She is the author of the book "Unbought and Unbossed," published in 1970, and "The Good Fight," in 1973.

Mrs. Chisholm serves with distinction on the House Rules Committee, where many important decisions are made affecting vital legislation.

Mrs. Chisholm, we are delighted to welcome you to the committee and to accept your testimony and your comments.

STATEMENT
RESENTATIVE

YORK

OF

HON. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, A REPIN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and express my views concerning H.R. 13343.

Throughout my nearly 10-year tenure in Congress, I have been actively involved in a great variety of education matters and have served as a member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Usually, I am delighted to come before the various congressional committees to share my views on education legislation and policy. Today, however, unlike most of my previous appearances, I am deeply disturbed by the bill now under consideration by this committee which would seek to create a separate Department of Education.

Perhaps out of concern for protecting their own opportunities for career advancement under such a new Department, few who possess the knowledge and experience in assessing the role of educational agencies or the administration of educational policy have decided to speak out forthrightly regarding the wisdom of the proposal on substantive grounds. Nevertheless, I intend to forcefully and vociferously voice my opposition to the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Education.

I believe there are many compelling arguments that support opposition to such a proposal; however, I must emphasize here today that chief among my concerns is the proposed Department's obvious inability to insure equal educational opportunity for all Americans through effective and efficient enforcement of the civil rights laws passed by Congress.

I am also seriously troubled by provisions in H.R. 13343 mandating transfer to a newly created Department of Education of child nutrition programs and all services related to the education of Indians, Alaskan natives and Aleuts currently administered by the Department of Interior.

Before briefly discussing my position with regard to these serious deficiencies in the bill, I would like to call the committee's attention to the peculiar history of this proposal and the administration's commitment to establish an executive-level Department of Education. Some would have us believe that this proposal was developed to enable the Federal Government to improve coordination of its education activities as is stated in section 102 of H.R. 13343.

Others have suggested that the untested Department would provide a base for national leadership which would increase the visibility and attention given to educational needs. Still others have referred to the promotion of an effective partnership among the

various levels of Government, institutions and individuals involved in the delivery of educational services as a motivating factor for establishment of the Department.

Of course, I am aware that several of my distinguished colleagues in both the House and Senate have for many years advocated creation of a Federal Education Department. However, the too little understood political genesis of this administration's commitment to creation of a new Department of Education bears careful and objective scrutiny.

In July 1976, President Carter, then a candidate for the executive office, addressed teachers attending the National Education Association convention. Mr. Carter noted in his remarks that while he was generally opposed to "proliferation of Federal agencies," he would, if elected, create a separate Department of Education to provide "a stronger voice," at the Federal level.

And, as we all know, Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to note that NEA responded in kind to Mr. Carter by presenting him with the organization's first and only endorsement of a Presidential candidate. While others may choose to debate this issue in terms of the lofty and admirable ideals supposedly associated with creation of the education department, I find it extremely difficult to disassociate formation of this department from its onerous political origins.

As long as I am distinguishing between the illusions or symbolism associated with this Department and political reality, I should emphasize that some of us have been led to believe that the administration's recommendations about which agencies to raid for purposes of inclusion of Federal education programs in this Department have been made according to some well-thought-out, coherent, management and enforcement criteria. The naked truth of the matter is that in many instances these recommendations for transferral of certain programs were made based upon the perceived political muscle of various special interest groups and their congressional supporters. For example, groups with strong political power such as the Head Start lobby, appropriately maneuvered themselves out of the grasp of the supporters of the separate department, while other programs like the Department of Interior's BIA schools are scheduled to be swooped up into this new structure. Of course, Mr. Chairman, you and I agree that the proposed Department should not administer the Head Start programs.

I have noted that backers of the bill establishing a Department of Education have pointed to management difficulties at the Federal level and fragmentation of complex, federally-financed education programs. But the legislation pending before this committee offers no real solution to these problems. For example, with 164 programs, a proposed fiscal 1979 budget of $17.5 billion and a staff of 23,325 persons, the new education department would have more money than seven other Federal departments and more staff than the State Department, the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Yet a range of youth service and training programs would still remain scattered throughout the Federal Government. Moreover, this massive bureaucratic megastructure will provide a persuasive voice for increased congressional appropriations for the new Department-a

33-567 - 78 - 25

result that appears to undercut the proponent's arguments about more effective management of Federal resources.

There is yet another important reason for minorities to be especially fearful of this desire to create a Federal Department of Education. As has been eloquently stated by my friends from the AFL-CIO who testified before this committee on June 31, 1978 in opposition to this measure, the American labor movement has long demonstrated a commitment to the quality of public education. This vigorous support for equal educational opportunity and social justice was a driving moral and political force behind passage of much of the civil rights legislation designed to prohibit discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

Clearly, labor groups have carefully constructed coalitions around major national issues such as poverty, equal access to educational opportunities, as well as welfare and health assistance. Now, to thoughtlessly destroy these coalitions and distract attention from more critical education programs such as rising school violence and vandalism, and the problems caused by shortages of financial resources in the neediest school systems in order to achieve the dubious goal of formation of a separate department appears a little foolhardy.

As Members of Congress, we must also take note of the impact the reorganization of HEW and Federal education programs would probably have on the existing committee structure in the House of Representatives. Although my distinguished colleague, Chairman Perkins from the Education and Labor Committee, has denied the likelihood of a committee division, others may decide to spearhead a drive to divide this committee. Labor groups, mindful of this concern, opposed an effort to split the House Education and Labor Committee in 1974. This observation has also greatly influenced my opposition to H.R. 13343, the core of my opposition now, Office of Civil Rights.

