Civil Rights Commission Authorization Act of 1978

tion and enforcement of civil rights law, it also notes the gains made under them, the prime example is its efforts to publicize the success stories in student transportation and the benefits to children of all races that flow from the unitary school system.

The commission's activities aid and encourage those who work faithfully for the protection of constitutional rights and induces those who may be timid to become involved and make a contribution.

If its life is extended, we trust the commission will continue basically in the same types of activities in which it has engaged, for the struggle for full freedom is far from won. We would hope, of course, that it would broaden its fields of interest and address important issues as they arise. For instance, we hope it could give some additional guidance in the present controversy in which we are involved the fight to save affirmative action. Recognizing the statement the commission has already issued, we look to it to do in-depth studies of the continuing need for affirmative action. Also, we would hope that the commission will be given a mandate from Congress that would allow it to inquire into more types of discriminatory practices.

2. Whether the commission's mandate to investigate and identify any possible civil rights violations has been achieved thus making its extension unnecessary.

As we indicated at the opening of our statement, we wish we could answer this in the affirmative. Unfortunately, we cannot.

It is simply unrealistic to believe that the effects of injustices that have occurred for over 300 years could be discovered and cured in two years, the original term of the commission, or in the twenty years it has actually been in operation. This would be so if such injustices had come to a halt with the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act. But they did not. They continued, not totally unabated, but certainly on a large scale. As many wrongs were righted, clever opponents found ways of circumventing the proposed solutions. As problems were solved in one part of the country, it was discovered that the denial of rights was not geographically isolated (no surprise to us, but to many who had previously supported our position). As Blacks discovered they could use new legislation to improve their lot, women, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans and other minorities, the poor, the aged and the handicapped began raising questions about denials of their rights, many of which are still unanswered.

We will not press for this at this time, because of the circumstances that require action on this bill, but what Congress should consider is making the commission's date of termination open-ended, as it did with the literacy test ban in the Voting Rights Act.

3. Whether the commission is not needed as its studies are simply duplicative of other agencies' work.

Some of the studies of the commission may contain data that is similar to that buried in the archives of other Government agencies. But nowhere else can one find the comprehensive, correctly interpreted, constructively oriented materials that the commission publishes. As a matter of fact, much of the information circulated by the commission is dragged from reluctant Government agencies, who realize it could put them in an unfavorable light for not fulfilling their Civil Rights responsibilities.

If in rare cases there is some duplication, perhaps it would be the wiser course to transfer the authority of the duplicating agency on that particular subject to the commission.

4. Whether the commission's state advisory panels should be retained in their present form or combined into regional groups.

On this issue we support the old adage, "the more the merrier." We believe that the problems of discrimination are so pervasive that each state must be made conscious of its own shortcomings, not those of a neighboring jurisdiction. Moreover, we fear that in a regional arrangement, the peculiar problems of a small state could be ignored in the push to solve a major problem arising in a large industrial city of a more populous state. There are enough differences within a state (as witness the problems of a large city such as Baltimore contrasted with those of the Eastern Shore of Maryland) to require the attention of Advisory Members from each State without diluting their attention with the differences and problems of their neighbors.

We knew that 51 advisory panels are an inviting target in this period. But we ask you to consider that we are dealing with unpaid personnel, most of whom contribute much more in time and out of pocket expenses than they ever receive in travel allowance. And, remember also that cost of travel will in

crease as the members must go to a more distant regional center rather than their local meeting place.

5. Whether the commission should be authorized to spend the amounts necessary to carry out its mandate during the extension period or retain an authorization ceiling limiting its authority to spend.

There are too many variables to justify an authorization ceiling. We do not know what the commission's workload will be during the period of the extension. The rate of inflation over those years cannot be safely estimated. It is possible a limit set now will a few years from now require a decrease in personnel and activities of the commission. Most importantly, we do not know what added duties Congress will impose upon the commission. We should recall that the last time Congress extended its life (1972), it set an appropriations ceiling. It also extended the commission's jurisdiction to include investigation of sex discrimination. As a consequence, it was necessary to amend the authorization in 1976 to allow the increased appropriations necessary to do the job Congress had directed the commission to do. In order to avoid the necessity of again going through these complicated appropriations procedures, Congress should eliminate the ceiling.

6. Whether the commission's authority should be expanded to include discrimination against the aged and the handicapped.

We favor such an expansion. As we noted earlier, we in the leadership conference have long known that discrimination is not solely reserved for Blacks. This is what has brought about our coalition of some 146 national organizations, some of which represent the aged and handicapped. Regardless of what the Congress does on this issue, we are certain it will in the future expand the rights of these groups of our population (as it has just voted to do in raising the mandatory retirement age for employment). As it does so, it will benefit, as will the aged, the handicapped and the rest of our citizenry if they all have the advantage of the advice of the agency that has the expertise in the area of discrimination, the commission on Civil Rights.

There are already enough problems arising out of the enforcement of the laws protecting the aged and handicapped to justify the commission making inquiry into this area of law enforcement or, unfortunately in some cases, nonenforcement. The problems of the aged and handicapped are but additional aspects of the total problem, denial of Human Rights.

Mr. Chairman, the questions you posed were so well forrmed that the answers to them required the use of our allotted time. We trust our responses indicate that we wholeheartedly support passage of S. 2300.

Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Ms. Judith L. Lichtman of the Women's Legal Defense Fund.

Ms. Lichtman, I think I should express the deep appreciation I have, as one who has had strong personal interest as well as some legislative responsibility in this whole area of constitutional rights, for the significant contribution you have made from time to time in the efforts,

Ms. LICHTMAN. Thank you, Senator. Needless to say, all the women's groups on behalf of whom I testify today could not begin to express the gratitude that we feel for you and the leadership that you have exerted over the years in everything from the ERA to reproductive freedom. We do express our thanks to you.

