tor's work force. The employers are required, as Chairman Alexander mentioned, to furnish yearly reports giving the statistical breakdown of his work force in, I believe, nine job categories. If on analysis of that report the contractor finds that there are not as many minorities in any one category as he would reasonably think there could be or ought to be, then he should address himself to that problem and develop the necessary recruiting and upgrading programs to improve that opportunity for minorities. The kind of affirmative action that could be available to a contractor could depend, of course, upon the nature of his business, the nature of the work force, the skills included, what kind of seniority system he has got, and what kind of testing program he has got. And he is expected to analyze all of these things to see that none of them serves effectively to bar equal opportunity. And that should be a precise and careful analysis, and not just a pronouncement of equal opportunity policy. It should be the same kind of a manpower analysis and study that he would make on any other segment of his work force that he was really concerned about doing something about.

Senator DIRKEN. You mentioned in your statement the AllenBradley Co.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes, I did.

Senator DIRKSEN. Did they have an acceptable affirmative action program?

Mr. SYLVESTER. They did not.

Senator DIRKSEN. You say they did not?

Mr. SYLVESTER. They did not.

Senator DIRKSEN. Do they have now, or do you know?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I do not know. The matter has gone to hearing. The hearing examiner found many in noncompliance. And I am not sure what has happened after that.

I

Senator DIRKSEN. I thought if they had an acceptable program would like to see a copy go in the record. And I will ask for it from somebody who can supply it. But you mentioned other people in your statement, steel, Allen-Bradley, Timken Roller Bearing, Pullman Car Co., B. & P. Motor Express, they were all evidently cited and called at a formal hearing. And then you say, which could result in the sanction against these five major Government contractors. Were there any sanctions in the case of these five?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Not yet, Senator. The Allen-Bradley matter, as I mentioned earlier, is still pending, I guess, following the decision by the hearing examiners. Timken Roller Bearing and Pullman Co., after a notification of a formal hearing, did conciliate the matter in a satisfactory way. The B. & P. Motor Express has not yet come to hearing. And the Bethlehem Steel is still in the hearing process.

Senator DIRKSEN. How long are these things in a state of suspension, or in a state of suspended animation as you try to conciliate and you negotiate and send in investigators? How long does it take to close one of these?

Mr. SYLVESTER. The practice has been to conciliate and negotiate until such time as it is clear that we would or could not get a result. And that varied, depending upon the employer and the nature of his problems. In some instances, particularly with major employers, we found

that it really required a tremendous analysis of his whole work force, because the system was operating to maintain the results of discriminatory placement in the first place. So that to untangle the web of 25,000 or 30,000 employees is a considerable job.

Senator KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield just on this?

Mr. Sylvester, in any contractual arrangement there must be some review by the contracting agency as to whether the contractor qualifies in terms of performance, reliability, and financial resources and in terms of providing equal employment. When it is suggested that we are going to have to provide special remedies to all the various differert companies other than those that already exist in the contracting regulations, I can just see the delays as conflicts go through special hearings and into the courts. As I understand from your comments here, all we are really attempting to do is set equal employment opportunity, on the same level as the other requirements that we have for Government contracts.

Mr. SYLVESTER. That is right.

The objective has been to have the equal employment opportunity clause of a Government contract have the same respect and integrity as any other clause, and that the same kinds of procedures that apply to contract management apply to that clause.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Sylvester, in that Allen-Bradley case, did your shop ever get around to the point that you made a written suggestion as to what they had to do?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I do not recall all of the details of the exchange, Senator. That is over a period of time, and there was much written, and many actual negotiating sessions. In the course of that there is just no doubt at all in my mind that the Allen-Bradley Co. was given an adequate opportunity to comply, and they were told what the deficiencies and failures were. And as I said, the hearing examiner in his opinion did find them in default of their Government contract.

Senator DIRKSEN. You say they had an opportunity to comply? Mr. SYLVESTER. That is correct.

Senator DIRKSEN. Comply with what?

Mr. SYLVESTER. With the equal employment opportunity clause.
Senator DIRKSEN. There was a clause?

Mr. SYLVESTER. There was a contract clause.

Senator DIRKSEN. Did you see it?

Mr. SYLVESTER. It is in every Government contract, it has been since shortly after the Executive order was issued in 1961.

Senator DIRKSEN. Now, then, in addition to that do you make suggestions as to what they must do for further compliance?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes, suggestions and alternatives are made to the

contractor.

Senator DIRKSEN. Are these suggestions available if they are in the form of letters?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Well, I am sure that in the proceeding records of the Allen-Bradley hearings which are available would develop that fully-that would be developed fully.

Senator DIRKSEN. Good. I think we ought to get those letters between the compliance shop and Allen-Bradley into the record so that

we can see. Because it is strange information that has come to my attention. And I just want to see whether it is verifiable or not.

Well, you have not told us too much about written affirmative action. So I suppose I will cease and desist from that particular item and see what else I ought to ask you.

Well, you are out of Government?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am.

Senator DIRKSEN. You are a very charming witness, but you are no longer an enforcement man. So I do not think you can properly respond to other questions that I may have in mind.

So I do thank you. And I did not mean to be captious. I am only as determined as the next man to see this thing work and to work honestly, equitably and honorably, let the American citizen have his day in court, perish the day and say your prayers for America whenever that right vanishes. And I will stand for no Executive order that tried to impair the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Sylvester.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I came in partly because I know Mr. Sylvester, and I have known him for years. He is a very distinguished citizen and commissioner. And I think it is unfortunate that he is no longer in the Government. He is not a lawyer, incidentally, but a very able civil engineer who talks like a lawyer. I am just delighted that he took the time to help us.