According to section 102 of H.R. 13343, a major purpose of the executive department will be to continue to strengthen the Federal commitment to insuring equal educational opportunities. The guarantee of enforcement of Federal constitutional protections and of equality of opportunity for traditionally-excluded black and brown children must receive the highest priority in resources and attention.

There is strong evidence to suggest that State and local agencies may become more unwilling and more unable to devote their own energies and resources to this task-you are witnessing now the Proposition 13 mania apparently sweeping the country. Now more than ever, the Nation's governmental apparatus must be fully applied against the widespread practices of racism and sexism still so pervasive in this country's educational systems.

H.R. 13343 does provide for the transfer of HEW's educationrelated civil rights responsibilities to the new Department. However, efforts over the past years to secure compliance with Federal nondiscrimination laws prohibiting bias based on race, sex or handicapped have taught all of us several important lessons.

Our failure to effectively enforce these Federal statutes has illustrated the absolute necessity of building into the organizational structure independence-complete, total independence-for the

Office of Civil Rights-the law enforcement agency of the proposed executive education department. But legislative provisions designed to provide the element of independence essential to the forceful and objective enforcement of civil rights laws are conspicuously absent from H.R. 13343.

This deliberate oversight by the administration and the congressional committees which have reviewed the legislation creating the Department has not escaped my attention and the attention of the voting constituency I represent. I will remain steadfast in my opposition to this bill so long as the bill contains inadequate mechanisms to guarantee compliance with the Federal law.

Now, what am I talking about? The administration and the congressional committees are well aware of the minimum protections which must be incorporated into H.R. 13343 to insure meaningful enforcement of civil rights laws by Department officials. For instance, important civil rights coalitions, including the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, the Chicano Education Project, and the Education Coalition, which includes the Children Defense Fund and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, have presented several recommendations for reasonable mechanisms that will enhance enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws.

However, the administration's major concession on these organizational arrangements involved an acknowledgment that the Director of OCR-the Office of Civil Rights-must be assigned a highlevel position within the new Department. Mr. Chairman, and my fellow colleagues, those of us that are concerned about protecting the civil rights of our children are not so politically naive that we believe that just this status alone-without more substantive assurances included in the legislation-will achieve our goal of full compliance with the law.

There are several gaping deficiencies related to civil rights enforcement which are appropriate for resolution within the context of the bill before the committee and should have been addressed. Let me briefly summarize these defects.

Common sense and certainly the agency's recent history dictate that the Office for Civil Rights must be adequately staffed to carry out its responsibilities. Accordingly, all legal staff at both the national and regional levels must be placed under the direct control of the Office of Civil Rights Director, especially since these staff salaries are paid out of the agency's budget.

The OCR Director must be capable of marshaling the necessary resources to monitor and enforce the Federal law. Staff shortages are certain to cripple the agency's ability to carry out its legal mandate. For this reason, H.R. 13343 should have addressed this issue.

Another obvious defect I have identified in many civil rights compliance procedures involves the inconsistent and often conflicting administrative discretion possessed by agency officials responsible for enforcement of statutory and regulatory requirements.

Section 208(b) of your bill, Mr. Chairman, directs the secretary of the new Department to delegate enforcement of civil rights laws to the OCR Director. Under procedures currently in effect, fund deferral, ultimate termination of grant awards and other enforcement

sanctions are, however, subject to the secretary's reviewing authority.

To insure the total objectivity of the secretary as the "final trier of fact" in such matters, I expected that H.R. 13343 would also prohibit the secretary from participation in the administrative proceedings leading up to the final review phase. Surprisingly, the bill as drafted does not contain this most fundamental provision to guarantee the secretary's impartiality. I urge the committee to consider this mechanism to assure even-handed treatment of all school districts participating in this administrative process.

Adequate data is a central ingredient in any successful civil rights enforcement effort. But nothing in the proposed legislation before the committee may be interpreted to guarantee the timely acquisition of information necessary to insure the complete and uniform enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws.

By asserting coordination or reduction in paperwork as the legitimate objective, Department officials could severely curtail OČR's data collection capacity. Therefore, OCR's authority to appeal such denials by the secretary or other agencies directly to the Office of Management and Budget must be clearly restated in H.R. 13343. Finally, I believe that an independent Director of OCR must be given clear statutory authority to bring before Congress circumstances involving budget reductions which threaten to hamper the agency's ability to adequately and effectively carry out compliance activities.

Now, the transfer of Indian education programs. Until 1975, Indians from remote tribal lands knew very little about the Federal funding of education programs. As a result of Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Indians were able to develop control over their own education programs. This landmark piece of legislation, enacted in January of 1975, established a program of assistance to upgrade Indian education and gave Indians the right to control their own educational activities.

Indian opposition to the transfer of their education programs from the Department of Interior to the new Department of Education points to the potential problems which can impact upon the ability of the Federal Government to meet the unique needs of Indian children.

The full ramifications of a transfer, I feel, have not been carefully examined. During the Ninth Annual Convention of the National Indian Education Association in November of last year, a White House official stated that Indian programs would not be included in the reorganization. Obviously, the administration's position has changed on this issue.

My distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Representative Al Quie, expressed serious reservations about this transfer unless certain provisions were included in the legislation. In his July 20 testimony before this subcommittee, Representative Quie warned against decisions made without consulting "the opinions of all Indian groups." Yet, the concerns of Indian tribal governments have virtually been ignored.

Indians have been engaged in a tremendously prolonged struggle to achieve the same level of education as non-Indians. I am person