I think we will be successful, first of all because we are right; second, because I assume we will be wise enough to approach the opposition from the standpoint of recognizing valid criticisms and resolving them.

The question of duplication is one I anticipate will be strenuously pursued by some of our colleagues. I just want to be certain we are on the same wavelength here because I assume what we want is the job of the Commission done once and done well.

Mr. MITCHELL. Exactly.

Senator BAYH. As we bring in other areas it is entirely likely that we may need more resources for the Commission. This is all the more reason for us to look at those areas where indeed there might be a duplication so we can prevent it, and, as you suggest, to concentrate this effort in the Commission to be sure it is done well, once.

I bring that to your attention because I would not want us to proceed without consulting with you and others ways to end any duplication of the Commission if indeed there are areas of duplication.

However, I would not want us to be perceived as being anticivil rights because what we are trying to do is to meet this one objection. Mr. MITCHELL. That is a sound suggestion, Senator Bayh. I do know that in many agencies where data is being collected, those collecting it might have a different intention from what the Civil Rights Commission would have. Unfortunately, the data might come out skewed. I have seen that happen a number of times.

I feel if we are going to consolidate and entrust to the Government the gathering of information of this kind, then the Civil Rights Commission is the place where it ought to be. If that can be achieved, I think it would be a very important sign of progress.

The fourth question is whether the Commission's State advisory panels should be retained in their present form or combined into regional groups.

This testimony is the thinking of persons who prepared it. The counsel for the Washington bureau NAACP being the chief author of it. He includes the words "We support the old adage that the more the merrier."

I think it is true. The larger number of people you have working on these things, the better it can be. Therefore, we come down on the side of suggesting that the State groups be retained. We do not say it should be mandatory, as some people have said. I think we should trust to the good judgment of the Commission to get the message to Congress, that it likes the idea of State Commissions.

However, we in the Leadership Conference, feel that the advisory panels ought to be retained in the States and they should not be abolished in the interest of some kind of economy which is really not true economy but just a statistical compilation to look good.

The fifth question is whether the Commission should be authorized to spend the amount necessary to carry out its mandates during the extension period or retain an authorization ceiling limiting its authority to spend.

The authorization ceiling was a kind of spiteful imposition on the Commission. Immediately after it was imposed the problem was clear that the Commission did not have enough money to do its job be

cause it had been given a wider area of responsibility on problems of

women.

It then had to come back for a supplementary appropriation. I think there should not be any ceilings. I am sure that represents the unanimous view of all the organizations which are a part of the Leadership Conference.

The sixth question is whether the Commission's authority should be expanded to include discrimination against the aged and the handicapped.

We say yes, because that is very important.

In conclusion, I will give you an illustration of why it is clear that the aged have problems which somehow got lost in the shuffle.

When Congress was considering the bill to extend the retirement age from 65 to 70, one of the companies-I think it was Mobil Oilgot a statement out saying that the reason you should not extend the age to 70 was because if you had people staying on at 70 you would prevent blacks and women from rising up the ladder of promotion in industry. The way to get the channel clear was to get rid of a lot of old timber which should have retired.

It was interesting that Senator Javits got together some figures which showed just the opposite. A lot of these top executives were trying like everything to get out at 55 because they had nice pensions, wanted to get out on the golf course, and things of that sort. Actually the raising of the retirement age was more beneficial to the rank and file people.

That in my judgment is an example of why we need some objective agency to address itself to the problems of the aged and give us some guidelines.

That concludes my part of the presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will yield to Mr. Rauh.

Senator BAYH. Mr. Rauh.

Mr. RAUH. Mr. Chairman, after Clarence is finished with a subject, there isn't too much additional to be said; so I can be brief. Incidently, Clarence and I can speak very fervently for the aged because we have now joined the group.

I believe that history will record that the most important part of the 1957 law was as the establishment of the Civil Rights Commission. I can say that because I sure didn't think so at the time.

I remember the night that the Senate knocked out the provision for the Attorney General suing for school desegregation. We were all pretty close to tears. Here the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of school desegregation, but there was no desegregation going on. The House had passed a bill which directed the Attorney General to bring suits to enforce civil rights, including school desegregation. That was taken out in the Senate. When we were arguing whether to support the bill in its weakened form or not, a number of people, including Clarence, referred to the Civil Rights Commission as a step forward.

