For example, the issue of insurance companies' charging higher premiums or restricting coverage to deaf people despite actuarial tables which indicate that deaf people are not greater risks than hearing people. This practice is clearly unconstitutional, but many states have yet to outlaw it. If the Commission were forced to ignore such an issue because of the restrictive statutory language, its credibility as an advocate of civil rights in our society would be severely undermined. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we urge you to try to understand the frustrations and problems of hearing-impaired persons, and to realize the need for and value of the Commission in combating discrimination against them. We urge you to pass S. 2300 as redrafted, to enable the United States Commission on Civil Rights to investigate all forms of discrimination against handicapped people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this significant legislation. PREPARED STATEMENT BY CLIFFORD J. WHITE III, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION Mr. Chairman, I suppose that it might seem strange that an organization such as the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which is already waging battle for fiscal responsibility on several fronts, would concern itself with a bill to extend the life of the United States Civil Rights Commission. The reason we are involved is principle. We believe that it is very important that the taxpayers' dollars be looked after carefully. The planned five-year reauthorization of the Commission is counter to recent trends in the direction of more budgetary control. The unspecified cost is also violative of this objective. While federal spending continues unabated, the Congress has at least paid "lip service" to the idea that some control is necessary. The House and Senate have formed Budget Committees. Sunset legislation is popular. The authorization before this subcommittee, S. 2300, is counter to that trend. It represents a step backward. It is a throwback to the free-spending and freewheeling days which I hoped had finally ended in Washington. We oppose S. 2300 and urge that reauthorization of the Civil Rights Commission, if such is deemed desirable, should be for one year. We further ask that the authorization include a target funding level. This would accomplish the objective of increasing Congressional oversight and reaffirming the sunset principle. As Legislative Representative of NTU, I represent thousands of Americans who are organized through NTU and affiliated organizations throughout the country. While the legislative staff spends the majority of its time and resources dealing with budgetary items which are more costly than the $11 million spent annually by the Civil Rights Commission, we feel that the very concept of sunset and budgetary restraint is at stake. It is true that many more tax dollars are being spent on welfare and national defense. It is true that NTU is concerned with the President's proposed $100 billion in energy taxes. We are concerned about the White House welfare plan which would increase public expenditures by at least $20 billion. We are concerned that the Congress has not been enthusiastic enough about real tax reform-that is, tax reduction-on matters ranging from an across the board income tax reduction to tuition tax credits. Our members are frightened at the prospects of a $500 billion federal budget and a $60 billion deficit. We are concerned about the $9 trillion which we have found to be the total public liability which the taxpayers of this country face. Although NTU has expressed skepticism about the gains which might be accrued from the sunset principle, we are committed to limiting the lifetimes of all authorizations. We believe that the Congress should more frequently and more carefully review how it is spending our tax dollars. We should offer a five year blank check to no one. The legislation before this subcommittee, S. 2300, represents opposition to the objective outlined above. Upon introduction of the bill which would authorize the Civil Rights Commission for another five years, Senator Bayh lamented the supposed short duration of the authorization. We at NTU take a different view. We lament the longevity of the authorization. NTU finds few, if any, programs and commissions worthy of such a sustained authorization. The Civil Rights Commission in particular deserves close scrutiny. Few federal organizations comment upon the latitude of matters which does the Commission. Few federal bodies deal with matters as sensitve and important to the American people. It is therefore incumbent upon the Congress to be sure that the Commission carries out its responsibilities with prudence. The Congress should strive to make the Commission as accountable as is possible. During the consideration of this authorization, Congress should recall the activities of the Commission over the last few years. In such deliberations, the Congress should entertain the notion that the Commission may not be as responsive to the public interest as it otherwise would be if it had to go before this body more often for continued authorization. Over the last few years, the Commission has been guilty of engaging in rather questionable pursuits. For example, it has asked publishers of textbooks to issue guidelines which would insure that "racist" and "sexist" implications would not appear. Certainly, the appropriateness of such actions should be subject to review. The Commission, using taxpayers' dollars, has been involved with some very sensitive issues before the Congress and state legislatures. There is a very fine line between the Commission's right to comment upon matters within its purview and outright lobbying. Two specific cases come immediately to mind. The Commission has taken a position on the issue of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendments. Also, it has lobbied on the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. In the latter case, the Commission actively sought a Conference Committee's approval of its position. There are several other examples of these points. I am sure that others who will testify before this subcommittee will comment upon this in greater detail. My purpose in testifying before you today is to plead the taxpayers case. