|
Volume 9 Numbers 2-3
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS CHALLENGED
AND DEFENDED AT HEARING
Rep. Charles Canady, chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution launched a new attack on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) at a oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). He qu estioned whether the President's Advisory Board on Race Relations would eclipse the work of the USCCR and thus whether the USCCR was still needed:
"Recently, President Clinton announced the formation of the Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race. The founding charter of this new entity establishes a mission for the Advisory Board remarkably similar to the mission of the Civil Rights Commission. Why did the President ignore the Civil Rights Commission? The need for the formation of an entirely new advisory board casts doubt on the efficacy of an existing Commission that purports to address the same issues as the new board.
"Questions arise as to whether the new board and the Commission will be engaged in a wasteful, costly and counterproductive duplication of efforts. I would...welcome any explanation as to why the taxpayers will be paying for the same product twic e."
Wade Henderson, Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in his testimony before the Subcommittee, addressed this issue:
"Some cynics mistakenly confuse the limited, short-term role of President Clinton's recently appointed advisory board on his race initiative with the ongoing broader role of the Civil Rights Commission....The President's race initiative is an impo rtant step in the nation's search for racial reconciliation. However, it in no way supersedes or diminishes the ongoing responsibility of the Commission to report on unresolved discrimination in our society....The Commission has essential subpoena author ity to perform its fact finding functions. With this power, the Commission can secure factual information that is otherwise unavailable to research institutions and private foundations which examine public policy issues."
Mary Frances Berry, Chair of the Commission in her testimony before the subcommittee also stressed the Commission's unique role as an independent agency charged with fact finding authority and powers as well as its bipartisan makeup:
"Our independent status means that we have no vested interests in particular civil rights policies or enforcement programs, nor are our recommendations and policy decisions subject to Administration approval before issuance."
She went on to talk about the Commission's focus on assessing the enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws and making recommendations for stronger enforcement. She discussed an upcoming project to review the enforcement of the American with Disab ilities Act of 1990, that will include a formal hearing with the issuance of a report at the end of FY 1988. Thus, she asserted while the role of the Commission is certainly complementary to that of the President's Advisory Group, it is not duplicative. Commissioners and staff have consulted with White House staff on the President's initiative and will continue to do so, she assured the subcommittee.
Also discussed at the hearing on the USCCR was a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report that found that the agency lacks basic management controls. Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate Director of the GAO, testified that the GAO found broad manage ment problems at the Commission, that it was an agency in disarray "with limited awareness of how its resources are used." Such disarray she asserted makes the Commission "vulnerable to misuse of its resources." She further asserted that while projects and reports are a key component of the Commission's work, Commission projects are poorly managed, take years to complete, and spending on projects accounts for only ten percentage of the Commission's budget.
Dr. Berry, Chair of the USCCR, testified that the Commission would implement each of the changes recommended by GAO to improve the management of the Commission. She went on to discuss the Commission unique role as an independent agency with special in vestigative powers, including the power to issue subpoenas and conduct hearings in carrying out its central mission of investigating the status of civil rights and civil rights enforcement and to inform the President, the Congress, and the public of its f indings and recommendations.
In a June 16, 1997, letter to Ms. Blanchette which was cited at the hearing, four of the eight commissioners including the Chair and Vice Chair, took serious exception to the GAO report:
"The report is short on necessary history because since the creation of the Commission in 1957 the cause of civil rights has become more complex. Today, the Commission must not only safeguard against racial bias but it must also grapple with the evils of discrimination along the lines of national origin, citizenship status, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical handicap, emotional disability and economic disadvantage. Yet, while its mission has expanded, the Commission's budget has been eviscerated, its staff decimated, its resources slashed, and even its powers restricted. Thus, in this time and place where a multitude of communities clamor for the Commission's protection, and where every one of these communities deserves equal a ttention, the Commission has been saddled with the sisyphean task of doing more and more with less and less. In that light, the management deficiencies identified in the report are not an indictment of the Commission's performance but a testament to its resiliency."
The June 16, 1997, letter also discusses the attacks on the Commission that began during the Reagan Presidency and the drastic cutbacks in budget and staff beginning in 1987 when the Commission suffered a 46 percent cut in its budget, with an additiona l 15 percent cut the following year. As outlined in the GAO report, since 1980, the Commission's funding, adjusted for inflation, has declined by about 58 percent. The Commission's authorization ended on September 30, 1996, but Congress appropriated $8. 75 million for FY'97. The President has requested a funding level of $11 million for FY'98.
  
|