We all finally supported the bill. I believe the Civil Rights Commission is the reason why we made the right decision that day. We needed the Civil Rights Commission then, and we need it now.

There is no society that is perfect. Even the great past societies in Greece and Rome never reached a stage of treating people equally. We have not reached a stage of treating people equally.

I don't believe perfection is ever coming. I think that a goal of total equality is a great goal. But I believe it will always be a goal. As long as that goal is there for our society, we need the push that the Civil Rights Commission gives us.

I believe the Civil Rights Commission has done a magnificent job. They have made only one real mistake that I can remember; but it's a beauty. And that was deciding to get rid of the 51 State advisory committees.

I think Mr. Panetta said it very well, and he said it from a great deal of experience with civil rights enforcement.

To qualify myself, I was on the first State advisory committee here in the District of Columbia. The committee in each State is always a body of dedicated citizens who receive nothing for their work. You pay for your own lunch when you go to a meeting. I think you can get some parking money now; I think they have loosened up a little. It is a most dedicated group in each of the States.

To abolish those committees, over their opposition, I think, was shocking. Chairman Flemming made a mistake in accepting the OMB recommendation. But I don't blame him for accepting it. OMB wields power around this town like a czar. I have never seen people flock around this way: "Let's do what the OMB wants."

The OMB is what I call a box score organization. All it wants to do is show that it is going in its announced direction. So, the Administration announces that we are going to get rid of commissions; we are going to have a lot less commissions-700 less, 800 less; it doesn't matter. Maybe it's a 1,000 less. Here were 41 commissions or committees you could get at one shot. All you needed was a rifle, and you got 41 commissions less. And that's what they did. They added 41 to the casualty list. It would be 51, but they set up 10 regional committees. It will cost them more than the 51 they terminated.

Now, the question is how the Congress should deal with a problem like this. I think that one should be somewhat careful in handling this. Congress should certainly make clear that it believes in the 51 State advisory committees. In other words-as Clarence said—we are not asking you to direct them to keep these 51 going. But we do feel that the debates and the reports should make clear that Congress believes they should be kept going.

Senator BAYH. Why? One of your strengths, my friend, is that you are not what I would call a timid soul in pursuing what you think will accomplish a goal; and I salute you for that.

I guess I have a natural legislative prejudice-and I confess itwhen it comes to dealing with an organization like OMB which, of course, performs a very important function. But there for a while you had the head of OMB with more power than any cabinet official in the President's Cabinet, and he was not even confirmed by the Congress in the normal constitutional sense. Now, we have redressed that a bit.

Recognizing the tremendous power they have, how are we to expect the Commission to stand up to that unless we fight fire with fire and balance the scales with a little legislative weight?

Mr. RAUH. Naturally I would like that. But I think that it would be more difficult to get through Congress an order than a provision authorizing the State commissions and a clear expression by Congress favoring the State commissions.

If you can make it mandatory and get it through, my hat will be off to you. I took the softer approach because I thought it was easier to obtain and I also thought that the OMB would not flout the Congress if its intention was clear. If, without jeopardizing the future of S. 2300, you could get a mandatory direction on the 51 committees. I am sure that the Leadership Conference would favor it.

We were trying to do something that maybe we are not very good at: be tacticians. Insofar as we have a position, it would be better to state it this way: We want the 51 advisory committees very badly, and we trust that our allies in the Senate and the House know better how to get it done than we do.

Senator BAYH. I thank you for clarifying that. I, too, am familiar with the need on occasion to pursue certain kinds of strategy to get legislation passed. I just want to make certain there was no substantive reason.

I would prefer not to appear as if we are mounting a full-fledged assault on OMB, which we are not, or that there are irreconcilable differences. I would assume that the OMB, the Commission, the Leadership Conference, other interested parties and the Congress have the same goal; assuring the continued success of the Civil Rights Commission. I am sure when we finish our hearings and work it out, that we will do this without any acrimony. Thank you.

Mr. RAUH. I think we are in total agreement on that, Senator Bayh. And it does seem to me, as it does to Clarence and the whole Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, that this bill is a must.