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any specific positions or actions taken by the Civil Rights Commission. However, I am concerned that the Commission does not receive the close scrutiny which the taxpayers desire that it receive. Closer attention must be paid to how our tax dollars are spent. The taxpayers of this country cannot afford such dereliction of responsibility. The more secure funding becomes, the less responsive to the real public needs the recipients are apt to be. No, the legislation before this subcommittee will not be immediately expensive in terms of dollars. But, the damage it would do in regard to the principle that our tax dollars should be closely guarded would be great. That damage could prove to be costly in many ways, indeed. NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., PREPARED STATEMENT BY MILDRED F. JEFFERSON, M.D., PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., ASSISTANT CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF SURGERY, BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, BOSTON, MASS. Many people welcomed the appointment of the first United States Commission on Civil Rights (under the 1957 Civil Rights Act) as a forthright means of bridging the gap between legislative ideals of equal citizen access to the democratic process and practical human ideals of fairness and social justice. A growing number of people now look at the activities of the Commission on Civil Rights and statements of the current Chairman with dismay, disappointment and alarm. The following excerpts from the Report and notice of the Chairman's attendance at a significant meeting in Washington, D.C. in 1976 point up reasons for this concern: (1) "Reproductive Choice: 18 In the area of reproductive freedom, there was a sharp abridgement of a woman's right to choose abortion as set forth by the 1973 Supreme Court rulings. This development resulted from the reintroduction of the Hyde Amendment in Congress and Supreme Court decisions which held that under existing laws States are free to exclude elective abortions from medical procedures funded by Medicaid, and that public hospitals are not required to provide elective abortions." 20 Page 82, Paragraph 2. (2) "These three recent decisions coupled with the Hyde Amendment have resulted in the nullification of a poor woman's right to choose abortion. Particularly affected by this nullification are rural women, young women, and minority women 32 since they are disproportionately represented among the poor and/or are disproportionately dependent on the services provided for by Federal funds or in public hospitals. 33" "Supreme Court Decisions" (Beal, Maher and Poelker of June 1977). Pages 85-86, Paragraph 3. (3) "The Commission views with concern the tendency of Congress to deal with major, substantive issues involving a fundamental constitutional right of this kind by attaching riders to appropriations bills. This practice of using appropriations bills as legislative vehicles deprives substantive committees of thorough deliberations of such issues and is inappropriate for discussing matters of such importance. This Commission therefore welcomes the efforts in the House of develop rules designed to prevent similar amendments from being attached to appropriations bills." 2" Page 84, Paragraph 1-"Hyde Amendment." [Footnotes not supplied.] These viewpoints suggest : A.-A complete lack of fairness and balance in determining what will be regarded as "rights." The fight of minority groups for racial justice or political recognition and access was to gain what had been denied them: the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness defined by the authors of the Declaration of Independence. The Commission has confused "rights" with "privileges" in endorsing abortion-choice as public policy. The use of the term "Reproductive Choice" reduces the Report to a propaganda-tract because it uses the campaign slogan of private organizations actively involved in the political controversy without identifying that fact or the influence of the organizations. B. The selective reading of the 1973 and 1977 U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on abortion are superficially interpreted and misrepresented. The 1973 decisions protect an unusual and newly-discovered "right of privacy" for the pregnant woman-not a "right to choose abortion." The attempt to deny the validity of the 1977 decisions holding that "neither the Constitution nor federal law requires the government to pay for abortions which are not necessary to save the life of the mother" and that the government does not have to provide abortions is arbitrary and biased. C. The effort to intrude into the manner in which the U.S. House of Representatives acts to carry out its constitutional authority to appropriate funds is overreaching and overstepping any reasonable concern of the Commission. D.-Since minority groups are disproportionately represented among the poor, the policies on abortion advocated by the Commission could lead to a further reduction in the populations of such groups and intensify the minority problems the Commission was established to address. E. That by joining the majority of the born against the minority of the unborn, the Commission on Civil Rights itself becomes a threat to the most basic of civil rights the human right to life. This raises the question that the Commission has outlived its usefulness. It is my strong recommendation that: 1. The Commission on Civil Rights withdraw from the public policy debate on abortion. 2. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 be amended to establish set terms for Commissioners and that the direction be assured for balancing viewpoints of those appointed to the Commission. 3. That legislation be introduced restraining the Commission from lobbying with appropriated moneys. 4. That the present Chairman be replaced with a candidate having a more balanced, thoughtful and incisive understanding of human rights issues. PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH J. PERROTTA, PROGRAM CONSULTANT, THE NATIONAL ITALIAN AMERICAN FOUNDATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; my name is Ralph Perrotta. I am a lawyer and Program Consultant to the National Italian American Foundation. I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the Committee for inviting us to express our views on this important bill. The Foundation strongly supports the extension of the life of the Civil Rights Commission for five years. The Commission has made an enormous contribu tion, these past twenty years, to the progress that our country has achieved in furthering the constitutional rights of millions of minority Americans. More recently, the Commission has extended its purview to the rights of women; and S. 2300 would specifically direct the Commission to "study and collect information" relevant to discrimination against the elderly and the handicapped. Virtually no effort has yet been extended, however, in collecting and analyzing data, and recommending action, to combat discrimination on the basis of national origin-insofar as that phrase refers to Americans of other than Hispanic origin. In short, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Slavic Americans and other "white ethnics" have enjoyed virtually none of the fruits of twenty years of energetic and dedicated Commission activity. We think the time is ripe for an inquiry into discrimination against Italian American and other white ethnic groups, and strongly urge the Committee to amend S. 2300 to require the Commission to do so. This can be accomplished very simply by inserting after "age", in both places where it appears in the proposed new clause (6) of section 104 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1975 C. (a); 71 Stat. 635), the following: "religion, ethnic or national origin". In a survey recently conducted through the Foundation's newsletter, more than 56 percent of those responding felt they or members of their families had experienced discrimination because of their Italian heritage, more than one third felt media images of Italian Americans were negative, and just short of one third felt Italian Americans were under-represented in Government. (More than 10,000 Italian Americans, out of about 57,000 receiving the questionnaire, took the trouble to respond, an enormously high percentage in the judgment of opinion research experts, which is itself an indication of the depth of feelings of these issues.) The results of this survey alone, in our view, are more than sufficient to warrant a careful and complete inquiry by the Commission. We do not have the resources to conduct such an inquiry ourselves, nor do we have the responsibility. The Civil Rights Commission was created precisely because those who suffer from discrimination are almost by definition least able to fight it effectively themselves. It was charged with the responsibility of collecting and analyzing information relevant to discrimination precisely because it was recognized that requiring every aggrieved individual to fight his or her own fight would make a mockery of the very notion of civil and constitutional rights. Some ad hoc work has been done, however, and some incidences of discrimination are common knowledge: An Executive Suite study done in Chicago in 1974 showed that 84 of the 106 largest Chicago corporations had no Italian American Directors, and 75 had no officers who were Italian American; A study of the faculty of the City University of New York showed an enormous discrepancy between the percentage of Italian Americans in the student body (about 25 percent) and the percentage of Italian Americans on the faculty (about 5 percent); Dwight Smith, in a book entitled "The Mafia Mystique", spells out the sources and implications of the Mafia myth. The Mafia myth has not only not been investigated by the Civil Rights Commission but has been promulgated and reinforced by The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, published in 1967 by The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice and, more recently, reaffirmed by the report entitled Gambling in America, issued by The Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling. (Relevant excerpts from the two documents are attached.); Italian Americans are the only group which the major organs of the press and other media continue to consistently stigmatize by references to criminals or suspected criminals of Italian American origin that are phrased so as to draw attention to that origin, such as: "Italian American", "Italian", "Sicilian", "Mafia", 'Cosa Nostra", or family members". Nevertheless, a 181 page report of the Civil Rights Commission, entitled "Window Dressing on the Set: Women and Minorities in Television", issued in August 1977, contains no reference to this practice, or to any discrimination against white ethnics, for that matter, except for a page discussion of ethnic situation comedies (p. 22). Even then, the examples discussed are programs involving Chicanos, prison inmates of unspecified ethnic origin, high school students of varied ethnic backgrounds, and minority women. The need, now, is for a comprehensive inquiry into such practices, and only the Civil Rights Commission is in a position to do that. In the process, it will enlist a whole new constituency to support future work as constructive as its past efforts. |