Senator HARRIS. No further questions.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you.

Mr. Seidman, please.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD SEIDMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Mr. SEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement, and with your permission I will proceed.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify before this committee in support of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966, which the President transmitted to the Congress on February 10, 1966.

The reorganization plan would transfer the Community Relations Service, including the office of its Director, from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Justice, and would transfer the functions of the Service and of its Director to the Attorney General. The President's objectives in transmitting the reorganization plan can best be explained by relating the plan to prior Presidential action.

Over several years prior to 1964 a number of agencies and interagency committees, established either by law or Executive order, were given functions in the area of civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded both Federal responsibilities and the number of departments and agencies with major enforcement functions.

As efforts were made to implement the act, the need for improvement in executive branch organization and coordination became increasingly apparent. Accordingly, late in 1964 the President asked the newly elected Vice President to review the situation and make recommendations to him.

On February 5, 1965, pursuant to an interim report from the Vice President, the President issued Executive Order 11197, designed to strengthen Federal civil rights efforts and to improve interagency coordination. The order established the President's Council on Equal Opportunity, chaired by the Vice President, and, among other functions, gave the Council broad coordinating responsibilities.

It also directed the Council to recommend to the President such changes in administrative structure and relationships, including those for merger, combination, or elimination of agencies, committees, or other bodies, or duplicative authority within the Federal Establishment, as might be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the order and to coordinate the relevant activities of Federal departments and agencies. Under that directive the effort to develop long-range improvements, initiated earlier by the Vice President, was continued in consultation with the interested agencies.

The Vice President's memorandum transmitting to the President his final recommendations for changes in administrative structure was incorporated in a White House press release of September 24, 1965. To strengthen the operation and direction of civil rights programs and at the same time eliminate confusion and duplication, the Vice President recommended several reorganizations, which the President approved.

Insofar as possible, the reorganizations were accomplished promptly by Executive order.

On September 24, 1965, the President issued Executive Orders 11246 and 11247, which reorganized certain civil rights functions of executive agencies previously provided for by Executive order.

Executive Order 11246 abolished the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and transferred its coordinating responsibilities to the Secretary of Labor with respect to employment under Federal contracts and to the Civil Service Commission with respect to direct Federal employment.

Executive Order 11247 abolished the President's Council on Equal Opportunity and directed the Attorney General to assist Federal agencies in coordinating their enforcement efforts under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That title prohibits discrimination in any program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance. Over 20 Federal agencies provide such assistance and therefore have enforcement responsibilities under title VI.

I think this fact should be emphasized, because this problem has come up with respect to the role of the Department of Justice. Each of the Federal agencies which administer programs under title VI also have law enforcement responsibilities, and the actions which they may take under that section may have very significant impact on either State or local government or on individuals.

The President's objectives in issuing the orders were to simplify executive branch organization and eliminate duplication; to strengthen enforcement efforts, and to improve coordination of the civil rights activities of all Federal agencies. Each order eliminated an agency previously established by Executive order and placed its coordinating functions in a permanent agency which had related functions.

The reorganization plan before you would further the President's objectives by enabling the Attorney General to coordinate the activities of the Community Relations Service and activities of other Federal agencies. This authority would complement the coordinatingresponsibility with respect to title VI activities, assigned to the Attorney General under Executive Order 11247. Agency regulations giving effect to title VI have significant implications with respect to the conciliation activities of the Community Relations Service because they require agencies administering title VI to promote voluntary compliance with that title.

Although a troubled community typically has a broad range of interlocking civil rights problems, experience has shown that community disputes often are triggered by unrest in a specific area, such as school desegregation, rather than discriminatory practices in general.

When a community dispute threatens in the future some Federal agency, perhaps more than one agency, usually will have received complaints of unlawful discrimination under title VI with respect to the specific area at issue. An agency's regulations under that title would require the agency to investigate the situation, and where discrimination is found, to seek to achieve voluntary compliance. In such a situation we believe the need is obvious for close coordination between that agency and the Community Relations Service.

Under the reorganization plan the Attorney General, already responsible for Government-wide coordination under title VI, would

be able to provide for such coordination. Effective coordination in such situations will expedite the resolution of local problems and contribute greatly to effective administration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To the extent CRS participation is not required, its staff will be freed for action in other situations not susceptible of resolution under title VI.

The transfer of the Community Relations Service to Justice also will give the Attorney General additional and expert staff resources to assist him in assuring effective efforts to obtain voluntary compliance with all civil rights legislation. Such efforts, of course, will not always be successful, but I am sure the members of this committee will agree that the desirable rate of progress toward equal opportunity for all citizens cannot be achieved solely through the slow processes of court action. Progress must be made chiefly by mobilizing community leadership to act voluntarily in eliminating discriminatory practices and to build a climate of public opinion in support of civil rights.

This approach has brought significant progress in the past; it must be used to full advantage in the future-both to expedite progress and to avoid unnecessary and costly litigation.

In the area of civil rights, the Department of Justice, like State or local regulatory agencies in the civil rights field, has long sought to achieve voluntary compliance with those laws or parts of laws for which it has sole enforcement responsibility, as in the area of voting rights.

The recently authorized program of grants-in-aid to assist other governmental jurisdictions in strengthening their law enforcement efforts gives the Department a new responsibility under title VI in the sensitive area of police-community relations.

As the principal law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, however, the Attorney General's responsibility necessarily extends beyond those areas in which he has sole enforcement responsibility.