I recognize the difficulties that you referred to earlier. But, come what may, I want to assure you that, if we need to bring the whole 140 civil rights groups up here, you have our full support. The Civil Rights Commission is too important a part of American life today to let it go by the boards.

Senator BAYH. Thank you. I did not bring up the matter of opposition with the slightest feeling that this should lessen our efforts. In fact, I brought it up because I think it is important for us to realize that it is probably going to take the full efforts of all of us to be successful. Given the full efforts, I think we can be successful.

Gentlemen, you have already answered the questions I have in Mr. Mitchell's testimony supplemented by Mr. Rauh's comments here. I appreciate very much you lending your expertise and significant prestige to the effort we are undertaking. We will keep in communication as we go ahead through the legislative process, if that meets with your approval.

Mr. RAUH. Thank you.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Senator BAYH. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Rauh of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN AND JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, chairman of the Leadership Conference on civil rights. I am accompanied by Joseph L. Rauh. Jr., general counsel of the leadership conference. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to present the views of the leadership conference on civil

rights on S. 2300, a bill to extend the life of the United States commission on civil rights.

We wish we were able to tell you there is no need for such a bill. That would indicate that all the problems of discrimination, in its various forms, had been discovered, explored and solved. Unfortunately, the day for such testimony is still in the future, and we must deal with the facts as they now exist. Those facts indicate that discrimination is still rampant, despite the many legal weapons available for use in combatting it, and despite the significant progress that has been made in suppressing it since the passage of the civil rights act of 1957, which will be amended by S. 2300.

Additionally, it has become clear that blacks are not the only group subject to discrimination, a fact of which we were aware but which was not generally recognized. Women, native Americans, persons of Spanish heritage, Asian Americans, the aged, the handicapped, all have brought their complaints into the public forum and have secured legislation to prohibit various types of discrimination practiced against them. The volume of these complaints and the implications of this legislation alone would be enough to justify the extension of the life of the commission for at least five years.

It is our opinion that on all of these issues, as well as on the ones of longstanding violations of the constitutional rights of black citizens that inspired passage of the civil rights act of 1957 and subsequent legislation, the commission has been since its creation the official conscience of the nation, constantly speaking out against injustice wherever it exists. It has been a well-informed conscience, supplying statistics, examples and other data to support its positions, positions that in many cases have been adopted by the Congress, the president and the courts.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter inviting us to testify you asked us to discuss six specific issues as they relate to the bill. We will do so now.

1. The achievements of the commission and what should be its objectives if extended.

So many of the results of the commission's activities are so intangible that it would be impossible to completely assess the extent of its achievements. However, there is enough that can be measured to warrant continuation of the commission's existence.

The commission has had an effect on all civil rights legislation passed from 1960 to date. If anyone studies the debates on each piece of this legislation, he will see that the commission's reports, testimony and recommendations are widely quoted to support positive positions supporting civil rights. The research done by the commission on the particular subject under consideration very often provided the convincing data needed to influence the course of legislation. In some instance, it may be found that the information supplied by the commission has likewise been presented by the leadership conference or its constituent organizations. But coming from an official source, it is granted a recognition of authenticity that is not given to other sources. To use an analogy, meat with a department of agriculture stamp of approval is accepted as meeting certain standards, although the stamp in no way changes the quality of the meat. Congress, the courts and the public have accepted the findings of the commission as the findings of an official, disinterested government agency and have reacted to them accordingly.

We cite two examples where we feel the commission may well have provided the difference between passage or defeat of the specific provision before the Congress, both of which deal with voting. The first is the changeover from courtappointed voting referees provided for in the civil rights act of 1960 to civil service commission-appointed voting examiners under the 1965 voting rights act. The second instance is the 1975 extension of the protections of the 1965 voting rights act to cover persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan natives or of Spanish heritage. We could cite more, but we use these two examples because they relate to one of the most important of all civil rights, the right to vote.

Another achievement of the commission has been to alert the public to developments in the area of civil rights, both favorable and unfavorable. Its comprehensive reports on all aspects of American life are always well publicized, well received and informative. We believe they have helped shape public opinion favorably to the exercise of civil rights and have helped dull many of the attacks on the assertion of those rights. We stress particularly the positive approach the commission has taken. While it does point out deficiencies in the administra

23-288-78-6