PART 3.-ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE AND STATEMENTS CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE, Mr. BEN DIXON, Subcommittee on Constitution, DEAR MR. DIXON : Catholics for a Free Choice is writing on behalf of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. We understand that there will be hearings about their programs, etc., on January 25-26, and while we would like to testify, we recognize the time restraint and request this statement be made a part of the record of these hearings. We are a national organization of Roman Catholics who support the right of all people to determine their own reproductive decisions without interference from the state or any religious philosophy. We are especially concerned about the efforts of our hierarchy to pass a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions by giving a fetus personhood from the moment of conception, thereby incorporating our own theological beliefs into a law that will affect people of every religious background. We therefore applaud and welcome the report of the Commission on the constitutional aspects of the right to limit childbearing which very comprehensively discussed the problems with this type of legislation and and the importance of maintaining religious freedom. We realize that people have differing views about abortion and may be in disagreement with the Commission's findings, but we hope you will recognize the necessity of the Commission to have the freedom to handle all issues, even controversial ones, in order to be truly useful to the population it serves. We therefore would like to see the Commission maintain the right to decide its own agenda and receive appropriate funding. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Rev. JOSEPH F. O'ROURKE, President. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1978. Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that you have scheduled hearings for January 25, and 26, 1978, to review the matter of extending the life of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. I am deeply concerned over the determined attempt to destroy the State Advisory Committees to the Commission, and I would be very appreciative if you would address this issue during your hearings. The Administration has proposed that the current State Advisory Committees. It is understandable that the Administration is making a valiant effort to streamline Federal Agencies and Departments. However, I feel that it is wrong for the President and the Congress to advocate human rights throughout the world, and ignore the serious and continuous violations of human rights in this country. The current State Advisory Committees guarantee input from the people who are most affected by violations of civil and human rights, and if a system of Regional Committees were established, the Americans most affected would have a difficult time traveling hundreds of miles to make an input into the recommendations of a regional Committee. The many issues that are peculiar to a given State, would not receive the necessary attention of a regional Committee. I am requesting that you and your Committee give serious consideration to language that would state, "the U.S. Civil Rights Commission shall establish State Advisory Committees," in order that we may provide protection for the civil and human rights of our fellow citizens. Thank you very much for your cooperation, and I trust you will address this very serious and vital matter. Sincerely, PARREN J. MITCHELL, Member of Congress. THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Re: S. 2300-U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Senator BIRCH BAYH, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. (Attention: Ben Dixon.) DEAR SENATOR BAYH: I thoroughly enjoyed our brief visit this past Thursday and the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on the Constitution. Again, I sincerely appreciate your sponsorship of this legislation to extend the life of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and so many of us are most appreciative of your sensitivity to the problems that confront our Nation. Your record of service is one that deserves the applause and recognition of us who are involved in the struggle for human rights. May you be blessed with many more years of good health while serving the citizens of your state and our country as a whole. As for my own testimony on S. 2300, I am enclosing several copies for the record and for whatever other use you deem appropriate. I apologize that I did not have my presentation in writing and copies to be distributed at the time of my testimony. If I can be of any service to you, please let me know. I met you several years ago when you visited our State Capitol in Austin with our good friend, Joe Bernal, from San Antonio. I like to support good men for public office, and you are a good man in my book! With best wishes, I remain Enclosures. CARLOS F. TRUAN. PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND, INC., New York, N.Y., January 31, 1978. Re S. 2300, the bill to extend the Commission on Civil Rights. SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention Ben Dixon.) Dear Mr. DIXON: The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. regrets not having been able to present testimony as part of the Latino panel which appeared at the Subcommittee hearings on January 25, 1978. However, enclosed is the Fund's statement in support of S-2300, which Subcommittee Chairman Senator Birch Bayh agreed on January 26, 1978 to make part of the records of the Latino panel. Sincerely, Enclosure. JORGE L. BATISTA, President and General Counsel. