"Four days later, the Steelworkers returned to their jobs-under a new contract incorporating complex and rather drastic seniority changes. Previously, Timken had 212 seniority 'units' for 9,500 employes and transfers of seniority between units were not permitted. Now there were only four such units covering the entire plant, and transfer from one to another would entail no loss of pay or other rights. The company also promised to notify all employes when openings occur, so that minorities can apply-and can file complaints if they are turned down for reasons they suspect are 'discriminatory.' Every employe, moreover, would get a 45-day trial period on any new job, to show whether or not he can handle it.

"OFCC then discontinued its debarment proceedings but with certain conditions. Every two months for one year, Timken must file a detailed report on any changes (or denial of changes) in job classifications, including this data: 'In the case of Negro employes who are denied a transfer or who fail to qualify, the reasons for such denial or failure shall be fully set forth in the report.' In addition, by mid-March Timken must submit a written 'affirmative action' program 'with respect to recruitment, selection, employment and promotion of officials, managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers and office and clerical workers and apprentices and other trainees . . . (The company, meanwhile, may not have seen the end yet; it recently was visited by an investigator from another agency, EEOC.)

"WHAT IT PROVES

"What has it all proved? OFCC and EEOC spokesmen say the Timken agreement outmodes the highly controversial one obtained nearly two years ago at Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock (Barron's, July 17, 1967), which called for preferential promotions for certain Negroes and special recruitment of blacks. It appears to have done more than that by establishing the precedent that Washington-independently of the courts can wreak havoc in already troubled labormanagement affairs, over the issue of equal opportunity.

[From Congressional Record, Apr. 1, 1969]

THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, it appears that in the matter of seeing the will of the people carried out, through their expression of intent by their elected representatives, we have gotten into an extremely thorny thicket. I am referring to reports of the remarks made by the distinguished minority leader in his questioning of the chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mr. Clifford Alexander, before a judiciary subcommittee headed by the senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).

The senior Senator from Illinois (Mr. DIRKSEN) has, I think, an exemplary record on what has of late become an almost "sacred cow" subject-civil rights. Certainly no one who examines the voting record of our minority leader can accuse him of legislative bias or unfairness in this area. As a matter of fact, he has come under attack for being too "liberal" in the civil rights field. I say all that simply as background, Mr. President.

It seems to me that in our present situation we have come very close to the fantastic scene described in the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes." I am sure most of us are familiar with that story in which a group of unscrupulous tailors "sold" the Emperor some new clothes by saying that only those worthy of their position could see them. Since no one was willing to admit he could not see the nonexistent clothes the hoax worked until a child pointed out that the Emperor simply had no clothes on at all.

This is the impasse to which we have come in the matter of Governmentenforced equal opportunity.

Some Americans have undertaken to set themselves up as judge and jury and decide, ex-cathedra, what does and what does not constitute discrimination. Unfortunately this tendency extends even to high public officials and is, I think, particularly unbecoming when the robes of self-righteousness very thinly conceal the uniform of partisan political ambition.

Now we are in the perplexing situation of being almost unable to raise one word of criticism-even constructive criticism such as the minority leader was engaged in-without suddenly and certainly being labeled as opposed to equal employment

opportunity. Perhaps we are in need of a child-like national voice to call attention to the fact that the “equal employment emperor" is going about without his clothes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has a duty to speak out when he learns that a governmental agency is abusing its authority. He would be remiss in his duty if he failed to do so. And believe me, Mr. President, the EEOC and its sister agency, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, have far exceeded their authority of trying to eliminate discrimination in employment. I know something about these agencies because I have been following their activities for some time. Both employers and unions have been in touch with me and from time to time I have pointed out in the RECORD the outrageous manner in which the personnel of these agencies have conducted themselves. Mr. President, the EEOC should have been censured for its actions in many cases and if the chairman cannot control his own personnel, he should be removed.

The same would be true of any other agency or agency head, whether involved in the area of civil rights or not.

