[House Report 105-439]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
 2nd Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                105-439
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                  CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

 March 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Canady of Florida, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3117]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3117) to reauthorize the United States Commission on 
Civil Rights, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
The Amendment..............................................           2
Purpose and Summary........................................           3
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           4
Hearings...................................................          13
Committee Consideration....................................          13
Vote of the Committee......................................          13
Committee Oversight Findings...............................          13
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......          14
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................          14
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................          14
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................          16
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................          16
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......          18
Additional Views...........................................          20

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1998''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Extension.--Section 6 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975d) is amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
``2001''.
    (b) Authorization.--The first sentence of section 5 of the Civil 
Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975c) is amended to read 
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
to carry out this Act for fiscal years through fiscal year 2001.''.

SEC. 3. STAFF DIRECTOR.

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 
U.S.C. 1975b(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``There shall'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--There shall'';
            (2) by striking ``(A)'' and inserting the following:
                            ``(i)'';
            (3) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting the following:
                            ``(ii)''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Term of office.--The term of office of the 
                Staff Director shall be 4 years.
                    ``(C) Review and retention.--The Commission shall 
                annually review the performance of the staff 
                director.''.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, PRIVACY, SUNSHINE, AND 
                    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTS.

    Section 4 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 
1975b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Application of Certain Provisions of Law.--The Commission 
shall be considered to be an agency, as defined in section 551(1) of 
title 5, United States Code, for the purposes of sections 552, 552a, 
and 552b of title 5, United States Code, and for the purposes of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.''.

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT AUDIT.

    Section 4 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 
1975b) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Independent Audit.--Beginning with the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and each year thereafter, the Commission shall 
prepare an annual financial statement in accordance with section 3515 
of title 31, United States Code, and shall have the statement audited 
by an independent external auditor in accordance with section 3521 of 
such title.''.

SEC. 6. TERMS OF MEMBERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2(c) of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 
1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975(c)) is amended by striking ``6 years'' and 
inserting ``5 years''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
only with respect to terms of office commencing after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. REPORTS.

    Section 3(c)(1) of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 
U.S.C. 1975a(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``at least one report 
annually'' and inserting ``a report on or before September 30 of each 
year''.

SEC. 8. SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION.

    (a) Implementation of GAO Recommendations.--The Commission shall, 
not later than June 30, 1998, implement the United States General 
Accounting Office recommendations regarding revision of the 
Commission's Administrative Instructions and structural regulations to 
reflect the current agency structure, and establish a management 
information system to enhance the oversight and project efficiency of 
the Commission.
    (b) ADA Enforcement Report.--Not later than September 30, 1998, the 
Commission shall complete and submit a report regarding the enforcement 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
    (c) Religious Freedom in Public Schools.--
            (1) Report required.--Not later than September 30, 1998, 
        the Commission shall prepare, and submit under section 3 of the 
        Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983, a report evaluating the 
        policies and practices of public schools to determine whether 
        laws are being effectively enforced to prevent discrimination 
        or the denial of equal protection of the law based on religion, 
        and whether such laws need to be changed in order to protect 
        more fully the constitutional and civil rights of students and 
        of teachers and other school employees.
            (2) Review of enforcement activities.--Such report shall 
        include a review of the enforcement activities of Federal 
        agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Education, 
        to determine if those agencies are properly protecting the 
        religious freedom in schools.
            (3) Description of rights.--Such report shall also include 
        a description of--
                    (A) the rights of students and others under the 
                Federal Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.), 
                constitutional provisions regarding equal access, and 
                other similar laws; and
                    (B) the rights of students and teachers and other 
                school employees to be free from discrimination in 
                matters of religious expression and the accommodation 
                of the free exercise of religion; and
                    (C) issues relating to religious non-discrimination 
                in curriculum construction.
    (d) Crisis of Young African-American Males Report.--Not later than 
September 30, 1999, the Commission shall submit a report on the crisis 
of young African-American males.
    (e) Fair Employment Law Enforcement Report.--Not later than 
September 30, 1999, the Commission shall submit a report on fair 
employment law enforcement.
    (f) Regulatory Obstacles Confronting Minority Entrepreneurs.--Not 
later than September 30, 1999, the Commission shall develop and carry 
out a study on the civil rights implications of regulatory obstacles 
confronting minority entrepreneurs, and report the results of such 
study under section 3 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983.

SEC. 9. ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

    Section 3(d) of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 
1975a(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The purpose 
of each such advisory committee shall be to conduct fact finding 
activities and develop findings or recommendations for the Commission. 
Any report by such an advisory committee to the Commission shall be 
fairly balanced as to the viewpoints represented.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the ``Civil Rights Commission Act of 1998,'' 
H.R. 3117, is to extend the authorization of the United States 
Commission on Civil Rights through 2001. The legislation also 
institutes reforms to help ensure that the Commission will 
accomplish its mission in a more efficient and effective 
manner. The Commission's statutory authorization expired on 
September 30, 1996, and it has been operating absent 
authorization since then.
    The legislation provides for a four year term of office for 
the Commission's Staff Director, and requires the Commission to 
annually review the performance of the staff director. The 
current statute is silent as to these specific provisions.
    H.R. 3117 applies the Freedom of Information Act, the 
Privacy Act, the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act to the Commission. The bill requires that the 
Commission prepare an annual financial statement for audit by 
an independent external auditor.
    The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1998 reduces the term of 
membership for future Commissioners from six years to five 
years. Existing Commissioners' terms are unaffected by this 
section, and there is no limit to the amount of times a 
commissioner can be reappointed.
    The bill requires the Commission to implement the General 
Accounting Office recommendations regarding revision of the 
Commission's Administrative Instructions and structural 
regulations to reflect the current agency structure, and to 
establish a management information system to enhance the 
oversight and project efficiency of the Commission. The 
legislation requires the Commission to complete its report 
regarding the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990, a report regarding religious freedom in schools, a 
report on the crisis of young African-American males, and a 
study on the civil rights implications of regulatory obstacles 
confronting minority entrepreneurs.
    H.R. 3117 provides that the purpose of the Commission's 
state advisory committees is to conduct fact finding activities 
and develop findings or recommendations for the Commission, and 
requires that any report by such an advisory committee shall be 
fairly balanced as to the viewpoints represented.
    These reforms are designed to provide new direction and 
guidance to the Commission, and to help make the Commission 
more responsive, energized, and relevant.

