Doesn't HEW have offices all over the country so that they could take the pulse of the people on matters such as this?

Mr. GRANQUIST. That has not been the mission of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare thus far, Senator.

Senator SCOTT. They have not investigated. They have been withholding funds because, in their judgment, some of the States are not doing everything that they think should be done. Are they relying on the investigation of the Civil Rights Commission, or are they doing their own investigating?

Mr. GRANQUIST. There is an Office of Civil Rights within the Department of HEW. That office has a responsibility to carry out statutory responsibilities with respect to civil rights responsibilities of HEW under existing statutes that apply to HEW.

The question, as I understood it, was: Does HEW collect civil rights information of a general purpose nature in its field activities. The answer to that I believe is no.

Senator SCOTT. What do you feel is necessary to be collected for the future that is not being collected by HEW, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or other Government agencies? What do you feel the other agencies cannot do that can only be done by the Civil Rights Commission?

Mr. GRANQUIST. My sense is that agencies that have an enforcement responsibility are not the best agencies to evaluate how well they perform.

So what the U.S. Civil Rights Commission does quite effectively, I believe, is to bring to the attention of the Congress and the President and the public the effectiveness of the implementation of the statutes of the Congress in civil rights; how effectively they are being managed and what problems exist.

Senator SCOTT. Let me ask just one final question, and then I'll quit. As I understand it, this Commission was set up for 2 years to make an investigation and come up with some findings and recommendations. That was in 1957. Twenty years have now gone past. Here is an agency that was created for 2 years that has been investigating for 20° years. It seems to me like that negates their effectiveness. If they were originally supposed to do their job in 2 years and 20 years have passed and they want another 5 years, we don't know whether that will be long enough or not and we may come back and ask for another 5 years. it doesn't seem that that fits in with Sunset legislation or zero-based budgeting.

I just wish that the Office of Management and Budget would give this another look and think about it.

Taking the President's statements at face value, I think he ought to know that this is an agency that was created for 2 years with no enforcement authority at all. It has been investigating for 20 years.

It seems to me that if they can't find answers in 20 years they'll never find any answers.

I think they have performed temporarily. They have found some information. But I just wonder if they couldn't have done the wholejob in 2 years, rather than 20.

Frankly, I can't see extending this.

I wish the executive branch of the Government, and your office in the Executive Office of the President-I think it's in your interest, from

your point of view, wanting to have a well-managed Government. I assume people in the Office of Management and Budget do want this. I just think this is indefensible.

But I wish you would take another look at it.

Mr. GRANQUIST. Senator, just a very brief response.

First of all, as you know, the President is now reviewing the fiscal 1979 budget requests of all departments and agencies, including the budget request of this Commission. So there is a zero-based review of the Commission going on in that context right now.

Second, Congress will, in its wisdom, determine whether the Commission should exist for another 5 years or not. Our recommendation is that it should; because, frankly, we believe that the useful services that you state it has performed temporarily are much needed and will be needed for a long time to come.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate your taking the time to let us have the thought processes of OMB.

As we recess, let me say to you and to all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The committee will stand in recess to reconvene on January 25 and 26, 1978.

Mr. GRANQUIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The list of agencies with civil rights responsibilities submitted by Mr. Granquist was marked "Exhibit No. 7" and is as follows:]

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing recessed.]

S. 2300-THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT OF 1978

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1978

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Birch Bayh [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Senator Bayh.

Staff present: Nels Ackerson, chief counsel and executive director; Mary K. Jolly, staff director; Ben F. Dixon, professional staff member; Linda Rogers-Kingsbury, chief clerk; Barbara Dixon, staff representative of Senator Bayh; Frederick Williams, staff representative of Senator Bayh.

Also present: Senator Mathias.

Senator BAYH. We are ready to proceed.

The Chairman will have no opening comments, and we will get right down to the important testimony we have here today.

The record will show the exceptional expertise our first witness has in this area; and, if he has no objection, I would like to put in the record a biographical sketch of his career.

Mr. PANETTA. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I would ask that my prepared remarks be included in the record and that I might briefly summarize my comments.

Senator BAYH. Very well.

TESTIMONY OF HON. LEON E. PANETTA, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. PANETTA. I am very pleased, of course, that the committee is taking this time to study the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, particularly the issue relating to State committees.

I do not have to tell the chairman of the sense that people have throughout the country of the isolation between themselves and government. The Federal Government is growing increasingly large and complex, and it is losing touch with people and their problems. There is a tremendous need to try to structure a partnership between Federal, State, and local government and local citizens in efforts and concerns we all have.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the area of civil rights. Civil rights enforcement has been perhaps one of the largest and one of the most complex undertakings of government in our history. The laws dealing with equal opportunity deal with every facet of our lives, from voting

23--288-78- -5

to education to housing to employment and to equal justice. They extend to all minorities to women, the handicapped, the aged, and so we really cover a broad cross-section of our society in these laws that deal with equal opportunity.

We have the Office of Civil Rights, the Justice Department, the EEOC, the Office of Contract Compliance, and so on down the line dealing with this problem. Particularly important has been the role of the Civil Rights Commission because I feel that they have been serving as an ombudsman between what the Federal agencies are doing and with peoples' concerns in bridging the gap between the Government and the people, to look at the trends, the concerns, to look at the new areas which have to be focused upon in implementing these complex laws.

The very hands and arms of the civil rights movement are the 51 State committees, the very people who at the State level know the problems which affect people, and they know of their concerns.

As the former director of the Office of Civil Rights, I cannot tell you enough of how important it was to relate these laws to the concerns of the people in their communities and in their States because we are not just a country which reflects the same problems wherever we go. These problems will vary from community to community. There are historical problems to be considered. There are problems which relate particularly to each community and to each State.

If we were to shut these people out from participating in civil rights enforcement, if we do not relate these problems to people, we will have that much tougher a time in the enforcement of laws. It is that clear. Lessons in that area are very clear.

If we went into a community and simply said to them, "You do it, or else," then we are likely to face problems, law suits, likely to face all of the turmoil that could be produced in this area.

However, when we went into the communities and talked with the local officials and talked with community leaders and tried to develop a coalition of support at the local level, that is when we were most effective in implementing a civil rights law. This happened time and time again.

I think particularly in the area of education it is a tribute to superintendents, a tribute to school board members, a tribute to citizens in the States who decided that this is the way we have to go, and they made that decision and were willing to participate in implementing the law.

Therefore, it is extremely important that between the law and its implementation that we build in community support. That is why it is so important to retain these State committees.

OMB has decided to do away with the 51 State committees and move to a system of 10 regional committees.

Your committee has to ask why are we going to do that. Is it because these committees are not working? That is not it at all.

A significant report was published on the problem of civil rights enforcement, entitled "The Unfinished Business Twenty Years Later." I do not have to point out to this committee the tremendous success that each of these State committees has had.

In my testimony I point out what Louisiana has done in the area of housing, what California has done with regard to the problem of those seeking to improve their language-speaking ability, and the problems in education. In Massachusetts the committee dealt with