TESTIMONY OF JUDITH L. LICHTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; ACCOMPANIED BY ANN ALLEN

Ms. LICHTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Ann Allen, who not only ably assisted me in the development of this testimony but, like me, is a graduate of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And there are many of us in this room and in this city, young and not so young who started our legal careers at the Commission. It has been indeed-in addition to all the other wonderful things it has donea spawning ground for many civil rights lawyers. Ann and I are just two.

I am testifying today on behalf of the Federation of Organizations for Professional Women, the National Organization for Women, the National Women's Political Caucus, the Women's Equity Action League and its fund.

The Women's Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation organized in 1971 to secure equal rights for women by providing volunteer legal representation as well as sponsoring informational and educational activities on legal issues of special interest to women. Through the volunteer activities of its 300 members, the fund has become a major legal voice for women in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. In addition, its location in the Washington, D.C. area. gives the fund the opportunity to have input on Federal legislation and programs which are of particular interest to women.

The Federation of Organizations of Professional Women was founded 7 year ago and has as affiliates approximately 104 women's groups working for equal opportunity for professional women. This affiliation represents one-half million women who are members of various organizations that are committed to achieving equal education and employment rights.

NOW is the largest and oldest women's rights organization of the new feminist wave. The National Organization for Women has over 70,000 members both female and male and over 700 chapters existing in all 50 States. NOW was founded in 1966 and has always been deeply concerned with the enforcement of civil rights legislation.

The National Women's Political Caucus started in 1961 as a multipartisan organization with 35,000 members and supporters. This organization is dedicated to increasing the number of women in government and to promoting public policies which accurately reflect women's rights and concerns.

The Women's Equity Action League was founded in 1968. The Women's Equity Action League is a national membership organization dedicated to improving the social, economic and legal status of women through education, legislation, and litigation.

The Women's Equity Action League Fund is a nonprofit tax exempt organization that works to secure the legal and economic rights of women by carrying on educational and research projects in the area of sex discrimination, by monitoring the implementation and enforcement of civil rights and other laws, and by initiating and supporting law suits in the field of equal rights.

Others who have testified before this subcommittee on S. 2300, the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1978, have commented at length on the significant role that the Commission on Civil Rights has played in protecting and promoting the rights of minorities during the past 20 years. Through its public hearings, studies and reports, and testimonies before both Houses of Congress, the Commission has helped shape the course of development of civil rights enforcement in this country.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been a constant advocate for equal justice and opportunity. Were the Commission's life not extended, a void would be left which could not be filled by any existing Federal agency.

Speaking as I am on behalf of the women's rights organizations, I would like to direct my remarks to the importance of the Commission in the field of women's rights and interests.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has had jurisdiction over sex discrimination issues only since October 1972. In the succeeding 512 years, it has made a remarkable beginning in establishing itself as a national source of information on women's rights. It has advocated and worked to achieve equal treatment of women in many critical years, it has made a remarkable beginning in establishing itself as a Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and has monitored the actions of the Federal agencies themselves in prohibiting sex discrimination in the administration of Federal programs.

Let me give a few examples of the Commission's activities in the area of women's rights. The Commission's major output in implementing its sex discrimination jurisdiction has been in its publication of reports dealing with a wide range of subjects, such as minority and women contractors, mortgage financing, and a Guide to Federal Laws Prohibiting Sex Discrimination. The last is a particularly useful publication.

Several of the State advisory commissions have reported on local problems of sex discrimination. In the summer of 1974, the Civil Rights Commission held open hearings in Chicago, Ill., on the subject of women and poverty. In addition, the 1974 Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort report, a critique of Federal antidiscrimination programs, included coverage of efforts to eliminate sex-discrimination in federally assisted programs and within Federal agencies themselves.

There is no other organization, governmental or private, which serves as a national repository of information on legal issues critical to women in the way that the Civil Rights Commission does. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a unique source of information of women's issues on which many local and national groups such as the ones on behalf of whom I testify today-rely.

Although I believe that the Commission has achieved a great deal pursuant to its sex discrimination jurisdiction, I would like to see the Civil Rights Commission devote even more resources to implementing its sex discrimination jurisdiction than it has in the past. As yet, the Commission has not issued a report on its 1974 Chicago hearings. This delay is one that severely weakens the import of the hearings, for statistics and much of the data will be out of date by the time it is issued, and therefore not very useful. The Commission needs to commit more person power to women's issues so that there can be more efficient dissemination of information.

There are many areas of concern to women which I would like the commission to study and report on. Among these subjects are discrimination against women in the insurance field both as beneficiaries and employees and detailed studies of sex discrimination in employment. An enforcement study of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act would stimulate more widespread enforcement of that legislation. In addition, the Commission should increase its efforts to disseminate expertise in specialized areas in which women are particularly involved. At the end of this month, the Commission is holding a consultation on abused women. This type of technical assistance to women's groups is exactly what many women's organizations need but do not have the resources to provide themselves. By offering needed expertise and training on specialized topics, the Commission has great indirect impact on women's issues through the country.

I am testifying today on behalf of the Federation of Organizations for Professional Women, the National Organization for Women, the National Women's Political Caucus, the Women's Equity Action League and its fund.

The Women's Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation organized in 1971 to secure equal rights for women by providing volunteer legal representation as well as sponsoring informational and educational activities on legal issues of special interest to women. Through the volunteer activities of its 300 members, the fund has become a major legal voice for women in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. In addition, its location in the Washington, D.C. area gives the fund the opportunity to have input on Federal legislation and programs which are of particular interest to women.