                Background and Need For the Legislation

    The United States Commission on Civil Rights was originally 
established in 1957 as a temporary agency designed to serve as 
an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency of the 
executive branch of the federal government. The Commission's 
original authorizing statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 
provided that the Commission's final report was to be issued in 
1959, and that the Commission would cease to exist sixty days 
after the submission of its final report. (Civil Rights Act of 
1957, P.L. 85-315, section 104.)
    Congress reevaluated its initial conviction that the 
Commission was to be temporary, and has since reauthorized the 
Commission numerous times since its inception in 1957. The last 
statutory authorization, contained in the Civil Rights 
Commission Amendments Act of 1994, P.L. 103-419, expired on 
September 30, 1996, and the Commission has been operating 
without authorization since that time. (42 U.S.C. section 
1975f.)
    As currently constituted, the Commission has eight members: 
four appointed by the President, two appointed by the Senate 
and two appointed by the House (42 U.S.C. 1975 et seq.). The 
Commission currently has an annual budget of $8.75 million, 8 
part time commissioners, and a staff of 91. From its inception 
the Commission has been a bipartisan entity, and the current 
authorizing statute requires that not more than four of the 
commissioners shall at any one time be of the same political 
party. (42 U.S.C. section 1975(b).)
    The Commission's duties include: (1) investigating claims 
of voting rights deprivation because of color, race, religion, 
sex, age disability, or national origin, as well as any pattern 
or practice of fraud; (2) studying and collecting information 
concerning legal developments constituting discrimination or 
denial of equal protection because of race, color, religion, 
sex, age, handicap, or national origin; (3) appraising laws and 
policies of the Federal Government with respect to 
discrimination or denial of equal protection; (4) serving as a 
national clearinghouse for information with respect to the 
above; and (5) preparing public service announcements and 
advertising campaigns to discourage discrimination and denials 
of equal protection. (42 U.S.C. section 1975a.)
    America has made much progress in the areas of civil rights 
and race relations since 1957 when the Commission was founded. 
Despite this significant progress, there still remain certain 
pressing issues of civil rights. This Nation needs objective 
and informed voices addressing these issues. Fortunately, many 
of these voices now exist within and outside of government.
    A bipartisan, independent governmental entity can have a 
significant, positive impact on Americans' understanding of 
current civil rights issues. Such an apolitical entity has the 
potential to speak with an authoritative voice that unifies 
Americans, emphasizes important principles, and advances 
understanding of civil rights. Unfortunately, as of late the 
U.S. Civil Rights Commission has largely squandered its 
opportunity to be a credible voice on important civil rights 
issues. This view is confirmed by independent analyses of the 
Commission by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, and the Citizens' Commission on 
Civil Rights.
    This legislation is designed to enable the Civil Rights 
Commission to keep pace with changes and become more responsive 
and effective in addressing the important civil rights issues 
facing the nation as we approach the 21st Century.

                    General Accounting Office Report

    In response to numerous complaints of mismanagement, the 
Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House 
Judiciary Committee requested the U.S. General Accounting 
Office to conduct a review of the Civil Rights Commission's 
management of projects during fiscal years 1993 through 1996. 
In June 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office completed its 
analysis of the Commission. In a report entitled ``U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management 
Controls,'' GAO found the Commission to be ``an agency in 
disarray.'' (GAO Report at 7.)
    In violation of relevant federal statute, the Commission 
has failed to update obsolete documentation explaining its 
purpose, leaving ``the public and Commission employees unsure 
of the agency's procedures and processes for carrying out its 
mission.'' (Id.) Accordingly, H.R. 3117 requires the Commission 
to implement GAO's recommendations regarding revision of the 
Commission's administrative instructions and structural 
regulations to reflect the current agency structure, so that 
the public is better informed of the Commission's structure and 
organization. In addition, H.R. 3117 applies the Freedom of 
Information, Privacy, Sunshine, and Advisory Committee Acts to 
the Commission. These important laws are designed to ensure 
that government conducts its operations in the spirit of 
openness, and respect for the public's right to know about, and 
participate in, the work of their government. Application of 
these laws to the Commission could enhance its responsiveness 
and relevance to the American people and their daily lives.
    GAO

`` states repeatedly in the report that it could not conduct a complete 
   review in most areas because key commission records were ``lost, 
 misplaced or nonexistent,'' (Id. at 7,) or ``misplaced, misfiled, or 
   not available for review,'' (Id. at 10, 19.) Furthermore, ``[t]he 
 Commission's management controls over its operations are weak and do 
     not ensure that the Commission is able to meet its statutory 
    responsibilities or its program objectives.'' (Id. at 11.) The 
legislation responds to this deficiency by requiring the Commission to 
establish a management information system to enhance the oversight and 
                 project efficiency of the Commission.