In the vast majority of cases the Department represents the Government in any court action, regardless of the agency in which the action originates, and he has a coordinating responsibility with respect to other court actions. This Government-wide responsibility of the Attorney General with respect to law enforcement generally was recognized by the President in directing him to assist other agencies in coordinating their enforcement actions under title VI.

A part of the Attorney General's responsibility is to assure appropriate effort to achieve voluntary compliance before legal enforcement actions are initiated. The transfer of the Community Relations Service to Justice will enable the Attorney General, through his broad knowledge of developments in the entire field of civil rights, to assure that the Community Relations Service has the opportunity to make its full contribution in resolving any civil rights problem before legal enforcement action is initiated and also that its energies will be spent on matters of greatest urgency.

Fears have been expressed that the reorganization plan would weaken the conciliation efforts of the Community Relations Service, because the plan would transfer the CRS to a law enforcement agency. We do not believe such fears to be justified. On the contrary, close coordination between conciliation and enforcement is essential. To be success

ful, mediation efforts must have a chance to resolve problems before legal enforcement actions are initiated or at any timely point during an enforcement proceeding. Untimely enforcement action could easily upset a promising effort to promote voluntary compliance. The placing of primary responsibility for both functions under the same Cabinet members will facilitate necessary coordination.

History at the Federal level does not support the view that efforts to promote voluntary compliance with a law cannot be successful if conducted by a law enforcement agency.

On the contrary, law enforcement agencies are expected, wherever possible, to resolve problems of noncompliance without resort to formal enforcement proceedings. Indeed, in this connection it should be borne in mind that most Federal agencies in one way or another are concerned with the enforcement of Federal laws.

As I pointed out before, under title VI, all agencies which administer grant programs or assistance programs have enforcement responsibilities. and indeed are required to seek voluntary compliance before proceeding with enforcement.

Court action is but one step in the law enforcement process.

In June 1965, the Community Relations Service issued a pamphlet for local communities entitled "How To Turn Talk Into Action: A Guide for an Effective Commission on Human Relations." In that pamphlet, the CRS endorsed the assignment of law enforcement powers to the Commission on Human Relations. Nearly every city or State which has enacted an ordinance or statute prohibiting discrimination and created a special agency to further compliance with the law has assigned both conciliation and enforcement functions to that agency. This reorganization plan would establish the same pattern in the Federal Government to the extent feasible in view of the character and complexity of the civil rights functions of the executive branch.

Few areas of Government activity involve such wide-ranging problems of interagency coordination as the effort to assure equal opportunity. As the Government's lawyer, the Attorney General is uniquely qualified to deal with these problems.

In terms of the discussion this morning, I do not think you can equate the Attorney General of the United States with a district attorney, who has much more limited functions, nor with the attorneys general in many States. The Attorney General of the United States combines within himself the functions of both a district attorney and a corporation counsel at the local level-he is the Government's lawyer.

He also has a much broader range of activities than most of the attornevs general in the States.

Indeed, his duties are inherently Government-wide in nature, and he is accustomed to view problems from the perspective of the Government as a whole.

The Bureau of the Budget believes that the transfers made by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966 will contribute immeasurably to the success of the entire civil rights program.

The reorganization plan will contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the way I have described, chiefly by assuring maximum utilization of all manpower available for conciliation in the area of civil rights. It is not feasible however, to identify immediate savings which will result from the reorganization plan.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, there are other questions here which have been gone into with the Attorney General, such as the extension of the functions of the Department to conciliation questions. I am not going beyond the purview of the civil rights law.

I notice this statement is very heavily tied to an additional way to bring about voluntary compliance with the law. I do not conceive the Community Relations Service is confined to that activity.

But I do have one question I would like to ask.

I draw your attention, Mr. Seidman, to the statement at the bottom of page 7:

Nearly every city or State which has enacted an ordinance or statute prohibiting discrimination and created a special agency for further compliance with the law has assigned both conciliation and enforcement functions to that agency.

I ask you to square that statement with what we have just heard as testimony, that the intergroup relations agencies in 32 States, with only 1 exception, New Jersey, and the intergroup relations agencies in 170 cities, are not under the tent of a prosecuting arm.

Just what did you mean by your statement?

Mr. SEIDMAN. The statistics, Senator Javits, which I have are that 85 cities have a local ordinance which prohibits discrimination, 65 of those cities have established special agencies to administer those laws, and 59 of the agencies established to administer those local laws to prohibit discrimination have both enforcement and conciliation functions.

Senator JAVITS. But that does not exclude the functions of the intergroup agency, which are independent, according to the previous witness.

Mr. SEIDMAN. That is correct. And I would like, Senator Javits, to respond to your previous comment, because the functions of the Community Relations Service, as I read the statute, do relate to the administration of Federal laws.

As I read under section 1002 it is to provide service to communities and persons

in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

So the functions of the Community Relations Service do relate to creating situations where you will obtain voluntary compliance with Federal laws and the Constitution.

Senator JAVITS. Will you also continue to read, sir?
Mr. SEIDMAN (reading).

The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever in its judgment peaceful relations among the citizens of the communities involved are threatened thereby. It may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of the appropriate State or local officials.

Senator JAVITS. That is also a function-peaceful relations?

Mr. SEIDMAN. Yes. But what I wanted to point out, the Community Relations Service is charged specifically with the function to assist in assuring compliance with Federal laws and the Constitution of the United States without formal enforcement actions.

Senator JAVITS. That is one function. The other functions do deal with peaceful relations; is that not true?

60-816-66--5