of the room, Mrs. Norma Smith and Mrs. Anita Green, and also Mr. T. A. Phillips, Chief of the Bureau of Power; Mr. Emmett J. Gavin, who is one of my legal assistants; Mr. Edward O. Savwoir, Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Power; Leon J. Slavin, Administrative Officer, Bureau of Natural Gas; Mary C. Dorn, the Federal Power Commission Women's Coordinator; Claudius L. Fike, who is the Director of the Office of Personnel Programs; Alexander Randolph, who is our Equal Employment Opportunity Officer; Daniel Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel; Susan Marshall, legal assistant in the Office of General Counsel.

I welcome the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the subject matter of this hearing-the responsibilities of the Federal Power Commission in the area of civil rights with specific emphasis on the issue of regulation of employment practices of regulated industries.

There are problems associated with minority group employment in the regulated industries of this Nation, whether investor owned, publicly owned or cooperatively owned, just as there are problems in the non-regulated industries and in various units of government. I do not minimize any of the problems. They are real.

In my statement of January 30, 1970, in hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, I discussed the general problem of minority employment in the utility industries and actions which the Commission had taken and continues to pursue in support of the full enjoyment of all civil and human rights by all persons, regardless of race, creed, or color.

At that time, in January 1970, I stated, in part, at page 36, that this was a matter of extremely important national concern. There are some companies that have done some significant work in this area. I think progress is being made. It is slower than it should be.

As I recognize the problem, I am mindful also that the Congress now has before it a number of legislative proposals for dealing with this general situation. I am also mindful that there was a committee of conference that approved a version of a House bill and Senate bill as of yesterday. I have reference, of course, to the various legislative proposals, including those concepts favored by the administration, which have been advanced in regard to the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 (e), et seq., and the responsibility of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, particularly in terms of remedies of wrongful acts.

The subsequent portions of this statement are directed at informing this committee of the actions which the Federal Power Commission has taken and is taking in regard to civil rights and equal employment opportunities.

The bills which I referred to earlier in the committee of conference, of course, provide additional enforcement provisions for equal employment remedies at the initiative of the EEOC. Also there are judicial enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Justice assigned under the bills in certain areas.

By statute, we are an economic regulatory agency with defined, and therefore limited, compulsory authority within which to act administratively. We are not the chosen instrument of Congress for the admin

istration of equal employment laws or any other types of labor regulations. We do have certain specific responsibilities in the area of equal rights. We are enforcing these specific responsibilities. Also, where we cannot compel corrective actions, we are cooperating with all agencies of government which do have a direct role, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Actions-page 3-We must and do recognize the civil rights of all persons whom we employ at the Commission, an agency of the Federal Government created initially by the Congress in 1920.

Reservedly, because I know much more can be accomplished in time, nevertheless, I express with pride, the employment progress which we, the Federal Power Commission, have made regarding minority group hiring.

On August 1, 1969, when I joined the Commission as Chairman, we were last among the major Federal regulatory agencies in minority employment ratios. Today, we are first based upon the proportion of minority group persons employed to total employees.

In addition, we have increased the level of female professionals and technical employees by 63 percent. I discuss factual details in a later portion of this statement and in appendix A hereto, a memorandum prepared at my request by the Commission's Executive Director. Our actions are consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 11478, August 8, 1969, 34 F.R. 12985.

We must and do recognize the civil rights of all persons whose interests may be affected as users of Commission licensed multipurpose hydroelectric facilities, for example, power production, navigation, recreation and other uses.

Our authority to act in the multiple use of reservoir areas has been demonstrated, and springs from the comprehensive use of resources test which the Commission applies when it licenses hydroelectric projects under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 803 (a). See Commission Order 341, amending regulations under the Federal Power Act, prohibition of discrimination at recreational facilities at licensed hydroelectric projects, 37 FPC 775 (1967).

In a subsequent portion of this statement, I cite to the Commission's implementing rules and regulations, appendix B hereto describes, in question and answer format, the procedures and results of this type of Commission activity, which updates a letter which I had sent to the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Father Theodore M. Hesburgh on October 8, 1971.

In a third area, general employment practices of electric and gas utilities, our actions have been those of consultation and persuasion to secure employment rights for minority groups. We have been advised by our general counsel that we lack delegation of congressional authority to affirmatively regulate employment practices of electric or gas entities. This advice and supporting reasoning are set forth in restated memoranda format, appendix C, to this statement. It has been applied in three litigated cases before the Commission in which we were asked to effect, or control, utility employment practices, directly or indirectly. I discuss those cases later in this statement.

To understand our action, let me brieflly note the nature of our delegated authority.

The Power and Gas Acts-The Federal Power Commission is charged by the Congress with the administration of two economic regulatory arrangements. Under one, the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a), et seq., passed in 1920 and amended substantially in 1935, the commission regulates non-federally owned hydroelectric projects which use the water power potential of the Nation's rivers and streams, chiefly the major river systems. Also, it regulates, under this Act, the interstate bulk power supply operations or wholesale for resale rates and services of investor owned utilities, one to another, or from those systems to publicly owned utility systems (Federal, State, municipal) or cooperatively owned utilities. The Commission does not have economic regulatory authority over the bulk power or interstate operations of publicly owned systems or cooperatively owned utilities. Retail electric service regulation is a State matter. We do not have that jurisdiction, either. The operations of public systems and cooperatives are subject to State or local regulatory controls in some States.

Under the second basic statute, the National Gas Act, passed in 1938, the Commission regulates the wholesale rates and services of investor owned natural gas systems from wellhead to the point of local distribution of such gas. Interstate pipeline facilities are certificated by the Commission. Local distribution of natural gas is a State regulatory

matter.