    The report also details fiscal mismanagement at the 
Commission. ``The Commission's report on its internal controls 
in fiscal year 1996 appears to misrepresent information 
concerning audits of the Commission.'' (Id.) In paying its 
private contractors, ``[t]he commission does not verify the 
accuracy of the invoices submitted to NFC [the National Finance 
Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture].'' (Id. at 11.) 
In other words, if a contractor submits a bill to the 
Commission, the Commission makes no effort to ensure that the 
contractor has rendered any services, or is entitled to 
payment. The Commission has never been audited and is not 
required by statute to have an Inspector General. (Id. at 11, 
note 8.)
    Accordingly, the bill requires the Commission to prepare an 
annual financial statement for audit by an independent external 
auditor. Every governmental entity should periodically review 
its fiscal health and the Commission is no exception. Moreover, 
an independent audit could pay great dividends in the form of 
cost savings for the Commission.
    One of the Commission's principal duties is the creation of 
published products reflecting its findings for government and 
public use. ``Projects embody one of the key components of the 
Commission's operations yet the management of projects is weak 
or nonexistent.'' (Id. at 20.) The Commission's projects, a 
main reason for its existence, consume approximately only 10% 
of its overall budget. (Id. at 14.)
    GAO confirms that completion of the Commission's reports is 
plagued by delay, which adversely effects the reports' quality, 
usefulness, and relevance. The lengthy time frame for 
completion of projects yields them useless and obsolete in many 
cases. (Id. at 15-18.) In addition to the time delays, projects 
suffer from quality problems in planning and implementation as 
well. (Id. at 18.) The Commission has a problem with 
communications among its own offices and officials, and this 
lack of coordination renders their efforts duplicative. (Id. at 
19-20 (``With no coordination among the offices, duplicate 
mailings are likely.'').) For example, the Commission's report 
on ethnic tensions in Los Angeles omits any discussion or 
consideration of the riots following the Rodney King verdict, 
certainly a significant event on racial tensions in the Los 
Angeles area.
    To respond to this problem, H.R. 3117 sets forth selected 
projects, with specific deadlines, for the Commission to 
complete. All of these projects have been independently 
selected as priorities by the Commission itself. Current 
statute provides that Congress may require the Commission to 
submit reports as Congress ``shall deem appropriate.'' (42 
U.S.C. section 1975a(c)(2).) At certain points in the 
Commission's history Congress has identified specific projects 
it has required the Commission to complete. (See, e.g., Civil 
Rights Commission Act of 1979, P.L. 96-81 (Commission shall 
submit report to Congress regarding laws and policies of 
federal government that deny equal protection to Americans who 
are members of eastern- and southern-European ethnic groups, 
including an analysis of adverse consequences of affirmative 
action programs); Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 
1994, P.L. 103-419 (Commission shall submit at least one report 
annually to President and Congress that monitors civil rights 
enforcement efforts in the United States).) It is hoped that 
this statutory requirement will assist the Commission to 
effectively focus its resources on the completion of projects 
and studies in a more timely manner.
    GAO's ``overall assessment of the Commission suggests that 
its operations lack order, control, and coordination. 
Management is unaware of how federal funds appropriated to 
carry out its mission are being used, lacks management controls 
over key functions, and has not requested independent audits of 
Commission operations. These weaknesses make the Commission 
vulnerable to misuse of its resources. The lack of attention to 
basic requirements applying to all federal agencies, such as 
up-to-date descriptions of operations and internal guidance for 
employees, reflects poorly on the overall management of the 
Commission. . . . Results from independent reviews of the 
Commission's operations, such as the Citizens Commission on 
Civil Rights and OPM, substantiate our assessment of the 
Commission's weak management and the need for improvements.'' 
(Id. at 20-21.)
    To correct these problems, GAO recommended the Commission 
update its regulatory provisions, update its internal 
management guidance, and establish a management information 
system. (Id. at 21.) H.R. 3117 requires the Commission to 
implement GAO's recommendations by June 30, 1998.
    The Commission's response to GAO's report came in two sets; 
one from four commissioners and the second from the 
Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, two remaining commissioners and 
the Commission's Office of the Staff Director. The first 
response, a brief letter from Commissioners Anderson, George, 
Horner, and Redenbaugh, concurred with GAO's assessment, and 
indicated that these four commissioners will closely monitor 
the Commission to ensure that the recommendations are 
implemented. (Id. at 38.)
    The second response, by Chairperson Berry, Vice Chairperson 
Reynoso, and Commissioners Higginbotham and Lee, challenged 
GAO's report, calling it ``short'' on historical content, 
relevant context, and substantiated facts. These four 
Commissioners nevertheless pledged to implement GAO's 
recommendations. (Id. at 22.)
    GAO's report points out serious management deficiencies 
within the Commission. GAO's difficulty in obtaining basic 
information from the Commission is mirrored by the Commission's 
failure to cooperate with Congress in providing information 
necessary for meaningful oversight of the agency. The 
Commission has been less than forthcoming in providing 
requested documents and answers to questions in a timely and 
complete manner.
    Congress takes very seriously any agency's efforts to 
frustrate legitimate congressional oversight responsibilities. 
The GAO report confirms this assessment of the Commission and 
its reluctance to be forthright in allowing outside parties to 
conduct assessments of its operations.

