standard of living, while at the same time aid in decreasing the growing poverty which has ensnarled so much of our Nation.

I beseech of your committee the consideration of these proposals. Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman. I might say, as just an offhand position, you covered quite a lot we have already covered in this legislation before us but you are making new proposals that should perhaps be given more in-depth study. It might be the committee may decide to have your bill up for special hearings because of the departure into the areas of unemployment compensation, workmen's compensation, and disability insurance.

While they have the very definite bearing on limitation of workers, it might be better for this legislation at this time to postpone consideration of these other areas which your bill covers. We are hoping to get this legislation a ruling next week in order that there will be opportunity to vote on it this year.

Mr. PEPPER. The job discrimination provisions of my bill incorporate the five amendments offered by Senator Javits so as to bring this section up to date.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. HAWKINS. I wish to commend you for a very comprehensive bill. I would like to ask, since this bill goes beyond the question of prohibiting job discrimination, have you any estimate of cost that would be involved in this proposal?

Mr. PEPPER. No, I do not as of now. We are trying to get estimates of cost from the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. DENT. Thank you.

I would say for the record the Fair Labor Standards Act in its original inception was chiefly the work and study of the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Pepper.

Mr. PEPPER. Thank you.

Mr. DENT. Our next witness is, I understand, going to present the case very bluntly. We have now Francis A. O'Connell, legislative director of the Transport Workers Union of America; Miss Colleen Boland, president of Local 550 of the Transport Workers Union; and Miss Barbara Erikkson, legislative representative, in Washington, D.C.

I will let you decide who wants to go first.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS O'CONNELL, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY MISS COLLEEN BOLAND, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 550, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION; AND MISS BARBARA ERIKKSON, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to read my statement into the record and I have some exhibits I would like to have inserted in the record.

Mr. DENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. O'CONNELL. My name is Francis A. O'Connell. I am legislative director of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFLCIO, with offices at 100 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.

Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield for a minute, I want to present a distinguished member of this committee, the majority leader, Mr. Carl Albert from Oklahoma.

Mr. O'CONNELL. On my right is Miss Colleen Boland, president, Local 550 of the Transport Workers Union, and on her right is Miss Barbara Erikkson, legislative representative of the stewardesses local. I appreciate and thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the 150,000 members of the Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO. We come here today to support the legislation now before you to prohibit discrimination in employment because of age. Our union, with its railroad division and its air transport division, represents a great number of workers serving both one of America's oldest and youngest transport industries. We seek here to direct your attention. and ask your consideration of discrimination problems involving both youth and years.

First, however, let me say the Transport Workers Union is in full agreement with the opening statements made before this subcommittee on August 1, 1967, by Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, that to prohibit age discrimination in employment is so plainly and unarguably right, that to belabor it is to dull it, that nobody defends such discrimination, and that there is general agreement that it ought to be stopped.

It not only ought to be stopped. It must be stopped. And we have been saying just that for years, first before the House Select Subcommittee on Labor in 1965; before the New York State Commission for Human Rights; before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission here in Washington; before the Federal district court in Alexandria, Va.; before the Senate Labor Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee; and again here today. With its enforcement provisions, this bill could have been vital in helping reestablish the employment of some 2,200 members of our railroad division who have been laid off this year in Pennsylvania alone because of cutbacks in the use of some of the railway postal service cars.

Mr. Chairman, in a meeting with the chairman of the board of the Pennsylvania Railroad yesterday afternoon, he informed us that the Post Office Department has informed him of serious cutbacks in the Railway Postal Service effective September 6; the cars are on the New York to Washington run and the New York to Pittsburgh

runs.

As you know, it follows, when the Postal Service cars are removed, the railroads immediately petition the ICC to disband their passenger trains and so we are faced on September 6 with further layoffs on the Pennsylvania Railroad.

These men have 15 or 20 years of seniority. They are well over 45 years of age and it is these people in the railroad division that really need this legislation. It is impossible to obtain jobs after you have reached the age of 40 or 45.

It is interesting to note this legislation pertains only to those between the ages of 45 and 65; however, the charts, graphs, figures produced by the Department of Labor usually begin with the figure 40. I don't know why it is 45 in this particular bill.

Discrimination in employment for any reason ought to be stopped. As Secretary Wirtz put it, to end discrimination in employment

because of age is so "unarguably right," it would be an absurd, unecessary waste of time to simply belabor it.

Except for one fact.

The legislation you are now considering to end age discrimination. in employment contains an arbitrary, self-limiting section that in itself discriminates-by age-in extending the coverage of this bill. Section 13 of the act limits the act, its intent and purpose, its enforcement provisions, all of it, to individuals who are at least 45 but less than 65 years of age.

And this is discrimination.

The Air Transport Division of the Transport Workers Union represents approximately 40,000 workers in the air transport industry. Nearly 15,000 of these are flight attendants-also known as stewardesses or hostesses. Age discrimination against airline flight attendants begins at the universally accepted youthful age of 32 to 35.

I admit that through our mass advertising, our communications media today, we are cultivating a myth of eternal youth. We are developing a youth cult in this country. Look young. Think young. Feel young. But don't get to be 32 or 35 if you're an airline stewardess. The Transport Workers Union consistently has acknowledged that reasonable medical and physical standards can be imposed for all categories of workers, including airline stewardesses. But not a selfserving arbitrary age limit. Especially one that falls 13 years before the minimum age limit coverage of section 13.

Section 13 provides the Secretary of Labor with authority to make appropriate adjustments-either upward or downward-in the maximum and minimum age limits. But how far down can he go? Or how far up, for that matter?

