are some jurisdictional problems involved in this that might snag the whole legislation and we do not want to get it all jammed up on peripheral issues. But there is a provision in here, and I quote from the draft bill, section 5(a), that makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer No. 3, to utilize in the hiring or recruitment of individuals for employment any employment agency, placement service, training school or center, labor organization or other source, which discriminates against such individuals because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Now, I am wondering what you feel. In effect, what this does say is we cannot tell the U.S. Employment Service or the State employment services that they will not discriminate but we can tell the employers that they cannot use this Employment Service if the Employment Service does discriminate. Now, how effective do you think this will be? Mr. Laws. It is a little difficult to see how we can tell an industry what it must do and we cannot tell the agency that we are subsidizing, that we have created-in other words, it seems to me that if management asks labor for Negroes, the agency will provide them, there is no doubt about that. At the same time, it seems to me we ought to be able to tell the Employment Service that is federally supported that it, too, must adhere to the law. Mr. GOODELL. I agree. I like the first answer. The answer is that it may not be available for a variety of reasons. The second question is, will there be any effectiveness to the provision which denies the use of the Federal agency which practices discrimination? Mr. Laws. I imagine if the employer could not use the Federal employment agency, then private agencies would spring up. Mr. GOODELL. We do cover private agencies. Mr. Laws. I know you do. Mr. GOODELL. The only ones we cannot cover are the public. We are saying if an employer goes to a public employment agency that discriminates, he violates this law, we cannot do anything to the employment agency but we do cover the employer. Mr. LAWS. My view would be that if the agency will not subscribe to the statute and refrain from discriminating against a person because of his race, creed, age, sex, and other reasons covered by the act that the agency or service should be abolished. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with you. But the problem is if we cannot do this, and there seems to be grave doubt raised that we can do it; if we cannot, do you think it will be at all effective to cover it in the way I have indicated, to deny the use of these agencies to employers? Mr. LAWS. That is a little difficult to say. It is a hypothetical question. Mr. GOODELL. It is not a trick question. Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to present this as preferable to the other but I would like your opinion qualitatively, since you have had so much experience with this, as to whether it would work at all in this respect. Mr. Laws. I would have to be assuming this. I mean, I would have to make an assumption, and I do not know how much weight it would carry. Mr. GOODELL. In other words, you do not know? Mr. Laws. That is right. I would be for trying to make the U.S. Employment Service do the job, toe the mark. Mr. GOODELL. Again, may I say I agree with you but I wish you could give me an answer whether the perhaps more practical and feasible approach to it would work or not. If you say it will not work, it will help us. If you say it will work, it will help us. Mr. Laws. If I said categorically it would work, I might be going too far. Mr. POWELL. What about the withdrawal of Federal funds? Mr. GOODELL. I am in favor of whatever we can come up with that is feasible but we have had some pretty strong opinions that we are not going to get this, it comes under a different jurisdiction, committee jurisdiction, we have different problems with this and perhaps we will not be able to get it. I would like to get something that is effective here. Mr. POWELL. If the investigative task force should come back from Dallas with clear-cut testimony to the effect that Mr. Laws' charges are correct, I will recommend as an individual and Member of Congress that funds be withdrawn. Mr. DENT. I think the questions of whether or not we can cover in this legislation the public agencies are questions that will have to be determined by the subcommittee first, by the full committee second, and by the Congress, third. Mr. GOODELL. I have another question, Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. I was going to say that I am not so sure but what it will be interesting to note what line of reasoning is taken to prohibit a jurisdictional prerogative to this committee on the question of employment or the lack of employment because of discrimination, no matter what its cause may be; whether the cause is the employment practices of a public agency; whether that can be reasoned out of the legislation; I would like to read it. Mr. GOODELL. Right now our best advisers have indicated we cannot, and we should, avoid in this particular bill trying to cover State employment agencies. Now, if we can come up with some feasible way that is reasonable and will get through that we can, all right. In the absence of that, I would like to cover them some other way indirectly. Mr. DENT. Your action and your aims are laudable but there is a suggestion made that