Civil rights remedies—In researching and testing the extent of our authority over employment practices, as an administrative arm of the legislative branch, our Office of General Counsel has reviewed the legislative history of both of the basic Federal statutes which we administer, as well as the leglislative history of the equal employment opportunities provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 (e), et seq., which are administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Our Counsel's review of applicable regulatory statutes, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not establish that the Congress intended to grant authority to the Federal Power Commission to be remedial forum for the compulsory rectification or redress of unlawful utility employment practices associated with civil rights as defined in the statutes-or, for that matter, from other circumstances, for example, strikes, boycotts, lockouts, female or child labor employment conditions minimum wage or collective bargaining concepts, or unfair labor practices under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158.

As a matter of policy, it would seem that remedies for any such wrongs in employment must, in each instance, be as provided by the Congress. In civil rights employment practices, they are as set forth in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 78 Stat. 253, et seq., 42 U.S.C. 2000 (e), et. seq. In summary, they are:

-the use of voluntary conciliation procedures aided by studies, investigations and other actions of the EEOC, including cooperative actions with other consenting agencies of State, regional or local nature and private individuals, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4(f), e-5 (a) through (d);

-the processing by the EEOC of charges of unlawful unemployment practices, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 (a) through (d);

-the initiation of civil action for injunctive or other forms of equitable relief by the aggrieved party with provision for court appointed

counsel and intervention by the Attorney General in cases which he certifies to be of general public importance, 42 U.S.C. 2000e−5 (e) through (g);

-the initiation by the Attorney General of civil actions for temporary or permanent injunctive relief or restraining orders against patterns or practices intended to deny the full exercise of rights secured by the act, with provision for expedited review, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6 (a) through (b); and

-the recognition of remedial rights or provisions of present and future State laws, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-7.

The EEOC, unlike many other administrative agencies, such as the Federal Power Commission, at the present time does not have general enforcement powers relative to its administrative determinations. Neither the Federal power nor natural gas acts establish that power either through a grant to us or for the benefit of the EEOC. I personally believe this separation of functions is wise.

In my judgment, the regulation of employment practices of regulated industries should not, as a matter of policy, be delegated to an economic regulatory agency, but, rather, should be delegated to a separate agency as Congress has done. An economic regulatory agency should not be charged with the responsibility of overviewing management's performance in complying with employment practices when such authority has been delegated to another agency. The energy fields are technical and highly skilled, and management should have the responsibility to hire those employees who meet the standards, recognizing that management should comply with equal employment policies, and should establish continuing programs to train new minority employees and upgrade other minority employees at all levels of employment, professional, technical and managerial.

I might state here parenthetically, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that while I do not believe as a matter of policy that Congress should delegate to the Federal Power Commission the responsibility for administering equal employment opportunities laws and while I also believe that Congress has not so delegated to the Federal Power Commis sion, I want to state that if Congress chose to delegate such power, that I would assign this as a top priority of our agency to assure the enforcement of any congressional mandate. And I want to point this out in the context of what I have done and tried to do as Chairman of this Commission in this area where Congress has, in fact, delegated to me and the Commission the responsibility as an employer for enforcing equal employment opportunities.

Accountability-and I think this is an important concept with relation to any delegated authority-the dichotomy which I pose-economic regulation of an industry vis-a-vis ordered changes in human relationships within our society-helps me to focus upon the basic question of these hearings, that is, the nature of administrative responsibilities. Questions of governmental and political accountability are raised. Both are Congressional policy questions and they are deeply imbedded in various legislative proposals which the Congress has been considering in connection with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the respective roles of the administrative process and the judiciary.

H.R. 1746, as it passed the House, authorized the EEOC to initiate a civil action to obtain compliance with the provisions of Title VII

respecting employment practices. Also, pending final disposition of the charge before the EEOC, that agency would be authorized to secure temporary injunctive relief upon a showing of unavoidable, substantial and irreparable injury to the aggrieved party. That is injunctive relief standard.

S. 2515, as it passed the Senate February 22, 1972, provides that the EEOC would not have administrative responsibility and authority to issue cease and desist type orders. For sanctions against proscribed actions, judicial review and court orders would be required. S. 2515 also makes provision for temporary or preliminary judicial relief pending final disposition of an unlawful employment charge as defined before the EEOC.

I believe that social justice can be most equitably realized by judicial determination of the propriety of injunctive relief as, I understand, the conferees now agree. I support, of course, the relevant concepts of both H.R. 1746 and S. 2515.

I recognize that arguments can be developed to support the inclusion of equal employment considerations in matters presented before independent regulatory agencies under a broadened umbrella of "public interest," the generally recognized test for the imposition of governmental constraints so as to regulate private economic affairs and conduct. Appendix C to this statement includes such argument advanced by an Assistant Attorney General and the legal opinion of the Commission's General Counsel that the Commission is not empowered to enforce the equal opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by exercise of economic regulatory powers.

Policy The Federal Power Commission is mindful and fully supportive of the national policy of this country that discrimination in employment is to be eliminated by all elements of our society. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is an unlawful employment practice, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) (1) (2):

. . . for an employer-(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Accompanying appendix D sets forth reports which were prepared by the respective chiefs of two of the Commission's major staff officesthese are our operating offices, the Bureau of Power and the Bureau. of Natural Gas, summarizing, upon a sampled basis, various programs which are now being implemented by electric utilities and gas companies to further equal employment goals in these industries. I believe the progressive nature of these action programs are noteworthy, although I am not satisfied by any means with the performance of the electric or the gas industries in meeting their commitment to a national policy. I am not saying that all possible steps have been implemented nor that any comprehensive study of all regulated utilities has been undertaken by the Federal Power Commission. There are varying degrees of performance in the civil rights field. In the area of human