                               OPM Report

    In addition to the GAO report, the Chairman of the House 
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution requested that the 
U.S. Office of Personnel Management conduct a thorough 
Personnel Management Evaluation of the Commission. ``OPM found 
an agency badly in need of managerial attention.'' (OPM Report 
at 1.) OPM's report parallels GAO's conclusions in all areas. 
OPM's report was of a more limited scope, and predated GAO s, 
so only a cursory summary is included in this report.
    OPM's review and report analyzed Commission operations in 
the period from October 1992 through September 1995. OPM 
concentrated on the Commission's use of details, temporary 
appointments, and reassignments. OPM reviewed the Commission's 
use of consultants, its process for handling employee 
complaints, and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the 
Commission's human resources management. OPM also reviewed the 
Commission's recruitment, placement, performance management, 
and the extent that the Commission complies with applicable 
civil services laws, rules, and regulations.
    OPM found ``numerous instances of poor documentation of 
staffing actions.'' (OPM Report at 1.) ``One appointment was 
made in violation of applicable laws and regulations.'' (Id. At 
2.) GAO's report echoes OPM's concerns with poor documentation, 
and H.R. 3117 addresses this problem by requiring the 
Commission to implement GAO's recommendations by September 30, 
1998.
    Like GAO, OPM identified problems with the Commission's 
performance management system. OPM stated that ``[t]he results 
of the OPM questionnaire and interviews reveal a highly 
negative perception on the part of managers and employees 
regarding the organizational climate of the agency. Morale is 
low, and effective communication is practically non-existent. 
The degree of unfavorable responses far exceeds that of any 
agency in the OPM questionnaire data base.'' (OPM Report at 2 
(emphasis added).) H.R. 3117 is designed to help correct this 
problem by requiring the Commission to implement GAO's 
recommendations with regard to its management information 
system.

           Commission General Counsel's Teaching Arrangement

    On July 17, 1997, the Constitution Subcommittee held an 
oversight hearing on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The 
Subcommittee discovered that Stephanie Moore, General Counsel 
of the Commission, taught two undergraduate courses at the 
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia during both the 
Spring Semester of 1997 and the Fall Semester of 1996. 
According to the University, these courses, ``History of 
American Law since 1877'' and ``History of Law and Social 
Policy,'' took place on Tuesday and Thursday during normal 
business hours.
    Mary Frances Berry, Chairperson of the Commission and a 
member of the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, is the 
regular instructor of these courses. Ms. Moore was substituting 
for Ms. Berry while she was on leave from the University 
faculty. Questions arose as to the propriety of this 
arrangement, and whether the Commission in fact needs a full 
time General Counsel. Moreover, some of the management 
deficiencies pointed out in the GAO report are related to the 
responsibilities of the General Counsel.
    In internal memoranda to Ms. Moore from both the Staff 
Director and the Designated Agency Ethics Official, Miquel 
Sapp, they both approve Ms. Moore's arrangement, stating that 
this teaching position ``is not in conflict with [her] official 
duties.'' Yet the classes took place in Philadelphia during 
regular business hours every Tuesday and Thursday. Section 
2636.307(d)(1) of the regulations define the standard for 
authorization, and state that the ``teaching may be approved by 
the designated agency ethics official only when [] the teaching 
will not interfere with the performance of the employee's 
official duties.''
    The Chairperson has stated that the General Counsel's 
absence from work two days a week does not interfere with the 
performance of official duties. Ms. Moore's employee time 
sheets indicate that during 1996, Ms. Moore billed 213 hours--
10.5% of Ms. Moore's time--to a category called ``other 
leave.'' This is a category distinct from ``annual leave'' or 
``sick leave.'' The Commission has proffered no explanation for 
why Ms. Moore's time was billed to the ``other leave'' 
category.
    In the interests of allowing a full and fair exploration of 
the issues at the oversight hearing, the subcommittee asked 
Chairwoman Berry to be prepared to answer questions from the 
subcommittee regarding the General Counsel's arrangement. The 
subcommittee further requested that the Commission provide the 
subcommittee with certain background information prior to the 
hearing, including copies of Ms. Berry's and Ms. Moore's 
employment contracts with the University. The subcommittee was 
told the contracts did not exist.
    Chairwoman Berry's oral testimony at the hearing regarding 
this arrangement raised even more questions. Under questioning 
from Subcommittee Member Asa Hutchinson, Ms. Berry denied that 
she had recommended Ms. Moore for the teaching position, and 
denied that she had control over the situation:

          Rep. Hutchinson: ``It is my understanding from your 
        testimony thus far that you were aware from the very 
        beginning--in fact, you recommended Stephanie Moore for 
        this teaching position.''
          Berry: ``No. I said she had indicated that she would 
        like to do it, and I suggested she talk to the Staff 
        Director about whether it could be done without 
        conflicting with her duties.''

(Unedited Transcript, lines 2224-2231.)

    However, under earlier questioning from Subcommittee Member 
Ed Bryant, Ms. Berry had explained her duties as the instructor 
of the course for which Ms. Moore was substituting:

          ``I go on leave whenever I want as a term of my 
        employment, and then I bring young scholars who want to 
        do some teaching in to teach courses, and we pay them. 
        . . . [E]mployees [of the Commission] are encouraged to 
        teach by the regulations if it can be done. I said that 
        if the general counsel wanted to ask the Staff 
        Director, if you get the Staff Director's approval and 
        the Office of Ethics approval, but if it interferes 
        with your work, I am going to make you quit and you can 
        t do it and I am going to be asking if it interferes.''