maybe we should change advisers. That is what one of our Governors did at one time. Mr. GOODELL. I have one final question. You did, Mr. Laws, in your final paragraph on page 9 bring in the question of age and sex. Do you have any further comments about including discrimination on the basis of age and on the basis of sex in this particular legislation? Mr. Laws. My only comment on that would be that I think persons who have skill just should not be discriminated against because of their age and sex. If they can produce then they should be permitted to hold a job at their highest skill. Unless they are able to do this, you create social problems for them and eventually the Federal Government will have to assume responsibility for their general welfare. Mr. GOODELL. Do you see any difference in terms, practical differ ence, in terms of enforcement between discrimination on the basis of race and religion, color, and age and sex? For instance, we do not have any State laws at present barring discrimination on the basis of sex. This is a relatively new field for legislation. I do not know whether it is going to be quite as simple to approach this problem as it is the question of race and religion and national origin and ancestry. We have had testimony from some other people representing the NAACP that said they favor legislation on age and sex barring discrimination, but that they would like to see it in separate legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Mr. POWELL. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico just passed a bill of this nature which I helped them to draw up and it had sex in there. One of the results was that, after the bill became law, the ladies demanded to use the men's room. Mr. GOODELL. I appreciate the contribution. Do you have any comment on that? Mr. Laws. Actually customs and mores being what they are, I can see that in certain industries where we have had only men that there would be some reluctance about bringing women into the industry. It would naturally cause them to change their habits and their speech and other things and for that reason they might be opposed to it. But it seems to me that wherever any group has attempted to move ahead, I mean there has been objection, there was objection to women voting, there was objection to work for certain women, there was objection to minimum wages for women, and, of course, these objections no longer stand. What I am attempting to say is that it is quite possible that because these different races have been working together, men I am thinking about, there there would be less opposition to working, continuing to work with the Negroes because even where Negroes are not working at the highest skills, many times they are still working side by side with whites. It is only when they attempt to obtain semiskilled and skilled jobs at the same pay that opposition is raised. Back to your question, there is a possibility, because of custom, that there might be more opposition to this aspect of the law as it relates to sex than race, color, or national origin. Mr. POWELL. It is precisely at this point that Soviet Russia is surpassing us in the field of the sciences, including the medical and health professions. The DeWitt report indicates that in the United States only 1 percent of our engineers are women. In Soviet Russia it is one-third. In the United States only 6 percent of our doctors are women. In Soviet Russia, 70 percent. This is how they are drawing ahead of us so rapidly because they are practicing equality there between the sexes which, as you say, we are limiting due to our mores and customs of the past. Mr. GOODELL. May I agree with your statement that the percentage is accurate but having been there and seen the Soviet women, I think there is quite a large degree of difference. Mr. DENT. In the women? Mr. GOODELL. Yes, sir. I think we would not want to subject our women to what they are subjected to in the Soviet Union by a long shot. They are treated just like men. They go through all the heavy labor that men do over there. I do not think our women want equal rights to the heavy labor jobs in this country. Mr. Laws. May I say, sir, that I feel, as I am sure Congressman Powell feels when he pointed out what the Russians are doing, that until our country is utilizing its total resources, human resources, regardless of race, creed, sex or age, we are contributing to our own undoing. Mr. DENT. Mr. Laws, thank you very kindly on behalf of the committee and the Congress for taking the time to give us a very fine. presentation here this morning. Mr. LAWS. Thank you, sir. Mr. DENT. AS I have suggested to the rest of the witnesses, you get a copy of the proposed bill at the earliest possible date and give us the benefit of your opinion of the matter contained therein. Mr. LAWS. Thank you, sir, I shall do that. Mr. DENT. At this time I would like to call Mr. Glenwood M. Edmondson and Mr. Alfred D. Dudley to take the witness stand. When they come, I would appreciate if they would come forward to the desk here. These gentlemen are here under subpena. I would like for them to examine these affidavits. Would you gentlemen read these affidavits and tell the committee whether or not they are truly copies of the original affidavit that you signed? Are these correct statements? Mr. EDMONSON. Yes. Mr. DUDLEY. Yes. Mr. DENT. Would you mind raising your right hand so the clerk will swear you? The CLERK. