not the fact. Contrary to Congressman Edwards' statement, there is evidence of upward mobility on the part of Spanish-surnamed employees in the Federal Government. The minority survey as of May 31, 1971 indicates that Spanish-surnamed em ployees are moving into middle and higher grade levels of the Federal service at an accelerated pace and at a pace that exceeds that for nonminority employees. Congressman Edwards decries the fact that 80% of Spanish-surnamed Federal employees are in the Department of Defense and in the U.S. Postal Service; of course they are because those agencies have approximately 80% of total Federal employment. 77-247 0-72-23 Again, contrary to Congressman Edwards' statement, the Civil Service Commission does not have a lower percentage of minority employees than the Governmentwide average. As a matter of fact, as indicated to Congressman Edwards during the hearing, as of March 1972, 3% of total Commission employees were Spanish-surnamed. There was a net increase of 19 Spanish-surnamed persons in the Civil Service Commission from May 1971 to March 1972, increasing the total to 158. In addition, there was considerable upward mobility during that period of time. On board as of March 1, 1972, were 12 GS-11's (2 more than in the previous period); 8 GS-12's (1 more than in the previous period); 10 GS-13's (1 more than in the previous period); 3 GS-14's (2 less than in the previous period); and 4 GS-15's (3 more than in the previous period). Before I became Chairman, the number of Spanish-surnamed persons in the higher level positions was considerably less than it is today. These figures demonstrate the commitment of the Commission to the purpose of the program and to the ability of Spanish-surnamed persons to compete effectively within the merit system for higher level and more responsible positions. Contrary again to Congressman Edwards' statements, the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish-Speaking is very highly regarded and we have worked very closely with Chairman Ramirez and his staff in carrying out the Sixteen-Point Program. The recommendation of Chairman Ramirez that an evaluation of every supervisor include his performance on equal employment opportunity has been in effect in the Federal Government for over two years. Congressman Edwards is quite correct that the Civil Service Commission defends the validity of its examinations. If we did not believe that the Federal Service Entrance Examination and all other examinations given by the Commission were valid, we would not give them. As a matter of fact, the validity of the FSEE was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 22, 1972. The Court held that the examination had been properly validated and that there was no showing that it was discriminatory in effect to minority groups or others. In short, there is no failure of the Sixteen-Point Program but rather a beginning for a successful program. There is, however, a failure on the part of some persons to recognize the progress that has been made by this Administration in working toward the legitimate aspirations of the Spanish-surnamed group in Federal employment and in other aspects of their lives. Despite criticisms of those who are willing to speak from supposition rather than fact, I am confident that the Civil Service Commission and this Administration will continue to move forward vigorously in support of the goals of the Sixteen-Point Program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C., April 12, 1972. Mr. ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, DEAR MR. HAMPTON: I am pleased to have your letter of March 29 in response to my earlier inquiry regarding employment of Spanish-surnamed persons by the Federal government. I am taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter together with a copy of your letter of March 29th for inclusion in the record of hearings with regard to the Civil Rights oversight activities of Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Judiciary Committee. I am particularly pleased to read your statements regarding the substantial and effective progress of the President's Sixteen-Point Program. In my opinion, the factual statements which you have presented are quite complete and most convincing. Sincerely yours, ROBERT MCCLORY, MARCH 15, 1972. Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Director, Office of Management and Budget, DEAR MR. SHULTZ: During the Civil Rights Oversight Subcommittee's recent hearings on the Federal employment problems of the Spanish speaking, Dr. Henry Ramirez, Chairman, Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish Speaking People, recommended, “That Congress ask agencies about their employment patterns by ethnic and racial breakdowns at the time that the agencies are asking for re-funding." I would very much appreciate your furnishing the Subcommittee with any racial data which is collected by the Office of Management and Budget as part of its review of budget requests and any plans you might have for instituting collection and review of such data prior to transmittal of a budget request to the Congress. Sincerely, DON EDWARDS, Chairman, Civil Rights Oversight Subcommittee. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, Hon. DON EDWARDS, Chairman, Civil Rights Oversight Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. EDWARDS: Thank you for your letter of March 15 in which you expressed an interest in racial data collected by the Office of Management and Budget. The establishment of equal employment opportunity within the Federal Service for all Americans is of major concern to this office. In furtherance of this policy, budget examiners were directed in Office Memorandum No. 72-17 dated October 19, 1971, to make use, among other tools, of the unique opportunity provided by agency budget hearings to focus attention on civil rights performance and problems. Item 3 of the attachment to Memorandum 72-17, for example, contains specific suggestions for questions to be asked at agency budget hearings with regard to equal opportunity in the Federal Service. In providing answers to questions requiring counts of employees by minority status, agencies have available, at a minimum, the information they are required to report semiannually to the U.S. Civil Service Commission. A copy of the most recently published report on this subject prepared by the Commission is enclosed for your information. As is indicated in other sections of Office Memorandum No. 72–17, and earlier in Office Memorandum 71-53 dated March 25, 1971, our concern with equal opportunity extends to all aspects of Federal program activity. In addition to questions on overall civil rights programs raised during our review of the FY 1973 budget, agencies were requested to provide information for inclusion in the first Special Analysis of Federal Civil Rights Activities (enclosure). The development of information appropriate for assessing equal opportunity in federal programs is a difficult and far broader job than merely developing indicators of progress in the employment area and is one that will require a continuing effort. For this reason, an inhouse working group is currently reviewing the need for racial and ethnic data in Federal program management. I will be glad to share with you any reporting requirements which emerge from this effort. Sincerely, Enclosures. FRANK CARLUCCI, Associate Director. |