Mr. President, as I stated on the floor on March 24:

"So far as I have been able to determine from many sources, the personnel of these agencies are not concerned with seeing that the law is complied with; rather, they see their duty as one to belittle, embarrass, bully and abuse American industry for failure to make up for alleged past misdeeds. As time goes on, these people are becoming increasingly arrogant and insulting. I think that it is high time that the personnel of these agencies learn that there are limitations on their power. Judging from recent reports, they might also learn simple manners." Mr. President, by way of verification of these charges let me refer to recent hearings held by the EEOC in Los Angeles on the question of discrimination in the aerospace, movie, and television industries. A number of observers in the audience recounted what took place.

Mr. President, listen to this account of the hearings and see whether this can be called an objective hearing:

"The temper and attitude of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was different from a similar hearing held in New York City in January, 1968. Although the questions were unnecessarily tough at the New York Hearing, and even at times caustic, neither the Chairman nor the staff engaged in continuous harassment in New York. Unfortunately, from March 12 through the 14th the Los Angeles Hearing was conducted in such a manner as to negate any sense of objectivity by the Commission and staff. In fact, at times the so-called Hearing resembled a carnival atmosphere rather than a government hearing. There seemed to be an attitude of personal vendetta by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with representatives of the business community and the unions. Most of the questions asked of those testifying were not asked to either elicit information or to help those testifying, but were asked merely to be punitive or to show that minority persons could 'dish it out' to the so-called establishment."

Then consider some of the questions and the manner of interrogation. I find particularly objectionable the questions and sarcastic comments of the chairman and his protegé Commissioner Brown who I might observe has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. President, I am not merely speaking from a casual acquaintance with this problem. I have documented these problems before. I ask unanimous consent that an article which I prepared for Nation's Business magazine be printed at the conclusion of my remarks in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. FANNIN. Furthermore, Mr. President, on March 24 of this year I placed in the RECORD on page E2279, an example of the type of harrassment which the Senator from Illinois has described to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. That case deals with Southwest Forest Industries and their problems with the many investigations they have had to undergo from the Agriculture Department, the Post Office Department, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. These multitudinous and overlapping investigations should be halted, the conflicting regulations and ambiguity cleared up, and some order brought out of this chaos.

This has been my purpose, Mr. President, in the introduction of S. 931 on February 7 this year, which would restore a measure of congressional control to these activities and remove the conflict, doubt, and recriminations that presently

exist. I hope the Committee on the Judiciary will schedule hearings on the bill

soon.

On the heels of all this press criticism of Senator DIRKSEN for daring to speak out about this, comes one of the most flagrant examples of what he has been talking about. Within the past week I received the file on this case from Motorola executives in Arizona. I know the Senator from Illinois is interested in this because he, too, has Motorola plants in his State and knows of the excellent efforts they make to be a part of the community in which they are located as well as the important contributions they make to the economy of their locale.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter and memorandum to which I refer be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 2.)

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD exhibit 3, relating to Arizona Public Service Co.'s dealing with the OFCC.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, there is little doubt in my mind that much is amiss in the present administration of the equal employment laws in the Nation. Some have tried to make this simply into a regional problem, yet we have employers from all over the Nation who are affected. We have had companies with outstanding records, such as Allen-Bradley of Milwaukee, which are not even remotely connected with the South; they have been practically vilified by public pronouncements of the EEOC.

We have had the entire TV and movie industry branded as-and I am quoting exactly "racist dogs," and the EEOC Chairman has not spoken a moderating word.

I ask unanimous consent to have an account of these hearings inserted at the end of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 4.)

Mr. FANNIN. In my opinion, Mr. President, it is time for us to get down to cases. It is time for courage, yes and even temper, to be exhibited in this matter. It is time for Americans of all races to grow up and drop some of this “supersensitivity" that has been fostered over this race issue.

