Senator KENNEDY. Well, that would certainly be my position as well. As a matter of fact, the Office of Policy Implementation has been the Office that has been developing the sex harassment guidelines, is that not so? Mr. SMITH. They evolved out of that Office, yes. But I must say that so many times in Government, it is the political appointees who are members on bipartisan commissions who make the final decisions. Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. SMITH. So, therefore, many of the questions that Senator Hatch has raised, we have discussed and argued back and forth as colleagues on the Commission. Through our processes, we arrive at a decision. Sometimes, a Commissioner may not be happy with the final rule, but sometimes after you weigh everything, you feel that this is the best way to go. Senator KENNEDY. I want to thank the Chair for being willing to yield, and I will be in and out during the course of the rest of the hearings. First of all, I commend the Commission for the issuance of the guidelines. There are a lot of activities that are being questioned now, but it seems to me that these guidelines, as a result of the process that was followed in developing them, are constructive and helpful and sound. And to the extent that you were involved in them and I know that you were-I think you are to be commended. Well, I have two questions. First, regarding the reduction in the budget, I imagine this is going to lengthen the amount of time that is necessary to get these matters resolved. Will this not be so? Mr. SMITH. In our testimony both before the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, we did outline that in terms of processing title VII charges, ADEA charges, and equal pay charges, there would be an enlargement of the charge resolution time. Senator KENNEDY. So, we are really talking about both businesses and labor unions that are going to be at risk, so to speak, for a longer period of time, where they are not getting a resolution of these cases. Mr. SMITH. I think that is a possibility. Senator KENNEDY. I think we ought to understand the impact of the budget cuts in terms of fairness and equity to individuals and to companies or corporations, or the unions, or whatever it may be. We are delaying this process and individuals are not getting these issues resolved, and I think we put the other organizations at risk. I think it is important that we understand that. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could incorporate, by reference, the testimony that was given with regard to the timeframe that will be necessary to resolve these cases with the reduced budget. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. [Reference follows, see below.]* [The reference information referred to follows:] *See report of the Senate Labor Committee and Human Resources (Minority Views), pp. 4344, March 1981; and testimony presented to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies by Hon. J. Clay Smith, Jr., Acting Chairman, EEOC, Apr. 8, 1981, pp. 13-16. Excerpts From Report of the Senate Committee On Labor and Human Resources On the Budget Proposed For Fiscal Year 1982] PRESENTING ITS VIEWS AND ESTIMATES PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT, PUBLIC LAW 93-344 together with MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON THE BUDGET PROPOSED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982 MARCH 1981 Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1981 MINORITY VIEWS INTRODUCTION Preparing a budget for the programs within this committee's jurisdiction during a time of grave economic difficulty is no easy task. The twin ravages of inflation and unemployment demand budgetary restraint. At the same time, however, the health, social service, employment, and education programs we authorize are primarily designed to assist the least well off to cope with the human problems caused by inflation and unemployment. Thus our budget recommendation must reflect a careful balance, paring programs where we can, retaining them when we must. Our path is guided by a shared commitment to achieve fairness in budget reductions, and to provide adequately for the neediest. We must not fight inflation through budget reductions that harm those most hurt by inflation-the poor and the disadvantaged. And we must not be shortsighted in our budget recommendations. Although substantial cuts in areas such as health care and education may have momentary appeal, the harm unwarranted cuts will do will affect a whole generation. Judged by these standards, the majority budget recommendations are wanting in a number of key areas. An analysis of our disagreements with their recommendations follows, along with our recommendation for the appropriate level of funding for each of the activities within this committee's jurisdiction. Taken together, our recommendations represent a savings of over $6 billion or 12 percent from what would be required to keep these programs at a constant level of service in the face of inflation, without any program growth. Our recommendations reflect a careful balancing of the needs of the economy with the genuine human needs of those served by these programs. We urge their adoption by the Budget Committee. (29) (43-44) 2. THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION The administration proposes $140 million. The fiscal year 1981 Carter estimate is $145 million. The fiscal year 1980 budget was $125 million. The committee recommends $116 million. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has responsibility to enforce title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (ADEA); the Equal Pay Act (EPA); and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. EEOC's primary task is to consider and act upon complaints filed under these statutes— prohibiting discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap, and affecting private, State and local, and Federal employment-through investigation, conciliation and negotiated settlement, and litigation, if necessary and appropriate. Under this statutorily required administrative process, EEOC has a cooperative contractual relationship with State and local antidiscrimination agencies, through which a sizeable number of complaints are processed. Most of the noted statutes also permit private litigation in court by complainants following EEOC's administrative processing. Under the committee's recommendation of $116 million the following results are estimated: A. Backlog reduction, which has been a significant recent accomplishment of EEOC, will be again delayed. The elimination of this backlog-complaints filed before 1979—would take until at least fiscal year 1984. B. The inventory on unresolved complaints filed since the beginning of fiscal year 1981 will increase in the following manner: i. Title VII-from 20,000 to over 41,000 by the end of fiscal year 1982; ii. ADEA-from 4,900 to 9,300 by the end of fiscal year 1982; and iii. EPA-from 1,600 to over 3,200 by the end of fiscal year 1982. C. The inventories on hearings and appeals which have not been conducted will grow from 2,600 hearings in the beginning of fiscal year 1981 to over 4,000 by the end of fiscal year 1982 and from 1,900 appeals in the beginning of fiscal year 1981 to over 3,200 by the end of fiscal year 1982. It is estimated that the $116 million figure recommended by the committee will force a reduction in EEOC staff to a level that is 25 percent below what can be maintained under the administration's figure of $140 million. The increases in complaint inventories will mean that employers and unions will have complaints pending against them for longer time periods, with far less likelihood of quick and inexpensive settlement, while individuals will be unable to obtain speedy resolution of their charges. Also, the severe staffing reductions will almost surely result in a decrease in litigation by the EEOC with settlements during the administrative process and more costly private litigation against employers and unions in court. We note that the administration is not, to the best of our knowledge, planning to seek any change in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADEA, the EPA, or section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. STATEMENT OF J. CLAY SMITH, JR., ACTING CHAIRMAN before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, of the SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS APRIL 8, 1981 THE Members of The Commission: Daniel E. Leach Armando M. Rodriguez |