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. EDMONSON. I do. Mr. DUDLEY. I do. Mr. DENT. Would you mind taking the witness stand, sirs? Without objection, the affidavits of Glenwood M. Edmonson and Alfred D. Dudley will be placed in the record at this point. (The affidavits referred to follow :) Glenwood M. Edmonson, being duly sworn, deposes and states: I am employed at the General Services Administration, Regional Office No. 3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, D.C., in the Division of Design and Construction. I have been employed in this division as a structural engineer, since October 1957. I am now a GS-11, having entered as a GS-9. I graduated from Hampton Institute in 1953 from the School of Architectural Engineering. Within the Division of Design and Construction there are the design, repair, and improvement branch, new construction branch, and schedules and service branch. I feel that within the Division of Design and Construction racial discrimination exists as exemplified by the following facts: I was nominated by my supervisor, Alfred W. efficiency award, along with a white coworker. Santleman, for an outstanding man retired and his successor, Mr. Myron Smith, talked to my coworker, James Lefter, and persuaded him not to pursue the award. I was never consulted concerning my recommendation and I did not receive it. During the various recruiting drives conducted by this agency for engineers and architects, interviews have been held at various universities such as Maryland and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, et cetera, but no interviews have been made at Howard University, nor to the knowledge of the staff in the Howard University Department of Engineering and Architecture has this agency ever requested or interviewed any of its prospective graduates for future employment. The Design and Construction Division has refused to hire Negro engineers in the new construction and repair and improvement branches, either in the Government training program (summer students and recent graduates), or qualified Negro engineers and architects employed in the design branch who requested transfer to these branches to fill any of the many vacancies that occurred when the division was reorganized. Negro applicants have never been permitted to serve in the above branches. Qualified Negro engineers have failed to obtain raises above a GS-11 rating in the Design and Construction Division where Negroes have been permitted to be hired. The sole exception being one engineer who entered at a GS-11 and was promoted to a GS-12 by a former assistant chief of the Design and Construction Division. Negroes who participated in the training program concurrently with their coworkers failed to obtain promotions available to their fellow participants even when length of Government service was in excess, or when civil service ratings equaled or exceeded the others. Negro engineers and architects who are assigned office projects located in certain areas of the region (West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland) as a rule are not permitted to travel to the site to make the necessary inspection of the building site or equipment. A substitute coworker is generally sent instead. The substitute need not be in the same field and on occasion is not associated with the project. Recently, a Negro applicant with a U.S.C.S. civil engineer rating of 95 was turned down for employment despite the fact that there were several openings within the division. The applicant had a very satisfactory performance rating and extensive experience. He was told that no vacancies existed. Another Negro graduate electrical engineer was not hired although the chief electrical engineer strongly recommended his employment. The vacancy existed as the section was understaffed and under a great deal of pressure from a heavy workload. A recent directive was issued by the General Services Administration Commissioner John L. Moore on nondiscrimination. The directive stated that one-third of its employees were Negroes. The directive did not state the percentage of these employees who are custodial workers. GLENWOOD M. EDMONSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of January 1962. MARY JANE SCOVILLE, Notary Public. Alfred D. Dudley, being duly sworn, deposes and states: I reside at 2018 Jackson Street NE., Washington, D.C. I am employed as an electrical engineer at the National Institutes of Health, grade GS-12. I am a graduate of the Agriculture and Technical College of North Carolina and received my B.S. degree in electrical engineering in June 1958. I applied for a position with the General Services Administration upon graduation and was placed in their training program as a GS-5. I was originally employed in the New Construction Division of the central office of GSA. I was transferred with other workers from the central office, New Construction Division, to the regional office at which time my white coworkers were placed in the New Construction Branch of the Design and Construction Division, while I was placed in the Design Branch. I was promoted through the training program of the GSA on schedule with my other coworkers to the grade of GS-11. The white trainees with me received promotions to GS-12 but I was told that I could not advance as fast as I had 77736 0-62—pt. 2- -8 |