fringements by all levels of government: local, state and federal. The multitude of local and national issues represented in the reports of investigations, researches and public hearings published by the Commission during this past year-which all of you gentlemen have received-should indicate that the problems and protections the Commission is charged with still need its attention. We are pleased that the Congress has recognized, in its legislation, the need to provide specific protections for the rights of various groups in our society. However, these protections remain simply words on paper until they are implemented. It is the Commission on Civil Rights that we depend upon to see to it, when there are violations, that we, the public, the Congress and the Administration are aware of them. Until there are no more complaints of infringements and appeals for help to the Commission, until we are certain that there are no more violations of the rights protected by the Constitution and the laws of the land, we must retain an active, vigorous and independent Commission on Civil Rights.

The second point, I think, requires little discussion. The Commission recently published a report of its findings, with recommendation, that attests to the very pervasive character of the discrimination against two age groups least able to defend themselves: the young and the old. Much of this discrimination is the result of administrative regulations set by federal agencies charged with providing services to American citizens. It must be halted, and the Commission is the logicial agency to be involved in stimulating the necessary changes.

Similarly, I doubt that anyone in this room needs to be convinced that the handicapped among us are discriminated against-often even without our awareness in myriad ways that deny them the very basic human right to live a full and satisfying life. I know of no one who would disapprove the addition of these two categories of Americans to the Commission's jurisdiction.

The third point will require more discussion. Until now, the Commission has had Advisory Committees at the state level, appointed by them, with powers of research and investigation, monitoring and recommendation. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget, responding to the President's instructions to streamline the operations of governmental advisory committees, recommended to the Commission the obligation of the fifty-one State Advisory Committees, putting in their place ten Regional Advisory Committees. Wayne Granquist, Associate Director for Administrative Management of OMB, stated that this change "will enable the Commission to continue its work in a more efficient manner." The Commissioners have agreed to implement the recommended change.

We in New England, along with SAC members and many other people throughout the nation feel that such a change will be not only less efficient, but also more costly, at a time when an important national goal is to achieve a balanced budget as soon as possible.

It is not that we feel that our judgment, in general, is superior to that of OMB, but that we think they are not fully aware of the unique character and role of these particular advisory committees. My examples, of necessity, will be mostly from the experience of the Massachusetts SAC, but other representatives can testify to similar roles from their own states' experiences.

In general, while legislative and constitutional protections of rights can be promulgated nationally, the complaints of violations of those rights are usually made by individuals and groups in local situations. A part of the success of the Commission, nationally, we maintain, has been the capacity of its State Advisory Committees to feed them relavent and timely information.

In Massachusetts, our SAC is representative of the various geographic areas of the state, the various ethnic and interest groups. People seldom come with their complaints to the SAC as an institution, but to the individual members whom they know to be concerned. They, in turn, bring the issue before one of the regular monthly meetings of the SAC or the possibly more frequent meetings of one of the subcommittees. If the complaint concerns an issue that we feel needs attention at some point, and there is no subcommittee, we establish one. That subcommittee, then, is charged with monitoring the situation, digging out the facts, reporting regularly to the rest of the SAC, and recommending action if and when it becomes necessary.

Among the many issues we have monitored have been the funding and reorganization of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination; the establishment of an Office of Affirmative Action within the Governor's cabinet, charged with improving the hiring and promotional practices of the state government itself; the problems of medical personnel, trained in Puerto Rico, who find that their credentials are not honored when they move to the mainland; school de

segregation in Boston and Springfield; police relations with the minority communities in a number of municipalities; the lack of affirmative action policies in county governments; discrimination in a number of trades-including construction; the problems of the Native Americans in various parts of the state: the American Indian Council in Boston, the efforts of the Wampanoags in Mashpee to prove they are indeed a tribe entitled to sue for the lands they claim; the very different situation of the Wampanoags in Gay Head, on Martha's Vineyard, who are negotiating for the return of their lands; the charges that Boston discriminated in its use of Community Development and Block Grant funds; and many others too numerous to mention.

