think that he has been one of the most valuable public servants in this field of anyone I have ever seen. I hope that he receives favorable consideration on his reappointment.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Cabell, for your fine statement. Of course, with you I have known of Dr. Holcomb's dedicated work sometimes in great peril to his own personal advancement and personal standing. He took positions that were unpopular in the community because he thought they were just, and you and I both know of his great courage.

Mr. CABELL. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Dr. Holcomb, I have no questions. Senator Kennedy had some questions that he wanted to ask you. We could recess this till he could be here later in the morning, but I am chairman also of the Health Subcommittee and I have witnesses already scheduled to appear here from different cities, from as far away as Texas, and North Carolina and other places. So I will read his questions for him. These are Senator Kennedy's questions. We would like to accommodate him and wait till 10 but we find ourselves in an impossible position on time. And we go into session, we vote on vital appropriation bills at 12. So I have no opportunity to recess until after the health hearing either. I am the floor manager, if you will pardon the personal reference, on the Treasury, Post Office, and executive appropriations bill that comes up this morning, so this is the only time I can hold this hearing. And so I will ask these questions from Senator Edward Kennedy.

1. Do you feel that the EEOC has been basically constructive and successful over the last few years?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes. I am considering the newness of it, and I do not suppose any of us are ever completely satisfied. I do not mean to imply that I am satisfied with the progress that has been made, but I think considering that it has been in existence only 4 years, that I would have to give an affirmative answer.

The CHAIRMAN. And next: What activity

Mr. HOLCOMB. I could add a postscript and say we do need more money, more power, more staff.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we hear that from each department. Senator Kennedy's next question is: What activities in the EEOC, what activities is the EEOC carrying on at the present time?

Mr. HOLCOMB. We are in the midst of a period of transition now, but we are endeavoring to combat a question that has plagued us from the very beginning, namely that of a backlog, and constant thought is being given to it. And I believe within the very near future some presentations will be made that will enable us to deal favorably with that question.

The CHAIRMAN. What plans are you aware of for the future, say the next few months of the next year?

Mr. HOLCOMB. A review of our procedures and every effort to make the maximum use of every individual employed by the Commission. If you could just get this picture for the record, when I mentioned having testified previously before this committee on July 1, 1965, that was the first day that the law went into effect, we received 2,000 complaints. By the end of the year we received 8,854. The second year we received 12,927. Last year we received 15,058. So I think you can see

something of the gigantic task that has confronted the Commission, and likewise brings us to a point now of seeing how we can stay up to date. But as I view the future, I would think so much depends upon the reaction of Congress to our budget, to additional powers for the Commission as we work together on this program.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, though, I am on the Appropriations Committee, I cannot comment on that; I am not on the subcommittee that handles it. I do know that we have on the floor of the Senate this afternoon amendments where the Postmaster General is recommending that because of budget stringencies, that we abolish the jobs of several hundred special delivery mail carriers and thousands of letter carriers in the United States, and cut delivery of business mail by one-third. That will be voted on today in the Senate, so that illustrates I think the budget difficulties.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I cannot speak about other agencies, Mr. Chairman, but speaking of individuals employed by this Commission you would be mindful that a large number come not only with dedication but come out of years of training.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

The next question of Senator Kennedy's is this. I understand that after the public hearings in New York City on discrimination in whitecollar employment, in January of 1968, several of the employers who testified and other companies as well made substantial gains in reducing discrimination. I gather that this has been the experience from some of the other public hearings as well. Is that correct?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I think definitely, Mr. Chairman, there are areas that reflect real progress, but we must not be content until we make wider gains.

The CHAIRMAN. "Do you feel that public hearings are helpful in focusing attention on areas of discrimination and in encouraging action to end discrimination?”

Mr. HOLCOMB. I think the public hearings has a place, but you must consider the very limited authority that we have. In fact, I am not certain that the word "hearing" is the proper word, because anytime we hold a hearing it is almost an invitation to come. I am not endeavoring to speak for Chairman Brown, but I think I did read a statement that he has made recently that we will immediately evaluate the public hearings that we have had. We had one in Charlotte, N.C., one in New York and one in Los Angeles. There have been other special types of hearings, but I know that he has that in mind, and I certainly share his feeling that we should do a very realistic evaluation.

We must think, Mr. Chairman, not just about the wisdom of a public hearing, but coming back to this question of a backlog, I think we as commissioners must determine the wisest use of our staff.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Holcomb, Senator Kennedy's next question is: Will you support moving ahead soon to identify worthwhile areas for further public hearings?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Will you repeat that, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. "Will you support moving ahead soon to identify any worthwhile areas for further public hearings?"

Mr. HOLCOMB. Oh, I will do so with enthusiasm.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you mentioned the staff. He has questions about the staff.

Mr. HOLCOMB. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. And I am sure this is probably something that you are very much interested in:

Do you feel that it is important for the EEOC to have adequate staff and funds to thoroughly and firmly carry out its mandate under title VII?

Mr. HOLCOMB. —As you know, I stated that in an informal comment to you a moment ago, but in answer to Senator Kennedy's question, again, I would state not only with enthusiasm but with real vigor do I favor such a program.

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, there are a great number of vacancies in high level staff positions at the EEOC. I believe at present if I am correctly informed there is no general counsel, no director of research, no director of education, no director of public affairs, no director of compliance and beyond this there is not even a staff director. This is extremely disturbing to those of us who worked for and voted for and support the EEOC and want to see it properly functioning. Is that correct, those positions are vacant?

Mr. HOLCOMB. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, we are in period of transition. I would think there are individuals under very serious consideration for each of those positions, and I think it is just a matter of days until they will be filled. In other words, we are not marking time. We are moving vigorously in that realm.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you consider these positions important?
Mr. HOLCOMB. Of utmost importance.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you favor filling them promptly?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Favor filling them yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you do what you can to see that they are filled as soon as possible with persons committed to ending discrimination and to a strong EEOC?