(Unedited Transcript of Oversight Hearing, July 17, 1997, page 
76-77, lines 1826-1836 (emphasis added).)

    Since Ms. Berry ``brings scholars in'' at the University of 
Pennsylvania, and can ``make someone quit'' at the Commission 
if it interferes with work responsibilities, it would appear 
from her testimony that she exerts substantial control over the 
situation in question.
    Later, Ms. Berry emphasized that the arrangement was 
approved by Mary Mathews, the Staff Director, as well as Miguel 
Sapp, the designated agency ethics official. (Unedited 
Transcript, lines 2260-2274.) Mr. Sapp is a subordinate of the 
General Counsel, Stephanie Moore.
    A number of other outstanding questions remain regarding 
this arrangement. The Commission has thus far failed to proffer 
an explanation of how the Commission's important work was 
strengthened by having its General Counsel absent from the 
office two days a week, for two semesters, teaching an 
undergraduate course at a university in Philadelphia. The 
Commission's core mission is to study and report on important 
civil rights issues affecting Americans, and it is difficult to 
discern how this teaching arrangement relates in any way to 
this important core mission. The Commission has vehemently 
defended the legality of this arrangement, but has not even 
asserted that it was a worthwhile endeavor and in any way 
contributed to the Commission's purpose.
    As a result of this peculiar arrangement, the Chairman of 
the Subcommittee requested that the Office of Special 
Investigations of the General Accounting Office undertake a 
detailed investigation of this matter. That investigation is 
ongoing. However, General Counsel Stephanie Moore and former 
Staff Director Mary Mathews have both refused to cooperate with 
GAO's investigation. Ms. Mathews has failed to respond to GAO's 
numerous requests for interviews, and Stephanie Moore has 
insisted on communicating with GAO only in writing, and then 
only through her private attorney.
    Such an unusual and unwieldy communications arrangement 
deprives GAO of the ability to fully investigate the facts 
underlying this situation. Ms. Moore and Ms. Mathews are the 
two individuals with the most direct knowledge of the specifics 
of this situation. Their refusal to cooperate with a 
Congressional investigation of their deeds raises serious 
questions about the propriety of the teaching arrangement.
    The response to GAO's investigation of this teaching 
arrangement continues a consistent pattern of secrecy in 
Commission dealings. Much of the Commission's internal 
operations are conducted outside of the public eye. H.R. 3117 
applies the federal Freedom of Information, and Sunshine Acts 
to the Commission, which could help ensure that the operations 
of the Commission are held to greater public scrutiny. In 
addition, H.R. 3117's requirement of an independent audit of 
the Commission could also expose inefficiencies within the 
Commission, and empower it to more directly focus on its core 
mission.
    The Staff Director had a significant role in approving this 
teaching arrangement. Commissioner Anderson testified at the 
July 1997 oversight hearing that he and the other Commissioners 
(with the obvious exception of Chairperson Berry) had no 
knowledge of this arrangement, but would have likely questioned 
its propriety had they known. In response, H.R. 3117 makes the 
Staff Director directly accountable to the Commission by 
requiring an annual review of the Staff Director by the 
Commissioners.

                      Failure to Complete Reports

    At a meeting of the Commission on July 11, 1997, it was 
reported that the Commission was conducting a report regarding 
civil rights at Wall Street firms, a report that has been held 
up for two years. Apparently, the reason for the delay was that 
the Commission demanded data from the firms and received a 
total of 36 boxes of this data, of which the Commission had 
analyzed one box in the past two years. In response, the 
Commission decided to hire an outside contracting firm to 
analyze the remaining 35 boxes within 60 days at a cost of 
$25,000. This inability to complete its tasks is a recurring 
pattern within the Commission.
    GAO confirms this assessment. ``Projects embody one of the 
key components of the Commission's operations yet the 
management of projects is weak or nonexistent.'' (GAO Report at 
20.) The Commission's projects, the principal rationale for its 
existence, consume approximately only 10% of its overall 
budget. (Id. at 14.) GAO confirms that completion of the 
Commission's reports is plagued by delay, which adversely 
effects the reports' quality, usefulness, and relevance. (Id. 
at 15-18.) In addition to the time delays, projects suffer from 
quality problems in planning and implementation as well. (Id. 
at 18.) The Commission has a problem with communications among 
its own offices and officials, and this lack of coordination 
renders their efforts duplicative. (Id. at 19-20.) During 
fiscal years 1993-1996, the Commission completed five projects, 
and deferred completion of seventeen projects. (Id. At 13-14, 
Tables 3-4.)
    To respond to this problem, H.R. 3117 sets forth selected 
projects--all previously initiated by the Commission--and 
establishes deadlines for the completion of these projects. 
Current statute provides that Congress may require the 
Commission to submit reports as Congress ``shall deem 
appropriate.'' (42 U.S.C. section 1975a(c)(2).) Historically, 
Congress has identified specific projects it has required the 
Commission to complete. (See, e.g., Civil Rights Commission Act 
of 1979, P.L. 96-81; Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 
1994, P.L. 103-419.) This statutory requirement could enable 
the Commission to more effectively focus its resources so that 
its reports are more useful.
    In Fiscal Year 1995, the Commission has failed to comply 
with its most basic statutory mandate that it submit to 
Congress at least one report every fiscal year that monitors 
federal civil rights enforcement in the United States. (42 
U.S.C. 1975a.)
    When one considers that the Commission received a $1.2 
million increase in fiscal year 1995 over its prior year 
appropriation, failure to properly manage resources in a manner 
that fulfils its statutory mandate is a concern. The delinquent 
report was finally transmitted to Congress in fiscal year 1997, 
two years late.
    H.R. 3117 clarifies the date on which the Commission's 
annual reports on federal civil rights enforcement are due, 
September 30. The current statute does not specify a date for 
the submission of the annual statutory reports, and there is 
confusion as to whether these reports are due on a calendar 
year cycle or fiscal year cycle. (The delinquent report 
mentioned above, however, complied with neither the fiscal year 
nor the calendar year deadline.)