In some cases, we simply maintained a "watching brief," to be certain that things were proceeding as they should. In some cases we conducted studies, which were published. Sometimes we held what we call "mini-hearings" or formal meetings, as we did with selected county governments. While we do not have subpoena power, the fact that the Commissioners do is well known, and many agencies would rather meet with us less formally than run the risk of having us invite the Commissioners to come in for a full-fledged public hearing, with subpoenas, et al. In the case of Springfield, we did a study and it was published. When the schools were finally desegregated, we watched closely, but there was no violence, and there seemed a willingness on the part of many to attempt to make the experience a constructive one. We simply, in that instance, continued our monitoring role.

When the federal court ordered the Boston public schools desegregated, the response was quite different. There were loud outcries, not only from parents in opposition, but also from School Committee and City Council members, urging resistance. When the time for implementation of the order came, violence erupted in several schools. The news media, whose task is to report what is newsworthy, i.e., sensational, gave massive coverage to the violence and opposition. To most people outside the city-and to many in it-it seemed that the opposition was so total and so violent that the schools could not be desegregated successfully. We, because we had been close to the events for a long time, knew that this was not so, and we turned to the Commission for help. We requested a public hearing, in Boston, on the issue. The initial response was a negative one, because even the Commissioners could see no positive result from a hearing. However, we persisted, and, finally, it was agreed that several of the Commissioners would come to Boston to meet with us to discuss why they would not hold a hearing. We invited a number of concerned individuals to meet with them and us: educators, parents from both the Black and the white communities, clergy, community leaders-a cross section of the people we had been working with. As we sat around that long table, each person, one after the other, recited their involvement, and urged the holding of the hearing. A white parent from South Boston told of the harassment, the threats she and her children had been getting because she openly counseled peaceful compliance with the court order, and sent her children to school while almost all her neighbors were boycotting. She also told of the lack of protection she had received from not only local, but also state and federal law enforcement officials. Other parents, Black and white, described both positive and negative experiences, depending upon which schools they were involved with. It was a long and effective meeting. It resulted in the Commissioners deciding to hold a hearing.

They told us they would hold it in the Department of Transportation Building in Cambridge. This fit the criteria they use for selecting a site for hearings: it was large enough, convenient to transportation, and it was a federal facility. However, with our local knowledge, we were able convince them that the site was just about as appropriate, under the circumstances, as it would be to hold a hearing about the District of Columbia public schools in Silver Springs. The final decision was very appropriate. The hearings were held in downtown Boston, in the JFK Federal Building. Even though the space was limited, some very creative planning by the staff ensured that things worked very well.

There were a number of positive results from this week of hearings. First of all, the press coverage was excellent. For the first time, the general public heard both sides of the desegregation picture, as parents, teachers, school committee members, city and state officials were called to testify. SAC members worked for weeks beforehand with the regional and national staff members assigned to the preparatory work. Together, we developed the list of witnesses, voluntary and involuntary, in order to get that true picture across. It was the presence of the Commission that brought the press out. They, and their public,

learned about the schools, even in South Boston, where both races were attending school together without violence. They learned of the teachers and administrators who were developing creative approaches to desegregated learning. They learned, also, about the failure of both local and federal agencies of government to give positive support to peaceful desegregation. Even before the Commission's report was published, we began to see improvements in the activities of federal agencies.

One of the findings of the Commission was that people of influence in the greater community-business and religious leaders in particular-had failed to speak out at all. While there are some business leaders currently involved in the schools, they were slow to move-despite a series of meetings. However, shortly after the hearing, a group of clergy sought the assistance of the SAC in finding constructive approaches for themselves. At their request, we sponsored a major conference of religious leaders in the Boston area-well attended by clergy and lay leaders of all faiths-where the problem was discussed and strategies were devised for their continued and constructive involvement with the public schools.