It has always seemed strange to me, Mr. President, that those who have appealed the loudest for a "colorblind" society, are in the forefront of the mob claiming they have been mistreated on the basis of color. I say, if you want treatment without regard to race, sex, national origin, and all the rest of it, then you are going to have to quit asking for special treatment because of those same factors.

There is no question but that discrimination—and unfair discrimination-has existed in all parts of the country at various times. We are all concerned with that. The thrust of every major legislative effort has been to insure, so far as is possible, that such legally perpetuated discrimination does not continue. I know of no reasonable man that will quarrel with that aim.

At the same time, to claim special treatment-discriminatory treatment, if you will-in an attempt to redress past wrongs, real or imagined, is plainly unfair and un-American. I cannot redress the wrongs which my great, great grandfather may have committed against your great, great grandfather; and I suggest that if the situation is reversed, you are just as helpless as I. So let us leave this quibbling about past differences. We are in the present-the here and now-let us move on.

To those who are so prone to criticize, so quick to speak with absolute infallibility, so quick to jump into the fray without benefit of the facts-to those I quote these words from the book of Job; words quoted to his very critical friends who were so sure Job had committed some sin simply because of his circumstances. Job said:

"No doubt ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.

"EXHIBIT 1

"DOES WASHINGTON FORCE RACIAL BIAS?

"(By PAUL FANNIN, U.S. Senator from Arizona)

"Jimmy Lee never got his promotion. His skin is the wrong color. Jimmy had to stand aside and let someone less qualified be promoted in his place because

the federal government threatened to cancel contracts with his employer unless someone of another race got Jimmy's job.

"Jimmy Lee is white.

"His case is not uncommon-not since the advent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The names here are changed to protect the individuals, but the circumstances and details are shockingly real.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came into being in mid1965 as a result of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The five-man Commission was created to prevent unlawful employment practices. Instead it has undermined some of the most basic relationships between employer and employee. Now it seeks more power of enforcement to spread its influence even wider. I don't think it can be trusted with more authority.

"EEOC's record is clear: Misuse of power, violation of the spirit and letter of the law, disruption of labor-management-union relationships. Let me be plain. I'm not against equal employment opportunities. I'm against granting EEOC, or anyone else, arbitrary powers over workingmen and their jobs.

"So-called civil rights groups have wrapped themselves around this EEOC issue to the extent that any discussion of the problem immediately brings forth the cry of 'racist.'

"To my mind there is no more basic right than that of a man to provide for himself and those he loves with the smallest interference possible from government. That's what is involved in this issue.

"I am disturbed that the EEOC has associated itself with extremist groups. One of the EEOC's former consultants (Timothy L. Jenkins) bills himself as a member of the staff of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee-an associate of H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael.

"If this is the kind of person insuring equality of employment opportunities— then I want to be very careful about granting any additional powers. "The Commission got off to a rather shaky start under the chairmanship of Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. who assured me and other members of the Senate Labor Committee that he would devote his full time and resources to the job. He wrote a letter to Senator Javits of New York stating that he had asked specifically for a two-year appointment taking him beyond June 1, 1967, so as to allay any fears Senators Javits and Winston Prouty might have that he would quit to go politicking.

"I will have to leave the day-to-day political activity to such eminent practitioners of the art as you, Congressman Lindsay and Governor Rockefeller' Roosevelt said.

"Ten months later he quit to run for the governorship of New York. It was a bad beginning.

"PICKING A TARGET

"During its first year of operations the EEOC singled out the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. as a likely target for its maiden effort. The company is located in the South. A defense contractor-the nation's sole supplier of capital ships-it had well-developed program of apprentice training.

"Jimmy Lee and other old hands at the shipyard heard news that the EEOC boys were knocking on doors soliciting complaints about the company. They didn't think much of it. Of the 22,000 employees 41 said they were willing to complain. It later narrowed down to only four. Armed with this 'evidence' EEOC notified the company it was in violation of the Civil Rights Act and sat down to negotiate an agreement to stop the alleged discrimination.