                   Commission Abuse of Subpoena Power

    At its October 1995 oversight hearing, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution investigated claims that the Commission used 
its subpoena power to force individuals engaged in legal and 
constitutionally-protected political activities to testify 
before the Commission and to submit copies of their 
organizations' internal records at its September hearings in 
Miami, Florida. The Commission backed down after the 
Commission's activities were subject to the scrutiny of the 
press and calls for a Congressional investigation.
    Individuals engaged in constitutionally-protected political 
activities were served with subpoenas by the Commission to 
compel attendance against their will, along with detailed 
requests for internal records and documents regarding their 
First Amendment-protected activities. The subpoenas were served 
by federal marshals.
    These actions had the effect of chilling the lawful 
exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights by 
citizens. In addition, because of the nature the topic, it 
created the appearance that the powers of the Commission were 
being used to target individuals based on the content of their 
political advocacy. After the Chairman of the Subcommittee 
announced there would be a congressional oversight hearing on 
the matter and recipients of the subpoenas threatened to file a 
lawsuit, Chairperson Berry wrote to the witnesses and informed 
them that if they chose not to attend, she would not enforce 
the subpoenas served on them.
    As in other situations detailed in this report, internal 
Commission decisions leading to the subpoena incident were 
largely made in secret, outside of the public eye. In response, 
H.R. 3117 applies the federal Freedom of Information Act and 
federal Sunshine Act to the Commission, which should help lift 
the shroud of secrecy governing much of the Commission's 
operations and ensure that the operations of the Commission are 
held to greater public scrutiny.
    Under Commission policy, the staff had the primary role in 
selecting who to subpoena and preparing the subpoenas for the 
signature of the Chair. The Commissioners had no knowledge of 
the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the subpoenas in 
question. Staff Director Mathews failed to inform even 
Chairperson Berry--who signed the subpoenas and under whose 
authority they are served by United States Marshals--that 
Florida Congressman Mark Foley had written the Staff Director 
expressing concern that his constituent was being harassed by 
Commission attorneys and that her civil rights were being 
violated. In response, H.R. 3117 makes the Staff Director 
directly accountable to the Commission by requiring an annual 
review of the Staff Director by the Commissioners.

                         Voting Irregularities

    In 1995, the Commission released a report entitled 
``Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement'' in which three of 
the Commissioners were deprived of a proper opportunity to 
vote--a troubling practice for an agency supposedly devoted to 
investigating deprivations of voting rights. The then-Staff 
Director of the Commission, Mary Mathews was involved in this 
situation since she reported to Chairperson Berry on June 21, 
1995 that the report had been approved by a vote of 4-1, with 
Commissioners Redenbaugh, Anderson, and George not voting. 
However, these three Commissioners had previously written to 
Berry on June 19, 1995, informing her that:

          Because we have serious questions and reservations, 
        we feel it necessary to discuss this report--among the 
        Commissioners and with the staff authors--before 
        voting. We kindly request that you arrange for such an 
        opportunity through the Office of the Staff Director.

    It is clear that the report would not have passed had the 
three Commissioners been provided the opportunity to vote. The 
Staff Director insisted at the time that the vote had been 
taken in accordance with ``standard commission procedure.'' If 
that was the case, then standard commission procedure does not 
adequately protect the right of commissioners to vote and be 
heard.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held an 
oversight hearing on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on 
July 17, 1997. Testimony was received from the following 
witnesses: Cornelia Blanchette, Associate Director, Employment 
and Education Issues, General Accounting Office; Mary Frances 
Berry, Chairperson, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Carl 
Anderson, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Wade 
Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights; Bill Allen, Former Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights.

                        Committee Consideration

    On February 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
met in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 3117, by 
a voice vote, a reporting quorum being present. On March 4, 
1998, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported 
favorably the bill H.R. 3117, with an amendment, by a voice 
vote, a reporting quorum being present.

                         Votes of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes of the committee.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 3117, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, March 9, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3117, the Civil 
rights Commission Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
Leo Lex (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 
225-3220, and Matt Eyles (for the private-sector impact), who 
can be reached at 226-2649.
            Sincerely,

                                           June E. O'Neill, Director.  
    Enclosure.

    cc: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
         Ranking Minority Member.