The Secretary himself has indicated before this committee that he would like section 13 defined, spelled out more clearly in its intent. We ask it also. If Congress decides that discrimination against a worker at the age of 45 is against the best interests of the Nation, then surely Congress must abhor, at least as much, discrimination at the age of 32.

The Transport Workers Union is on record respect fully requesting that legislation be enacted prohibiting age discrimination in employment and that such legislation not be limited to people between the ages of 45 and 65.

We feel this could end the long, costly legal maneuvers and delays in seeking to find enforcement teeth for Executive Order 11141 in which President Johnson in 1964 declared a national policy against discrimination because of age.

We feel such legislation is the only answer to an industry which, while it boasts it is an equal-employment-opportunity employer in its help wanted ads, has studiously ignored Executive Order 11141 for 3 long years while steadily increasing its contracts in carrying men and supplies to the battlefields in Vietnam.

Although only one of the airlines, whose member-employees we represent, continues to enforce arbitrary age limitations today, it is clear that a final and binding decision on this matter, an industrywide decision, is necessary to head off future problems.

There must be firm and decisive language. This is an industry which received nearly half-a-billion dollars in military aircraft contracts this

85-376-67- -28

fiscal year alone, but which has still not completely implemented Executive Order 11141. It must be shown the way.

Mr. Chairman, that half billion dollars of contracts awarded are the initial contracts. Last year for the fiscal year ending this past June 30, that figure was almost $700 million.

I sincerely urge this committee to delete section 13 and to adopt this bill for approval by the full House, or failing that, to amend it specifically to protect airline flight attendants.

In defense of both youth and years, I urge you to set no minimum or maximum age limits.

Mr. DENT. With the committee's permission, I would like to refrain from asking questions at this time until we hear the testimony of Miss Boland in order that we may ask questions related to the testimony of both witnesses.

Miss BOLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, my name is Colleen Boland. I am president of the Airline Stewards & Stewardesses, Local 550, of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.

This is a labor organization with offices at 205 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill., representing over 10,000 men and women who earn their living as flight attendants on this country's commercial aircraft.

Since 1954, a portion of the airline industry has arbitrarily instituted a policy which prohibited continued employment of female flight attendants after they reached age 32 or 35.

Because the industry is young, no individual was actually affected until about 1963. In the past 4 years, however, many young women have found themselves without employment solely because of their age. During the past few years, we have strived here in Washington through support of legislation, through the EEOC, and through Presidential Executive Order 11141, to end this cruel and arbitrary discrimination.

We have pleaded our case before various State agencies and courts seeking relief which would provide us the ability to continue to work in a job we desire and are able to perform. We have met with violent opposition from the management of this industry, we have battled through innumerable legal maneuvers and delays, and spent thousands of dollars hoping to find a peaceful solution to our problem.

The New York State Commission on Human Rights ruled they found no evidence which warranted the establishment of an arbitrary chronological age policy for continued employment of an airline stewardess and, further, that evidence supported the position that termination as a stewardess should be predicated solely on the individual's ability to perform the duties of the position.

The commission went on to say that under New York law they found no support for a claim of a bona fide occupational qualification.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, in issuing guidelines on discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that "the principle of nondiscrimination requires that individuals be considered on the basis of individual capacities."

Section 4(a) of H.R. 4221 proposes to make it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, condition or privileges or employment, because of such individuals age

We believe that such a provision is long overdue, but that such a provision, when made into law, should apply to all people and to all groups regardless of age.

For this reason we urge you to consider the elimination of any minimum or maximum age limitation in order to assure that the true intent and meaning of the act is not circumvented through misuse or misapplication of such restrictions. For instance, in hearings before the New York commission, counsel for the Air Transport Association and American Airlines presented lengthy testimony as to why they were not in violation of New York law.

They submitted the history of that law and pressed the point that the law applied only to people between the ages of 40 and 65. They argued that, if the lawmakers had been concerned with anyone under the age of 40, they would have said so and therefore, in the absence of specific attention to anyone under 40, the law should now be applied only to cases where discrimination took place between the ages of 40 and 65.

Because we are members of a strong and militant labor organization which commands the ability to withdraw our services and thereby cause an economic hardship upon the industry, we have been partially successful in our efforts to set aside this discriminatory age policy in the airline industry. Today we are able to state that only one airline on which we represent stewardesses continues to enforce termination because of age.

All other carriers with which we presently represent stewardesses have, in one form or another, set aside their policy to reject any woman over 33 years of age from the job of airline stewardess.

I believe a previous witness before this committee has submitted quite detailed and lengthy testimony and exhibits that we had in part previously presented to you and those do reflect the industry as a whole. We will not go into them since I am aware that they are all available to the committee at this time.

Mr. DENT. The committee appreciates that because it would only be repetitious and the committee has had those exhibits presented in the interest of the airline hostesses.

Miss BOLAND. Thank you.

H.R. 4221, if acted upon and passed, will permit many Americans to continue in a job of their choice and within their capabilities which may otherwise be denied them because of outdated, outmoded thinking. H.R. 4221 if passed without a minimum or maximum age limitation could eliminate forever discrimination because of age for us and for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you today and to respectfully urge serious consideration of our proposed amendment. Mr. DENT. Thank you, Miss Boland.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Before you start questioning, I would like to submit for the record a copy of Executive Order 11141; a Wall Street Journal article dated Friday, June 16, 1967, about airline contracts. Also a copy of a letter from Mr. Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Assistant Secretary and Manpower Administrator at the U.S. Department of