Mr. HOLCOMB. If you approve me, I will return immediately and start working with Chairman Brown and the other commissioners in behalf of prompt action.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this is changing to a slightly different point in the discrimination, Dr. Holcomb, to section 6 discrimination. I am again reading Senator Kennedy's questions. He has two on this point: I am disturbed by your apparent position on sexual discrimination in employment. I notice that you dissented from the guideline adopted last August which said that the placement of job advertisements under separate male and female column headings violates the law unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the position advertised. Could you clarify your views on this matter?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes; I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. That was somewhat of a technical question. It was a question as to whether the newspaper publisher is to be considered as an employer in this instance, and there was a 3-to-2 vote, as I recall, and it is true that I dissented. On the question of the rights for women, again, I think there are those who have known of my background who realize my belief that it is not only just important, but it is one of the No. 1 questions facing America today. My wife, who is present today, is employed as a professional. My daughter in Garland, Tex., is likewise employed. My daughter-in-law in Houston, Tex., is employed a professional. The only professional on my personal staff

as

is a female lawyer. A great many of my speaking engagements have been before schools where I have spoken on this question. I do have some statements from a speech that I made before the press association where I just cannot begin, Mr. Chairman, without taking too much time to-I would certainly want to alleviate any fear or concern that anyone might have about a vote that I cast which I cast because of a technical aspect. And, Mr. Chairman, it should perhaps be noted that that particular issue is now in the courts to clarify the question as to whether the newspaper is an employer or whether the advertiser should be held responsible for the content of the advertisement.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we have passed a law that says that we cannot find out whether the secretary that we hire in our office is a man or a woman, I would say the Congress was at fault rather than the Commission we have set up.

Do you feel that the EEOC should make strong efforts to end sex discrimination in employment?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Randolph. And I would like for you to preside for a few moments. I am called by the Chairman of another committee to the phone. It is very urgent. I will be back in just a moment, if you will excuse me.

Senator RANDOLPH. (presiding pro tempore). Luther HolcombMr. HOLCOMB. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH (continuing). I have talked with you informally prior to the hearing today.

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think it is a very good practice. It is no unique practice for you or another person who has been designated to come in and discuss these matters with the members of the committee. It gives an opportunity to question you and talk with you in a way that we cannot always do in a hearing because sometimes there are conflicts, such as this morning, that break the continuity of the colloquy. Mr. Holcomb, are you familiar with the words of Thomas Wolfe in reference to a man's desire to live a life in which there was no discrimination? Do you know those lines?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes, I am familiar with them, and he was one of my favorite writers.

Senator RANDOLPH. Well, he said as you know, in writing of America:

To every man his chance; to every man regardless of his birth, his shining golden opportunity; to every man the right to live, to work, to be himself and to become whatever his manhood and vision can combine to make. This, seeker, is the promise of America.

When did Wolfe write those words?

Mr. HOLCOMB. The exact date I could not

Senator RANDOLPH. Do you have an idea when he wrote them?
Mr. HOLCOMB. Well, it would be rather general.

Senator RANDOLPH. 1920, would it be that?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Well, they sound like they are needed now, but whenever they were written, they are certainly very appropriate for today. Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. The challenge of the words remain, is that right?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Correct. In fact, Senator, if I may say, an effort to fulfill those words would be my main motivation in responding to the appointment of the President of the United States. With my background, I have been interested in this throughout my career, and I would like to think that I bring compassion and dedication to a fulfillment of what you have quoted from Mr. Wolfe.

Senator RANDOLPH. We have these periods of not only challenging statements but strides that help us to realize that promise of America which Wolfe was expressing.

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. You may recall that there was a period in the history of governmental employment when there were certain agencies of the Government which would not employ women. Is that true? Mr. HOLCOMB. I am certain; yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. I give you a specific example. There were five women working in the U.S. Patent Office, and it was determined that this was not the type of employment that was "proper for female workers. There was one Member of Congress who made an effort to retain one of these women in her employment. He was unsuccessful, so the five female workers were discharged from the U.S. Patent Office. One of the workers not qualified apparently to do the job was Clara Barton who founded the American Red Cross.

I give you that historical background only for an indication that so very often we are inclined to fail, as of a certain period in our development, to determine how really worthwhile are the contributions of people regardless of race, color or creed who are brought into the Federal structure.

Now, Mr. Holcomb, I am not upset with your decision that has been discussed here today. If you wish to clarify it further, I would be very pleased to have it on the subcommittee record. As has been said by our able chairman of the full committee, I would want to know if I were hiring a secretary in an office whether she was a male or he was a female. You know, a minister married a couple of hippies recently, and after the ceremony he looked at one of them and he said, "Will one of you please kiss the bride?"

What I should like to know is if I have the right to know if the person I was to employ was male or female in a secretarial position. or in some other position. There are certain positions where the skills, the attitudes of the employee do rest in part on the person being either man or woman; is that not true?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes; I dissented, Senator and Mr. Chairman, because I thought that separate headings would be of aid to the jobseeker if someone was going to a city seeking a job. I really thought it would result in a larger number of jobs for ladies. As I have said, also, the question was whether you are going to hold the advertiser responsible or the publisher. And then another point to consider is the problem in enforcement, considering the size staff that we had. I am more than happy to discuss that particular issue, Senator, if there are any further questions.

Senator RANDOLPH. No; I have no desire to have the matter gone into any further from the standpoint of my questioning. I do not believe that any rule must be an absolute inflexible rule where we are dealing with matters of personnel. I think there have to be guidelines