Mr. HAWKINS. If you had two sections or two divisions, one handling one and one the other, with your same top structure, do you see any administrative difficulties, whether it is with you or with some other agecny?

What real basic differences does it make?

Mr. BROWN. I would have to be honest about that, Congressman Hawkins, and indicate I think there would be substantial problems setting that up administratively within any agency. You are talking about separate distinct areas. We have a group of individuals working for our commission whose function and responsibility is to go out and investigate complaints and it may be against the same companies, and at the same time you have people coming in to do compliance reviews.

The two are not compatible in the same agency.

Mr. HAWKINS. You seem to have made it compatible in some of your instances. In Los Angeles, you investigated the motion picture industry. It was there a question of not moving in on specific complaints as such, but I think you referred that case, as I recall to the Attorney General, and I think they did work out an agreement.

Mr. BROWN. They worked out an excellent agreement and

Mr. HAWKINS. The agreement, I assume, was a good one. So it seems to me that the interrelationship was present in a case like that if you had been able to work out that agreement that you could have done it just as well as the Attorney General's office.

You had initiated the matter, but you were not in a position to see it through.

It just seems to be an excellent example of how one agency could do the entire job, because the important thing is results. I think you can talk all you want about setting standards and having quotas or goals, timetables, and all the other things, and Philadelphia plans and "Hometown" plans around the country, but if you don't get results, all this is nothing but rhetoric.

Mr. BROWN. Under the Executive order they can set goals.

Mr. HAWKINS. But if you put some of this statutorily into a proposal, do you see any difficulties?

Mr. ERLENBORN. If you would yield, would you make the question a little clearer? Are you suggesting that we amend title VII to have goals or quotas authorized?

Mr. HAWKINS. I am asking whether or not, if some of the provisions of the Executive order were written into the statute

Mr. ERLENBORN. That is just what Iwanted to have made clear. Is this really your intention?

:,』

It is your intention to use the Executive order authoriy of OFCC to give title VII jurisdiction in EOCC to set goals and quotas? If so, I think we ought to have that made clear.

Mr. HAWKINS. Let me make it clear. It is not the intent. I am simply asking as a theoretical question if some of these provisions were codified into the law itself, do you think they could be enforced by an agency such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?

Mr. BROWN. I think the best thing for me to do is for me to have the opportunity, if such legislation were proposed, to look at that legislation, and to make a determination based on what is before me, rather than for me to really speculate on that.

Mr. HAWKINS. That answer seems to satisfy both Mr. Erlenborn and myself. Again, Mr. Brown, we appreciate your testimony before the committee, and I again wish to commend you on a very constructive presentation.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.

Mr. HAWKINS. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m., tomorrow morning in the same room.

(Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 4, 1971.)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ENFORCEMENT

PROCEDURES

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m. pursuant to call in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative Augustus F. Hawkins, presiding.

Present: Representatives Hawkins, Brademas, Mink, Mazzoli, Erlenborn, and Reid.

Staff members present: S. G. Lippman, special counsel, and Michael Bernstein, minority counsel for labor.

Mr. HAWKINS. The meeting of the General Subcommittee on Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives is now convened.

Mr. Dent, the chairman, will not be here, at least it is not anticipated. He has some trouble, apparently, being snowbound in the southern part of Pennsylvania.

The meeting this morning is a continuation of the hearings on H.R. 1746, a bill to further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers.

The first witness is the Honorable Howard A. Glickstein, staff director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Mr. Glickstein, would you be seated at the witness table, please?

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD A. GLICKSTEIN, STAFF DIRECTOR, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. POWELL, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION, AND JONATHAN W. FLEMING, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAWKINS. I see you have a prepared statement. Do you prefer to proceed with your statement, or summarize it?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. If it is satisfactory to the committee, I would prefer to read the statement, but I would like the committee members to feel free to interrupt me at any time to ask questions.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would you now introduce the other witnesses? Mr. GLICKSTEIN. Mr. John Powell, General Counsel of the Commission, and Mr. Jonathan Fleming, my special assistant.

Mr. HAWKINS. Will you proceed, please?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I am Howard A. Glickstein, staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

I wish to thank you for your invitation to appear before the General Subcommittee on Labor to testify on the Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act. Some 18 months ago, I testified on similar legislation-S. 2453-before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor. With your permission I would like to recapitulate briefly my testimony at that time. I urged four basic points:

1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be given power to issue cease and desist orders to correct violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. Title VII should be amended to cover State and local government employees.

3. Title VII should be amended to cover employers of eight or more persons.

4. The responsibilities and functions vested in the Secretary of Labor by Executive Order 11246, which are carried out by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, should be transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

1

This morning, I wish to address primarily the latter two questions in addition to the provision in H.R. 1746 transferring the authority of the Attorney General under section 707 of the statute to bring pattern or practices suits. This provision was not contained either in your bill H.R. 17555-of last session or S. 2453 on which I testified in 1969.

Since my testimony in 1969, little has happened to change our views on these issues. I would like to review for you some of the events which, have taken place during the last 18 months which demonstrate the continued necessity for legislation giving enforcement power to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, expanding its jurisdiction and strengthening the Federal Contract Compliance Program. In January, 1970, just a little over 4 years ago, the Commission held a hearing in St. Louis, Mo. Testimony was heard by the Commission that a multi-billion-dollar contract to build the F-15 fighter plane had been awarded by the Defense Department to the McDonnell Douglas Corp. without the required contract compliance review and without an adequate affirmative action plan being submitted by the company. Unquestionably, thousands of man-hours must have been spent developing the details of the F-15 fighter contract. The company in fact testified that they delivered seven truckloads of paper to the Department of Defense in order to obtain the contract.

Yet hardly any time was devoted to the equal employment opportunity requirements of that contract.

This situation was brought to the attention of Secretary Laird by the Commission. The Secretary took prompt and commendable action. In a letter to the Commission, he stated:

"I have determined that Air Force contracting officials committed a serious error in failing to perform the required preaward check of equal employment opportunity compliance status before awarding the F-15 contract." ""

The Secretary directed immediate action by the Secretary of the Air Force to negotiate an effective contract compliance plan and requested a thorough review of the equal opportunity compliance procedures within the Defense Department.