rights, one can, and should, always strive to do more. Perhaps we should call it an absolute standard.

If the Congress should delegate to the Federal Power Commission, as I said earlier, and I want to emphasize this legislative authority to regulate utility equal employment opportunity practices, through administrative agency action, I will enforce that policy as a top priority item of the Commission.

Commission cases-At this point, let me turn to three commission cases relevant to your inquiry. To my knowledge, there is no reported judicial construction of the Federal Power, Natural Gas or Civil Rights Act in this context. The three Federal Power Commission cases, all arising under the Federal Power Act, did not result in any judicial interpretation. The first two cases, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 44 FPC 1373 (1970), involved the Commission's hydroelectric licensing procedure, 16 U.S.C. 797 (e), and appeals filed by the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (intervenor before the Commission), from the Commission's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate P.G. & E.'s employment practices. Appeals were also filed by licensee, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, on other questions. Upon the initiative of Intervenor, CRLA, and licensee, P.G. & E., the appeals from the Commission's two licensing orders were dropped. The Commission's lead order, issued November 6, 1970, 44 FPC 1365, 1366-8, states in part as follows:

The petition to intervene requested the Commission to hold up the license application "pending the submission to the FPC and the petitioner of PG&E's full and complete minority hiring policies, including statistical analysis of such hiring policies." By order issued September 8, 1969, 42 FPC 645, we permitted CRLA to file a statement of facts and law in support of its position and indicated that that brief "should detail the relief requested of the Commission and should specify the manner in which the Commission can afford the relief, as well as the authority for the Commission to grant the relief." By a filing of October 24, 1969, CRLA requested the convening of a hearing at San Francisco "for the purpose of taking the testimony of PG&E officials and subpoenaing their employment records" and that the evidence include testimony relating to the need for the institution of the Philadelphia Plan. We also have before us extensive briefs filed by PG&E. By further order issued January 5, 1970, we granted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the MexicanAmerican Legal Defense & Educational Funds leave to file a brief in support of CRLA in order that we might have the benefit of views of counsel directly and immediately concerned with the social and economic issues before us as they may arise in other phases of the nation's activities.

Nothing in the Federal Power Act specifically purports to grant jurisdiction to the Commission to regulate the employment practices of licenseees, nor does the legislative history give any basis for believing that Congress intended to confer such jurisdiction. Thus, the implementation of the ultimate remedies which intervener seeks would require this Commission to act in an area in which it has no statutory basis for jurisdiction. Moreover, we are referred to the overall corporate activities and employment practices of the Company, not merely that portion which we regulate under the Federal Power Act. We are called upon to deny a license for a facility, already constructed, which is needed to meet the energy demands of all citizens, regardless of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. Pit No. 1 is one of 25 projects of PG&L under Commission license or covered by pending applications for license. In August 1970, PG&E had 6,942,400 kw of fossil and goethermal dependable capacity and 2,369,800 kw of hydro dependable capacity for a total capacity of 9,312,200 kw to meet its estimated 9,061,000 kw 1970 peak load. The above load includes those parts of the loads of the City of San Francisco, the Central Valley Project and the State of

California Water Project supplied through PG&E's system. Our paramount concern is, and must be, directed to the electric needs of all of the consumers served by or through PG&E, regardless of race, sex, color, creed or national origin.

We enforce as a standard regulation of the Commission a requirement that: "Every licensee maintaining recreation facilities for the use of the public at a licensed project, or employing or permitting any other person to maintain such facilities, shall permit, or require such other person to permit, equal and unobstructed use of such facilities to all members of the public without regard to race, color, religious creed or national origin," Section 8.3, Commission Regulations under the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 8.3. The Commission's stated Policy is that:

**

**

"The Commission expects the licensee to assume * responsibilities: * To develop suitable public recreational facilities upon project lands and waters and to make provisions for adequate public access to such project facilities and waters. * **To ensure public access and recreational use of project lands and waters without regard to race, color, sex, religious creed or national origin." Section 2.7, Recreational development at licensed projects, General Policy and Interpretations of the Federal Power Commission, 18 CFR 2.7.