H.R. 3117--Civil Rights Commission Act of 1998

            Summary

    H.R. 3117 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary for the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. The bill also would 
direct the commission to undertake several new initiatives with 
potential budgetary impacts. These initiatives include an 
independent audit of the commission's annual financial 
statement and studies on the enforcement of fair employment 
laws and on regulatory obstacles confronting minority 
entrepreneurs. The studies would be due by September 30, 1999.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 3117 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of about $28 million over the 1999-2003 
period (if funding for the commission is maintained at the 1998 
level with adjustments for the new initiatives) or about $30 
million over the five-year period (if adjusted for inflation 
and the new initiatives). The bill would not affect direct 
spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. H.R. 3117 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (UMRA), by authorizing the United States Commission on 
Civil Rights to use subpoena power through September 30, 2001. 
CBO estimates the costs of this mandate to be minimal.
            Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
amounts estimated to be authorized by the bill will be 
appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and that outlays 
will follow the historical spending rate for the commission. 
Because H.R. 3117 would authorize such sums as necessary for 
the commission, CBO prepared two sets of estimated 
authorization levels, representing continued funding at current 
levels of appropriations, both with and without adjustment for 
anticipated inflation. Both spending paths include estimated 
additional costs for the bill's directives to the commission, 
about $1 million in fiscal year 1999 and less than $500,000 in 
each of the following years. The commission received an 
appropriation of $8.74 million in fiscal year 1998 and has 
requested $11 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3117 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

                                                                                                                
                                    [By Fiscal Year, In Millions Of Dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
Spending Under Current Law                                                                                      
  Budget Authority \1\....................................        9        0        0        0        0        0
  Estimated Outlays.......................................        9        0        0        0        0        0
                                        Without Adjustment for Inflation                                        
Proposed Changes                                                                                                
  Estimated Authorization Level...........................        0       10        9        9        0        0
  Estimated Outlays.......................................        0        9        9        9        0        0
Spending Under H.R. 3117                                                                                        
  Estimated Authorization Level \1\.......................        9       10        9        9        0        0
  Estimated Outlays.......................................        9        9        9        9        0        0
                                          With Adjustment for Inflation                                         
Proposed Changes                                                                                                
  Estimated Authorization Level...........................        0       10       10       10        0        0
  Estimated Outlays.......................................        0       10       10       10        0        0
Spending Under H.R. 3117                                                                                        
  Estimated Authorization Level \1\.......................        9       10       10       10        0        0
  Estimated Outlays.......................................        9       10       10       10        0        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                    

            Pay-As-You-Go Considerations:
    None.
            Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact

    H.R. 3117 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate because it would authorize the United States 
Commission on Civil Rights to operate through September 30, 
2001, and thus would extend its subpoena power. The Civil 
Rights Commission Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-183), which 
created the commission and granted it certain powers, that 
authorizes the commission to require state and local government 
entities and private persons to furnish testimony, records, and 
other relevant information under threat of a subpoena. The use 
of those powers constitutes a federal mandate. Because the 
commission would likely exercise its subpoena power sparingly, 
CBO estimates that the intergovernmental and private-sector 
costs of the mandate would be very small and well below the 
relevant thresholds in UMRA.

            Estimate Prepared By:

    Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860), Impact on State, 
Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex (225-3220), Impact on 
the Private Sector: Matt Eyles (226-2649).

            Estimate Approved By:

    Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article 1, section 8, clause 18 of the 
Constitution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The purpose of H.R. 3117 is to reauthorize the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights, and to institute reforms to 
help ensure that the Commission will accomplish its important 
mission in an efficient and effective manner.

Section 1. Short Title.

    Provides that the Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights 
Commission Act of 1998.''

Section 2. Extension and Authorization of Appropriations.

    Extends the statutory authorization of the Commission until 
September 30, 2001, and authorizes to be appropriated such 
funds as may be necessary to carry out the Act through fiscal 
year 2001. The Commission is currently operating without 
statutory authorization.

Section 3. Staff Director.

    The staff director is the full-time administrative head of 
the Commission and is appointed by the President with the 
concurrence of a majority of the Commission. Section 3 provides 
that the term of office for the staff director shall be four 
years, and requires the Commission to annually review the 
performance of the staff director. The current statute is 
silent as to a specific term of office for the staff director.

Section 4. Application of Freedom of Information, Privacy, Sunshine and 

        Advisory Committee Acts.
    Applies the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, 
the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act to the 
Commission. There is currently some doubt as to whether these 
laws apply to the Commission, and section 4 clarifies this 
issue.

Section 5. Requirement for Independent Audit.

    Requires that the Commission prepare an annual financial 
statement for audit by an independent external auditor. In its 
report of June 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office pointed 
out that the ``Commission's management controls over its 
operations are weak and do not ensure that the Commission is 
able to meet its statutory responsibilities,'' its ``spending 
data [is] not maintained by office or function,'' and its 
operations have not been audited by an outside accounting firm. 
(GAO Report at 10-11.) GAO has estimated that such an 
independent audit would cost approximately $20,000 to $40,000, 
but could pay far greater dividends in the form of cost savings 
to the Commission.

Section 6. Terms of Members.

    Provides that the term of membership for future 
Commissioners shall be reduced from six years to five years. 
Existing Commissioners' terms are unaffected by this section, 
and there is no limit to the amount of times a commissioner can 
be reappointed. Reduced term length could help to energize the 
Commission and make it more effective and responsive.

Section 7. Reports.

    Clarifies the date annual reports on federal civil rights 
enforcement are due, September 30. The current statute is 
silent as to this provision.

Section 8. Specific Directions to the Commission.