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization whose objective is to protect Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic persons from victimization and discrimination in a broad range of areas including education, employment, voting rights and housing. In the five years since the Fund opened its doors, a multitude of serious and complex problems have captured the nation's attention. The urban crisis, ecology, energy policy and integrity in government, among others, have emerged as major concerns. However, we at the Fund emphatically believe that as important as it is to meet these difficult problems head-on, this must not extinguish a commitment to this nation's unfinished agenda-that is, to provide equal opportunity to all Americans and to end discrimination in all its forms. Despite the progress that has been made since the Commission was originally established, discrimination has not yet been combated. Not only blacks but ethnic minorities and women still are closed out from equal access to opportunity. As a public interest law firm committed to improving the condition of the second largest Hispanic minority in this nation, the some two million Puerto Ricans residing in the United States, we firmly endorse the continued life of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Since its establishment the Commission, through its investigatory and factfinding functions has inquired into a broad range of areas of concern including voting, education, housing, employment, the use of public facilities, transportation and the administration of justice. As is evidenced by a review of Commission publications, a formidable array of reports have been produced by the Commission addressing each of these areas of concern and the impact of the denial of equal access to opportunity on minority groups and women. Indeed, the Commission has produced one of the few comprehensive studies of the plight of the Puerto Rican community in the United States, a study that recognizes that "Puerto Ricans comprise a distinct ethnic group, with concerns and priorities that frequently differ from those of other minorities, even other Spanish heritage groups" and that urges that "they be given an opportunity to participate on an equal footing with their fellow citizens of the fruits and benefits of our society." United States Commission On Civil Rights, Puerto Ricans in the Continental United States: An Uncertain Future, (October 1976), at 5, ii-iii. Although it has not adjudicatory power, with the power of the pen, the Commission has unquestionably contributed much to the furtherance of equal opportunity for persons of groups that historically have been and continue to be victimized by discriminatory practices. As others have testified, the Commissioner's reports, testimony and recommendations are reflected in a large body of federal legislation, Presidential Executive Orders, and various court decisions. The Fund is encouraged to see that S-2300 (“The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1978") seeks to broaden the scope of the Commission's investigatory and factfinding authority to include discrimination based on age and handicapped condition, both of which deserve scrutiny. However, as was indicated earlier, the long struggle to eliminate discrimination from American life is not yet over with respect to the already-recognized victims of discrimination who are the current focus of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1957. While progress has been made in rectifying some of the wrongs perpetrated upon ethnic and racial minorities and women, the bulk of which have been addressed by the Commission in its watchdog role, much still needs to be done. There is no federal agency better suited than the Commission to airing the extent to which equal access to opportunity is denied to these traditionally unprotected groups. Its independent, bipartisan perspective ensures an objective, diversified and in-depth view of the nation's progress in removing the barriers that impede equal access to opportunity and the performance of other federal agencies charged with implementing the civil rights laws. The Commission should be given continued life to do so, and we strongly support extending its existence. It is our understanding that State Advisory Committees are to be substituted by Regional Advisory Committees. According to reports in the press, this was done as part of an overall scheme to improve the organization and effectiveness of government and to abolish advisory committees that had outlived their usefulness. Under this economy measure, the Commission's State Advisory Committees, which are made up entirely of unpaid volunteers, were placed on a par with such panels as the Board of Tea Experts and the Advisory Board on Hog Cholera. One glance at the work done by the State Advisory Committees, rightly referred to as the "eyes and ears of the Commission in the States," as documented in The Unfinished Business: Twenty Years Later (which the Fund hopes becomes part of the record of these hearings) belies the expendibility of these committees. If the Commission is to meet its mandate, its work must incorporate in a meaningful way the concerns of the people at the state and local levels. The proposed regionalization of the advisory committees is at odds with this. Regionalization of the advisory committees will be neither cost-efficient nor programmatically effective. It would significantly diminish grassroots input from the state and local levels. Indeed, it virtually destroys the ability to address local community needs and problems. Regionalization combines as many as eight separate state committees in some regions, while at the same time reducing the numbers of persons who can serve on the committees. In this structure small states will undoubtedly be dominated by larger states. Furthermore, the reduced membership will surely lead to a lack of representativeness of population among the membership that is now possible under the state structure, especially with respect to the less numerous minorities such as native Americans and Asian Americans. But most important, there will very likely be a cutback in investigations. Each State Advisory Committee now has at least two projects. If the number of persons serving on these committees is reduced, as would necessarily be the case, this will clearly impact on the investigatory and fact-finding functions of the committees. Moreover, regionalization will unquestionably cost more than the present structure since members will have to travel across state lines. For example, Region II includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Regionalization will clearly discourage and impede regular meetings as well as the flow of information from these localities to the Commission. PRLDEF strongly urges that regionalization of the advisory committees be opposed, and that the creation of State Advisory Committees be mandated. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., February 6, 1978. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, DEAR BIRCH: I have enclosed for incorporation into the record of hearings on Enclosure. U.S. Senator. Hon. THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, DIOCESE OF MANCHESTER, DEAR SENATOR MCINTYRE: Equal Justice Under Law is one of this country's ideals, but part of the federal machinery designed to move the country closer to this ideal is about to be dismantled. I appeal for your help, Senator, in salvaging what could be lost in all 50 states, including New Hampshire. Bear with me while I give you the specifics. Under date of August 19, 1977 the Hon. Arthur S. Flemming, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), was notified by Wayne G. Granquist, Associate Director for Administrative Management of the Office of Management and Budget, that the State Advisory Committees (SACS) to the USCCR were to be terminated within six months. USCCR held a conference in Washington, D.C., September 19-21, 1977, which brought together representatives of the Advisory Committees of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a member of the New Hampshire SAC I attended this conference, together with Ms. Sylvia Chaplain who serves as chairperson of our state committee. Immediately following his welcoming address Chairman Flemming heard from one SAC representative after another a chorus of negative reactions to the OMB directive. For two solid hours Mr. Flemming was presented with evidence that the OMB decision will set back effective civil rights enforcement by at least twenty-five years and will, in effect, diminish the civil rights movement across the nation. The conference voted overwhelmingly to oppose both the decision of OMB and the capitulation of USCCR to that decision. There was broad consensus that OMB is playing a numbers game to comply with President Carter's government reorganization plan. There was resentment that OMB is negating the pledge which the President has made to the cause of human rights in general and civil rights in particular. And since the SACS represent a federal presence in their respective parts of the nation, there was sadness that the cutting edge of the USCCR was about to be blunted. In the past several years our New Hampshire SAC has conducted fact-finding hearings or forums with regard to: Treatment of blacks in the school system of the City of Portsmouth; Hiring policies vis-a-vis Franco-Americans in the employ of the State of New Hampshire; Conditions in the N.H. State Prison and in three of the County Houses of Correction; Proper filing of EO forms by employees of the State of New Hampshire; Inadequate instruction of linguistically disadvantaged children in the public schools of the City of Manchester; Issues on which senior citizens in New Hampshire experience discrimination. The OMB directive stipulates that Regional Advisory Committees will replace the SACS. It is my position that in a New England regional committee the less dramatic but nonetheless real civil rights problems in the Granite State will rarely if ever become the focus of action. If economy is the argument, USCCR staff stated publicly at the September conference in Washington that the regional set-up will be more costly than the SACS. Currently before Congress is legislation, including S. 2300, which provides an additional five years of life for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Senator Bayh of Indiana heads the subcommittee concerned with the pertinent hearings. I respectfully suggest that you lend your support to that legislation. And since Senator Bayh needs to know how much support he will receive from his colleagues, I also suggest that you advise him directly whether you will find it possible to vote for S. 2300. Now may I zero in on the issue of the dismantlement of the SACS. Under the proposed regional approach. New Hampshire, and New England generally, are as a friend of mine puts it-"doubly damned". In the first place, there is no regional office in New England. We will have to share funding and staff with Region Two, which includes New York, New Jersey, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Secondly, the earliest date when the Commission might consider the establishment of a New England regional office is fiscal year 1979 which commences in October 1979. Thirdly, there is no guarantee that even at that date there will be a New England regional office. In light of these facts, I would propose to you that S. 2300 ought to be amended to provide as follows: (a) That the Commission shall appoint Advisory Committees in each of the states: and (lest the scope of the SAC's be unreasonably limited). (b) That the State Advisory Committees may conduct fact finding hearings upon matters of issues of importance in the area of civil and human rights. Across the nation the State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have identified and confronted injustices which otherwise would have been ignored. The civil rights movement must go forward, not backward. Even in a state whose motto is Live Free or Die there still are many citizens who are not quite as free as others. Sincerely yours, (Monsignor) PHILIP J. KENNEY, Director. BOULDER, COLO., February 8, 1978. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: I salute your efforts on behalf of the people in the U.S. who feel the USCCR should have STATE Advisory Committees, but I think that until the Commission is revitalized (Southern and Rocky Mountain representation, preferably women, preferably feminists, for one suggestion), it will do no good to have a Commission at all. The present members are interested in solely preserving the life of the Commission and their places on it, and their special interests. I am enclosing a paper I wrote recently. Its original title was. "The Advice of the Advisory Committee is Inadvisable." If I get to Washington, I will gladly share my insights with you. In the meantime, keep up the good work. We in the Women's Political caucus are busy working for candidates who we hope will someday join you in your fight. Sincerely, PATRICIA BLAU REUSS. |