The legal issues, which must be of concern to us in this proceeding, are those over which we have jurisdiction. We do not find that the issues raised by intervener are sufficiently related to a legitimate regulatory purpose as expressed in the Federal Power Act that we can proceed as requested by CRLA. Accordingly, we do not find it appropriate in the exercise of our general administrative power to order a hearing on ultimate issues which we could not lawfully resolve. ***

The Congress has acted to secure human rights guaranteed by the Constitution through the Civil Rights Act and other significant legislation, none of which purports to delegate authority to the Commission. We note, for example, that private parties who are aggrieved in Civil Rights cases have recourse to the Federal courts, with provision being made for counsel (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5), we note the jurisdiction conferred upon the Attorney General (42 U.S.C. 2000 e-6), we note the jurisdiction conferred upon the Equal Opportunity Commission (42 U.S.C. 2000e-4), and we note various State agencies having jurisdiction (e.g., California Fair Employment Practice Act, Lab. C.A. §§ 1410 et seq.), to which, under law, the EEOC must defer as having primary jurisdiction under an exhaustion of remedies principle (42 U.S.C. 2000e−5).

The particular arguments raised in this docket present legal issues which this agency has not heretofore had occasion to consider by formal order. Moreover, we have not recounted, in this order, the actions which we have taken in cooperation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to help in securing human rights in employment practices of electric and gas utilities. And, we need not detail them at this time. We believe it sufficient to state that the problems of equal opportunity in employment are not matters of first impression to the Commission. We have cooperated with all interested departments and agencies of government. We shall continue our actions and strengthen our efforts. In that respect, we shall channel these matters to the constituted governmental agencies or departments charged with specific administrative or enforcement responsibilities in securing human rights in employment situations.

Where the matters involve legal questions within the scope of our administrative jurisdiction we shall continue to pursue our established policy of nondiscrimination as set forth above. We believe that in these ways we can most effectively contribute to the exercise by every person of his or her human rights to further this Nation's national policies.

The third Commission order was issued August 5, 1971, in an electric rate proceeding under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824 (d), e, involving interstate wholesale rates and charges of the Virginia Electric and Power Co. to a number of municipally owned and cooperatively owned electric utilities. In reaching the questions raised by intervener, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc., the Commission noted:

The Attorney General of the United States acting under the authority conferred upon him in Congress (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a)) sought and secured a

preliminary injunction against VEPCO from discriminating against employees of VEPCO in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employment practices enjoined are those covered by NAACP's motion in the instant case. Under these circumstances, final court action in the suit brought against VEPCO by the Attorney General will resolve the issue raised by NAACP's motion herein. In view of this pending litigation in the United States District Court on VEPCO's employment practices, it is unnecessary for the Commission to consider review of the questions raised by NAACP.

Although we cannot review VEPCO's employment practices in the proceeding, we are mindful of the serious problem raised by NAACP of equal opportunity in employment and of the national policy that discrimination in employment is to be eliminated by all elements of our society, public and private. In the license project case of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Project No. 2687 (order issued November 6, 1970) where similar claims of discriminatory employment practices were made by California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) and supported by the NAACP, we expressed our concern in this matter and outlined the steps we have taken to insure implementation of the national policy fully and completely.

The Commission's August 5 order was not appealed. The district court injunctive action brought by the Attorney General, as referred to in the order of the Commission, was concluded by the entry of a consent decree entered on September 2, 1971. As reported, VEPCO's compliance with the decree will satisfy the company's obligations under title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

EEOC action-A review of the Commission's files shows that in none of those cases did the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seek to participate in the proceedings before the Power Commission. The EEOC did seek leave of the Court of Appeals to file a brief amicus curiae in the appellate proceeding to review the Commission's November 6, 1970, orders in the Pacific Gas and Electric cases, which proceedings were subsequently terminated as noted supra.

Since becoming Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, I have not received any requests from that agency for action by the Power Commission. During the course of the recent EEOC hearings on minority group employment in the gas and electric utility industries, EEOC Chairman Brown stated the position of that agency as follows (Closing Argument, mimeo ed. pp. 2):

. . As a Commission, we will take every appropriate action to provide justice under law for those to whom it has so long been denied. We will continue to spotlight the failings of American industry in public forums such as this one. We will exercise our intervention power in the Federal courts. We will employ our own compliance process where appropriate. We will share our resources with the Department of Justice, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Federal Power Commission, and other regulatory agencies . . .

The FPC has and will continue to cooperate fully with the EEOC's programs. They have the expertise in the area of equal employment opportunity and are the agency charged by the Congress with the administration of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

FPC actions as an employer-Appendix A details various internal procedures and programs which have been adopted by the Federal Power Commission to ensure full equal employment opportunities. Among the independent regulatory agencies of the Federal government, we now employ more personnel from minority groups in terms of percentage of our total personnel complement than any other regulatory agency. These gains are reflected throughout our professional and clerical staff classifications. While, understandably, not uniform in

terms of every job rating, we have sought to recruit minority group workers, male and female, for all classes of work and at all salary levels. We do not recruit large numbers of minority group or female workers for lesser responsibility or lower paying tasks.