    Requires the Commission to implement the General Accounting 
Office recommendations regarding revision of the Commission's 
Administrative Instructions and structural regulations to 
reflect the current agency structure, and to establish a 
management information system to enhance the oversight and 
project efficiency of the Commission. Requires the Commission 
to complete its report regarding the enforcement of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Requires the 
Commission to complete a report regarding religious freedom in 
schools. Requires the Commission to complete its report on the 
crisis of young African-American males. Requires the Commission 
to develop and carry out a study on the civil rights 
implications of regulatory obstacles confronting minority 
entrepreneurs.

Section 9. Advisory Committees.

    Provides that the purpose of the Commission's state 
advisory committees shall be to conduct fact finding activities 
and develop findings or recommendations for the Commission. 
Provides that any report by such an advisory committee to the 
Commission shall be fairly balanced as to the viewpoints 
represented.


         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                  CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT OF 1983

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Terms.--The term of office of each member of the 
Commission shall be [6 years] 5 years. The term of each member 
of the Commission in the initial membership of the Commission 
shall expire on the date such term would have expired as of 
September 30, 1994.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Reports.--
            (1) Annual report.--The Commission shall submit to 
        the President and Congress [at least one report 
        annually] a report on or before September 30 of each 
        year that monitors Federal civil rights enforcement 
        efforts in the United States.
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Advisory Committees.--The Commission may constitute 
such advisory committees as it deems advisable. The Commission 
shall establish at least one such committee in each State and 
the District of Columbia composed of citizens of that State or 
District. The purpose of each such advisory committee shall be 
to conduct fact finding activities and develop findings or 
recommendations for the Commission. Any report by such an 
advisory committee to the Commission shall be fairly balanced 
as to the viewpoints represented.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

    (a) Staff.--
            (1) Director.--[There shall]
                    (A) In general.--There shall be a full-time 
                staff director for the Commission who shall--
                            [(A)] (i) serve as the 
                        administrative head of the Commission; 
                        and
                            [(B)] (ii) be appointed by the 
                        President with the concurrence of a 
                        majority of the Commission.
                    (B) Term of office.--The term of office of 
                the Staff Director shall be 4 years.
                    (C) Review and retention.--The Commission 
                shall annually review the performance of the 
                staff director.
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Application of Certain Provisions of Law.--The 
Commission shall be considered to be an agency, as defined in 
section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, for the purposes 
of sections 552, 552a, and 552b of title 5, United States Code, 
and for the purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    (g) Independent Audit.--Beginning with the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and each year thereafter, the 
Commission shall prepare an annual financial statement in 
accordance with section 3515 of title 31, United States Code, 
and shall have the statement audited by an independent external 
auditor in accordance with section 3521 of such title.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    [There are authorized to be appropriated, to carry out this 
Act $9,500,000 for fiscal year 1995.] There are authorized to 
be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
Act for fiscal years through fiscal year 2001. None of the sums 
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1995 may be used 
to create additional regional offices.

SEC. 6. TERMINATION.

    This Act shall terminate on September 30, [1996] 2001.

                     Additional Views on H.R. 3117

         Reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    I strongly support the United States Commission on Civil 
Rights, and support this bill to reauthorize the Commission. 
However, I am concerned that, while the legislation places very 
specific restrictions and requirements upon the Commission, the 
Commission remains underfunded and therefore without the 
critical resources necessary to complete many of its duties.
    Specifically, the legislation fails to propose a specific 
funding level for the Commission over the duration of the 
reauthorization period. Congress has consistently appropriated 
funds to the Commission below the President's authorization 
request, leaving the Commission year after year with inadequate 
resources to carry out its directive of investigating charges 
of citizens deprived of their civil rights, monitoring the 
enforcement of federal civil rights laws, and serving as a 
national clearinghouse for information related to 
discrimination. With no specified funding level, the proposed 
legislation increases the possibility that Congress will 
continue its pattern of underfunding an important and critical 
component of this nation's goal of eliminating discrimination 
in all its ugly forms.
    Moreover, there is no indication that the Majority is 
prepared to support increased funding for the Commission as 
requested in the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget. The 
Majority remains noncommittal on the appropriateness of the 
President's request of $11 million funding request. However, 
each year, the Congress continues to underfund the Commission. 
Last year, the Commission requested $11 million, but was only 
appropriated $8.75 million. While increased Congressional 
oversight over the Commission may be warranted, it is 
unreasonable for the Committee to place additional burdens on 
the Commission and yet continue to overlook the need for full 
funding of the Commission. It is wholly unfair to the 
Commission--and to the American people who expect and deserve a 
strong federal role to combat discrimination--to have the 
Commission constantly under the obligation of responding to the 
many requests made by the Majority and others, but without any 
provision for the funds necessary to perform its duties 
effectively.
    The Majority has consistently focused on the problems 
associated with enforcement of our civil rights laws and 
insists that discrimination is no longer the problem it was 30 
years ago. However, there is no question that the need for the 
Commission is greater than ever before. Discrimination 
continues to be a persistent problem in American society, and 
the role of the Civil Rights Commission plays a crucial part in 
fighting it. Instead of continually scrutinizing perceived 
defects in remedies to discrimination, we need to examine the 
persistent, invidious, intractable and often disguised nature 
of race and gender discrimination that is an undeniable fact in 
America today. This is what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
was established to do, and Congress has an obligation to 
provide it with the necessary resources to do so.

                                   John Conyers,
                                   Ranking Member.

                                    