It gives me a chance on the record to thank you for a good many people that do not even know you exist to help them improve their opportunities.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sylvester, on page 2 of your outline I believe you gave the employment statistics in the textile industry as of January 1967. I should like to read into the record-what was that for the year 1966 ?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I believe the statistics, Senator, were for reports that were collected in 1966.

Senator THURMOND. It would be for the year 1966.

I should like to read into the record the latest figures available which reflect a very different picture.

Negro employment in the textile industry has tripled during the last 10 years. The textile mill products industry in 1968 provided employment for some 94,000 Negroes. While textile employment overall has increased by only 61,000 in the past 10 years, Negro employment is up 63,000. The percentage of Negroes employed by the textile industry has increased steadily. In 1960 3.3 percent of the employees of the textile industry were Negroes. But this percentage rose to 9.5 percent in 1968. At the same time the national average of nonwhite employment rose from 7.6 percent in 1960 to 9.7 percent in 1968. The growth of minority employment in the textile industry in my home State of South Carolina has been even more dramatic.

In 1958 only 5,500 Negro males and 200 Negro women were employed in South Carolina textile mills. In 1968, 10 years later, 17,500

Negro males and 6,200 Negro women were employed out of a total of 140,000 hourly wage workers, or a total textile employment, Negro employment in South Carolina of 16.9 percent, up from 5 percent in the figures you gave for 1966.

In many South Carolina plants as many as 40 percent of the new hirings during the past year were Negroes, Nationally the rate of increase in Negro employment is four times faster than the national average for manufacturing industries.

Now, Mr. Sylvester, would not you say that these figures indicate tremendous changes in the textile industry?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I would say, Senator, as against what I had here; yes, they do. But I would also add that when you look at the fact that 39 percent of all employed in South Carolina are Negroes, and you said 16.9 percent in the textile industry, it would seem to me that there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Senator THURMOND. Did you have those figures available to you when you prepared your statement for the committee?

Mr. SYLVESTER. My statement-I did not. But the paragraph here really runs to the rationale that existed at the time the Office of Federal Contract Compliance got involved in the textile program.

Senator THURMOND. Could you tell this committee why you gave the outdated statistics without making reference to the latest information which reflects a different picture and shows a much larger employment of Negroes as I have indicated in the figures I have given?

Mr. SYLVESTER. As I said, Senator, just keeping this paragraph in the context of my statement, what was being developed here was the rationale for the Government getting involved in the textile program. And the figures there were a part of the support for the rationale, the situation that existed at the time we got involved in the textile program and a partial basis for it.

Senator KENNEDY. It is now 5 minutes to 12. We have the acting majority leader and the distinguished minority leader. And so we will have to recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. on the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator KENNEDY. The hearing will come to order.

Mr. Sylvester, I know that Senator Thurmond had some questions, but he is not here, so we will proceed with Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Biermann and then, if it is agreeable with your schedule, we may ask you to to come back. I have no further questions, and I would like to proceed with these other two witnesses. If that is agreeable with you, I will ask you to stand aside.

Mr. SYLVESTER. That is fine.

Senator KENNEDY. Our next witnesses are Jack Moskowitz, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civil Rights and Industrial Relations), and Leonard J. Biermann, Senior Compliance Officer of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor.

Will they be kind enough to come forward.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that Mr. Moskowitz is in the room yet. He should be here very shortly. I could begin with my statement.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Biermann, you have no prepared testimony, and if you would like to proceed, I would appreciate that.

STATEMENT OF LEONARD J. BIERMANN, OFFICE OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, what I thought I would do is bring up to date the chronology that Mr. Sylvester left off on, as to what the situation was in the program for textiles during the summer of 1968.

Now, as we have stated in this room previously, compliance reviews of the textile industry began in North and South Carolina in January of 1968, and continued throughout the spring and summer of that year.

The first reviews were conducted at Dan River Mills and reviews were later conducted at Burlington and J. P. Stevens.

The findings of these compliance reviews, conducted by the Defense Supply Agency of the Department of Defense, were all generally the same, varying only by degree. That is, in southern mills in North and South Carolina there was found a condition of discrimination in the placement of Negroes-that Negro applicants over the years had generally been placed in less desirable positions, and they had not been afforded the opportunity of promotion.

Secondly, the companies had failed to meet their responsibilities under the Executive order to recruit minorities in the area of employment.

Thirdly, there was a significant underutilization particularly of Negro females, and in some plants and departments there was almost an exclusion, total exclusion of Negro female employees.

Fourth, there was a finding in these compliance reviews that many of the mills maintained company housing which was racially segregated.

And lastly, most of the mills failed to maintain clear standards of qualification for new employees, and there was no way to clearly ascertain whether or not a Negro applicant was being denied employment because of qualification standards.

These findings were brought to the attention, first, of Dan River Mills in April of 1968, and by September they were brought to the attention of Burlington and J. P. Stevens. Between April and July three conciliation meetings were held with corporate management of Dan River Mills by the Department of Defense. In addition, there was a considerable exchange of correspondence attempting to conciliate the deficiencies found in the Defense Department investigations. The record will show that this correspondence continued throughout the summer and into the fall. Similar, conciliation attempts were conducted with Burlington and J. P. Stevens. Again, meetings were held through the fall and winter, and considerable correspondence exchanged.