As a part of this overall program, we have appointed an independent equal employment opportunity officer reporting directly through the Commission's Executive Director to me as Chairman of the Commission. We have also established an independent women's coordinator. We have launched individual employee skill improvement programs. We are determined to erase any employee disadvantage that may exist at the Commission.

Additionally, it may interest the committee to know that our Commission's general Washington office will be relocated later this year in the inner city of the District of Columbia. I believe that by doing so we would materially assist in the efforts of the local and national administrations in upgrading urban core areas. We are now scheduled to relocate our central offices from the General Accounting Office Building to 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., by the end of the current calendar year or early next year.

Conclusion-Actions taken by the Federal Power Commission in regard to full and equal employment opportunities reflect the basic nature of the Commission's administrative authority. The Commission does not have authority to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission has acted in cooperation with the EEOC and other agencies whose primary responsibilities rest in this area. It supports fully the goals and objectives of equal employment opportunity.

Thank you.

I will respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a most helpful statement. And before we get into the actual details of the purpose of this inquiry, I think it is entirely appropriate to compliment your agency on its fair employment practices as an employer. It certainly has an excellent record. The committee also welcomes the fact that you are relocating your Washington office in the inner city of the District of Columbia. All of these steps are certainly very much to your credit.

However, with regard to the general thrust of your testimony, which is to the effect that really you don't have anything to say about what the regulated industry is doing in equal employment, a Pontius Pilate attitude that says the public utilities can really do anything they like and that the EEOC is the agency that should enforce the Civil Rights Act. I think that insofar as the Chair is concerned, we have some very sharp disagreements with your position, as does the Department of Justice.

Mr. Norman's memorandum to you, Mr. Gooch, several months ago, says the opposite. However, it is your position that Congress does not intend agencies such as Federal Power Commission to deal with employment discrimination in the regulated industries. Is that correct? Mr. NASSIKAS. That is correct, as the act now reads. I don't know about the new one.

Mr. EDWARDS. The Department of Justice disagrees with you, correct?

Mr. NASSIKAS. An Assistant Attorney General disagrees?

Mr. EDWARDS. An Assistant Attorney General who is the head of the Civil Rights Division.

Mr. NASSIKAS. Yes; that's right.

Mr. EDWARDS. Also the former Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Power Commission, by memorandum dated April 17, 1969, Mr. David J. Bardin, he disagreed with Mr. Gooch, is that correct?

Mr. NASSIKAS. I don't recall. I do think I remember seeing the memorandum from Mr. David Bardin, who is now working in Israel. I know Mr. Bardin well. I think highly of the gentleman. I don't agree with his opinion, obviously.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Gooch, you are acquainted with Mr. Bardin's opinion?

Mr. GooсH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDWARDS. So far you have a pretty lonely position, is that correct, Mr. Gooch?

Mr. GoоCH. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, we will continue.

You mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Chairman, the legislative history in the House and in the Senate that would indicate that the EEOC is supposed to be the exclusive agency for enforcement, is that correct? Mr. NASSIKAS. Yes; this is the way I understand it, and I believe I stated that.

Mr. EDWARDS. On June 12, 1964, during the debate on title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Senator Tower offered an amendment to the 1964 act to make the EEOC the exclusive enforcement agency against employment discrimination, and it was turned down by a vote of 59-to-29 in the Senate. And then in the House and Senate conference on the current admendments to title VII, the conference dropped the House provisions making action through the EEOC the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination. So I don't think that you will find anywhere in the congressional intent that the EEOC was designed as the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination.

Now, let me ask you this question, Mr. Chairman: Is it not true that the position that you espouse is rather a lonely one, that no other Federal regulatory agency has adopted this position?

Mr. NASSIKAS. I don't know that that is so. I am acquainted with the rule of the FCC and also the proposed rulemaking that was issued without a subsequent order by the ICC. I have not personally studied, perhaps my staff has, what actions may have been taken as to regulated industry by the other five of the big six regulatory agencies, socalled. I just haven't studied that. I will be glad to do so if you wish

me to.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Communications Commission has issued regulations prohibiting job discrimination by its licensees. The Interstate Commerce Commission has filed a notice that it intends to propose rulemaking proceedings leading to the issuance of regulations on the employment practices of the trucking industry. And the Securities and Exchange Commission regulations have recently been amended to require the reporting, in registration statements filed with the Commission, of outstanding lawsuits filed against the company charging employment discrimination. And the Civil Aero

77-374-72- -2