I have spent considerable space on the Boston school crisis because it is an outstanding example of what the SAC and the Commission, working together, can accomplish. Could this have occurred through the efforts of a Regional Advisory Committee. We in New England think emphatically and unanimously that the answer is "No!"

First of all, there is the problem of numbers of people. A RAC would, of necessity, include fewer people from any one state than presently serve on the SACS. To do otherwise would result in a body too large and unworkable. With fewer people from the state, it would be impossible to maintain the kind of close contact with all the situations potentially needing attention. People can be spread just so thin, then they cease to be effective.

Even if the RAC had an ethnic spread in its membership representative of the region, the number in each group would be too limited to stay on top of all the problem situations concerning that group throughout the state. Inevitably, some issues would have to receive less than adequate attention. People would not be able to come together and exchange ideas and information, simply because of the time and distance from home for regional meetings. (The cost in travel reimbursement, overnight expenses and per diem would sky-rocket, according to our estimates. We have, at the state level, been able to minimize these costs.)

An example is the question of the rights of Native Americans. There are tribal groups in each of the six New England states-more than one in several of the states. While all these groups are moving toward securing rights they feel have been taken from them, each situation is different. The Maine SAC has worked closely with the Penobscot land claim. It is different from that of the Wampanoag in Mashpee. The New Hampshire and Rhode Island tribal efforts are different from either of these and from each other. A single sub-committee of the RAC concerned with Native American Affairs could not possibly remain informed, involved and current about all these diverse efforts. Yet, the SACs have been able to do so.

Further, much of the work of each SAC has been with agencies of state government. Much of the local implementation of rights is the responsibility of the states. A single RAC would have great difficulty even in fact-finding, given the great diversity of the six New England, or, indeed, any group of states. There is nowhere in the nation a regional government to which a Regional Advisory Committee could relate.

A final note on costs: without the unpaid but valuable and effective groundwork done by the SACs, the various staff members in the Regional Offices of the Commission would have to do more local work, or fact-finding could not be accomplished. I do not understand the efficiency of "firing" effective volunteers to put a greater burden on our tax dollars, because there would certainly be a need for more regional staff.

The reorganization presents one additional problem, unique to the Northeast. There are nine regional offices. There are ten Regional Advisory Committees to be established. The Northeast Regional Office would have to serve two regions, instead of one.

We are informed that there is no money in the budget for setting up a New England Regional Office, nor is there any money in the budget for expanding the staff of the Northeast Regional Office. Where is the effectiveness, if the number of volunteers is to be decreased, the number of professionals remains the same, and the problems continue to proliferate?

In conclusion, we in New England plead with you not to hamper the work of the Commission by eliminating its State Advisory Committees. They are a vital part of the team. We enthusastically support the extension of the jurisdiction of the Commission on Civil Rights, its extension for another five year period, with the continuation of the SACS.

Mr. DIXON. I want to thank all of you for coming here and giving the subcommittee your views on the Commission and the State advisory committees.

Mr. NICHOLS. If I may, I would like to make a couple of closing comments that I failed, frankly, to make in the beginning.

Mr. DIXON. Of course, but let me just say that the record will be open for another 20 days for any additional information you would like to provide the subcommittee.

Also, I know that Senator Bayh wanted to ask the panel seven or eight questions. However, because of the time factor mentioned earlier, he would like to submit those to you in writing. The questions and your replies will be placed in the appendix of the hearing record.

Mr. NICHOLS. I wanted to mention for the record that there were three other people who had planned to attend: Senator William Gluba from Iowa, a member of the State advisory committee,

One major concern which he wanted to express had to do with the additional funds which the President has recently included in the national budget to be appropriated for CETA programs, the Concentrated Employment and Training Act. The funds are going to be disseminated at the State and local community level and will, just by virtue of the nature of that funding process, require the kind of monitoring which normally would occur if you had State advisory committees. This is one of the concerns he had.