"Because it is a defense supplier, Newport News had already signed an agree ment to take ‘affirmative action' in eliminating discrimination. "Soon the full array of federal power was focused on one company.

"The Department of Justice notified the company it was holding up a pending case awaiting outcome of the negotiations.

"The Office of Federal Contract Compliance under the Department of Labor notified the company all its defense contracts would be suspended pending the outcome of the talks.

"The Defense Department was made a party to, and inspector of, the enforcement proceedings.

"Small wonder that Newport News Shipbuilding 'voluntarily,' agreed to the compact which Commission spokesmen called a landmark' case and a 'model' for future agreements.

"Jimmy Lee was soon to find out that his career in the shipyard, despite the fact that he belonged to a union, was out of his hands. He had exchanged the quiet of the southwest Virginia hills for the roar and excitement of heavy industry and progressed right out of high school through the shipyard's training program. He thought he was ready to go somewhere. He was next in line for promotion to quarterman. But he had reckoned without the EEOC.

"SETTING BLACK AGAINST WHITE

"The agreement between EEOC and the company substituted favoritism as a goal. And in the words of one veteran welder, 'did everything possible to set black against white.'

"Jimmy found that a preferential promotion list had been created with 100 Negroes on it. This list had to be exhausted before he could be promoted. Any exceptions to the order of placement had to be cleared with the Commission. "Jimmy got mad.

"Others got mad, too. One of Jimmy's friends who had gone through the apprentice school with him says, "They've ruined the school. It used to be there were more boys wanting to get in than they could take-boys who couldn't go to college, but wanted more training. Now they've lowered the requirements so much the teachers are quitting. They've converted the dormitory space back to offices and are having trouble getting enough to fill out the class.'

"Bone-cracking violence erupted at the main gate of the yard last summer and a score of people were injured. What caused these passionate outbursts in a placid town where the shipyard had operated for 81 years without disturbance? "Listen to these words in the EEOC agreement pertaining to enrollment in the apprentice school:

""The ratio of Negro to white apprentices in any given year should approach the ratio... of Negro to whites in the labor area.'

"And this about promotions:

"Vacancies will be filed by qualified Negro employees.'

66

'And this about training opportunities:

"Employees in predominantly Negro departments shall be given the first opportunity to enter training programs in which they are qualified to enter.' "Did you wonder that Jimmy Lee and his white friends go mad?

"One of the first to protest the agreement was the union representing the 22,000 employees. Their position in employee representation had been entirely preempted.

"Co-managers of the independent union, one a white and the other a Negro, have both been very critical of the EEOC's action.

"At one time the union threatened to sue the Labor Department unless it set the record straight on the number of raises and promotions. The Labor Department claimed 3,890. The union and the company both contend raises amounted to about 155 as a result of the agreement and 250 Negroes put on preferential promotion lists.

"Any time the Secretary of Labor will claim 3,890 promotions under an agreement that actually produced 155,' said one of the union leaders, 'I've got a lot of reservations about whether he should be Secretary of Labor.'

"The unions have a right to be upset about extending the powers of EEOC. The pattern of agreements emanating from the EEOC offices generally bears these four stipulations directly relating to union interests:

"WOULD YOU FLY IN THIS ROCKET?

"First, most of the EEOC agreements call for abolition of job seniority arrangements in labor agreements. They generally take plant seniority as the only nondiscriminatory yardstick. The practical effect is that a sweeper, for example, who has been in the plant a long time, must be promoted to the next supervisory opening in the rocket assembly shop, regardless of his training or job preparedness.

"The commission attitude is, 'You must try him, even if he isn't trained.' "How would you like a trip to the moon on one of those rockets?

"Second, special treatment must be given to Negro employees who are found to be unqualified in their training or advancement.

"Third, the EEOC generally calls for an end to all testing. It makes no difference if it is related to the job-the test must be 'culturally validated.' Ask any sociologist if you can culturally validate a test with less than a 100-man sample equally divided as to race and job experience.