He was unable to come out of Grand Rapids, Iowa, last night because of the weather.

Mr. James McIntyre also could not appear from West Virginia and former Lt. Gov. Roberto Mondragon from New Mexico was also unable to be here.

Mr. DIXON. Without objection the prepared statements of Mr. Gluba, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Mondragon will appear in the record following your testimony. We have Mr. McIntyre's prepared statement but we have not received testimony from Mr. Gluba or Mr. Mondragon as yet. If you could make sure that they send it in, we would be glad to put it in the record.1

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

[EXHIBIT No. 22]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES B. MCINTYRE, CHAIRPERSON, WEST VIRGINIA STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

One score and 1 years ago, our legislative fathers brought forth on this continent a new institution, conceived in humanity and rededicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal. Now we are engaged in a strange struggle testing whether that institution, or any institution so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.

In September 1977 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a report prophetically entitled "The Unfinished Business-20 years Later", reflecting the 20 years of its existence, infancy in the great overview. Its prophecy is couched in the notion that humanity, as the word implies, does not exist in a vacuum. It is a condition forged in the dynamics of people living together. Imperfect as we are, a nudge is often needed to correct its dynamics which are

1 The subcommittee did not receive testimony from Messrs. Gluba or Mondragon.

out of balance. This imbalance ever will be present in the interaction of the majority and any minority. A vital "Federal nudge" has been with us for 20 years in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The unique and irreplaceable function of the Commission has roots in the mysteries of contact and communication. When dealing with the elusive considerations of "humanity" and "equality," continued contact with the problemthe people provides the single natural formula for success.

The Commission, operating largely through its network of 50 state advisory committees, has given this country that which all of the other valuable specific legislation cannot, the warm aura of Federal interest (too infrequently expressed), a vital ally to enforceable laws in this strange struggle.

The Commission is powerless to enforce or to punish. Its formidable power is found in its talent for touching each community with problems with human understanding, extending Federal concern through local citizens to each street corner in the land.

In West Virginia, where mountaineers are somewhat freer because of the Commission's existence, the State advisory committee has been in curative contact with discrimination of minorities in education (enlisting support for a minority assistant superintendent of schools in a rural county); revenue sharing (unearthing uncommitted money to be spread more equitably); prison conditions (portraying shortcomings of yes the Federal bureaucracy); interstate highway locations (deracination of minorities); textbook controversies (detecting and reporting an underlay of racial prejudice).

Of even greater importance is that the West Virginia Advisory Committee has carried to the people of this State the message that justice for all is worth working for, indeed worth fighting for, and to all people who suffer the despair and pain of discrimination, the word that the Government created of, by and for them cares enough to dispatch their fellow humans, living in their midst, to tell them so, and help.

The continued life of the Commission is a national imperative at this time in the affairs of our society. Any other course will be so philosophically disabling as to leave calamity in its wake.

The continued lives of the 50 State advisory committees is an imperative of equal dimensions: to eliminate or regionalize advisory committees would effectively rob the Commission of its cogency, and sever the artery which feeds Federal presence to our communities, a crucial liefline if we are to continue the task of chipping away at the "unfinished business."

Mr. NICHOLS. Finally, for a point of clarification in terms of the individuals who appeared, the likelihood is strong that each of us would have been on the regional committees in any event, so that there is no personal aspect to our statements that have been made before the subcommittee. It has nothing to do with whether or not we would be on the committee. We would automatically be on the regional committees because of our leadership capacities on the State advisory committees currently.

As we more than abundantly tried to explain, we believe that the configuration of 10 regional committees to supplant the 51 States, that includes the District of Columbia Committee, simply would not adequately serve the interest of millions of Americans within the individual States and, in fact, would deny them civil rights protections they now have with State committees.

Thank you.

Mr. DIXON. Thank you very much.

The subcommittee will stand in recess at the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]