U.S. Commission on Civil Rights


Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond


Chapter 4

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice


The Civil Rights Division (CRD) of the U.S. Department of Justice has grown enormously since its creation in 1957. Although its initial focus was on voting and post-Civil War criminal statutes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] and more recent laws and executive orders have greatly expanded its authority. The Civil Rights Division has 10 subject-matter sections, an Office of Redress Administration, and an Administrative Management Section. The 10 units are the Appellate Section, the Coordination and Review Section, the Civil Rights Prosecution Section, the Educational Opportunities Section, the Employment Litigation Section, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, the Special Litigation Section, the Disability Rights Section, the Voting Rights Section, and the Office of Special Counsel.

ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRD was given the authority to receive, investigate, and litigate complaints of discrimination in places of public accommodation, schools and colleges, public facilities owned by state or local governments, programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance, and places of employment. The Division's units enforce civil rights laws in the following areas:

Violations of the federal Constitution and federal statutes created in the days immediately following the Civil War are also within the Division's jurisdiction.[20] In addition, Congress has included criminal provisions in some of its modern civil rights legislation containing largely civil remedies. Under these statutes protecting a variety of federal rights (e.g., access to housing, voting, employment, education, public accommodations, and state-owned facilities), the Division may receive, investigate, and prosecute allegations of criminal violations.[21] CRD also prosecutes persons engaged in slavery or involuntary servitude.[22] Recently, most of the latter cases have involved migrant or undocumented workers and homeless persons.

The Special Litigation Section enforces the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act,[23] which authorizes the Division to institute civil actions to remedy violations of federal rights of persons at certain state or local residential institutions.[24] Under the act, coverage includes residences for the developmentally disabled, juvenile facilities, nursing homes, and correctional facilities, such as prisons and jails.[25] The federal rights protected at covered institutions include the quality of care, living conditions (e.g., adequacy of food, clothing, and shelter), recreational facilities, medical treatment, supervision, training programs, and institutional violence against residents. The Section also enforces Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[26] the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act,[27] and Section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,[28] and conducts Title II complaint investigations under the ADA.

In 1988, the Division established the Office of Redress Administration after passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.[29] Under this act, the Attorney General was assigned responsibility for providing payments to eligible individuals of Japanese ancestry who were evacuated, relocated, or interned during World War II.

COORDINATION RESPONSIBILITIES

The Division's Coordination and Review Section is responsible for coordinating the civil rights enforcement activities of other federal agencies. This authority derives both from statute and from Executive Order 12250 of 1980.[30] The Section performs coordination duties under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.[31] Among other things, the Division was given the authority to develop and assist other agencies in developing guidelines and regulations for civil rights enforcement; aid other agencies in meeting their responsibilities under antidiscrimination directives; and evaluate regularly the civil rights laws and regulations with the goal of improving enforcement.[32] The executive order imposes corresponding duties on the other federal agencies to cooperate with the Attorney General and thus the Division in meeting its responsibilities under the order.[33]

BUDGET ANALYSIS

Budgets

FY 1994 to FY 1998. Between FY 1994 and FY 1998, the CRD budget requests fluctuated from year to year while Congressional appropriations for the Division remained relatively stable (see table 4.1). In addition, Congressional appropriations remained below the President's budget request during that time.

Although the $71.9 million was requested for CRD in FY 1995, Congress approved only $62.6 million (see table 4.1). That amount represented a 4 percent increase over the FY 1994 appropriation. In FY 1996, Congress again increased CRD's budget by $2 million in actual dollars, yet in terms of real spending power, CRD's budget actually decreased (see table 4.2). In real dollars, the budget provided by Congress in FY 1997 was again lower than the previous year s, and 2.3 percent lower than the Division's FY 1994 appropriation. Further, the FY 1998 budget appropriation equaled the FY 1994 appropriation in real dollars (see figure 4.1). This relatively flat pattern of appropriations prior to FY 1999 is alarming considering that, in 1995, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted that the Civil Rights Division's budget appropriations had increased substantially between FY 1981 and FY 1993.[34]

FY 1999 to FY 2001. Since FY 1999, the President's requests for CRD funding have increased by more than $10 million each year. In both real and actual dollars, CRD's FY 1999 budget was considerably higher than the budget appropriations between FY 1994 and FY 1998 (see tables 4.1 and 4.2). However, more than $8 million of the FY 1999 budget was reprogrammed for the administration of Y2K modifications and Japanese redress payments, and thus, did not go toward Division enforcement.

The FY 2000 request was the highest request made during the entire period between FY 1994 and FY 2000. Correspondingly, the FY 2000 appropriation was the highest appropriation during the period. Nonetheless, funding for CRD is insufficient. In July 2000, then Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee stated that the FY 2000 budget increase has not made up for the fact that for many years, the Civil Rights Division has basically been running on empty. [35]


TABLE 4.1
DOJ/CRD Funding History
(in actual dollars)

Fiscal year

President s request

Congressional* appropriation*

1994

$59,000,000 

$59,956,000*

1995

71,895,000

62,602,000*

1996

65,304,000

64,546,000*

1997

69,468,000

62,419,000*

1998

67,477,000

64,689,000*

1999

71,594,000

77,267,000*

2000

82,200,000

82,150,000*

2001

97,922,000

92,000,000*

*This budget authority reflects the 1999 effect of the Sept. 14, 1999, reprogramming (Y2K transfer of 3,805,000 and 4,225,000 Japan redress payments).

Note: Information for the FY 1994 request reflects data provided by OMB. OMB interview, attachment.

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.) Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, fax, Dec. 21, 2000.


TABLE 4.2
DOJ/CRD Funding History (in millions of constant 1994 dollars)

Fiscal year

President s request

Congressional appropriation

1994

$59.0

$60.0

1995

72.3

61.2

1996

62.4

59.8

1997

65.2

58.6

1998

62.6

60.0

1999

65.3

70.5

2000

73.3

73.2

2001

85.4

80.2

Note: Estimates based on table 4.1.


FIGURE 4.1
DOJ/CRD Funding History  (in constant 1994 dollars)

Note: Estimates based on table 4.1.


Staffing and Workload

Between FY 1994 and FY 1999, staffing levels at the Civil Rights Division increased by 21 FTEs (see table 4.3). At the same time, the Division's enforcement responsibilities have expanded significantly. In FY 1996, the Division experienced a reduction in base level funding, which made it unfeasible to provide funds for required payments such as pay raises and inflationary costs. [36] There was no change in staffing levels between FY 1995 and FY 1996 (see figure 4.2). In FY 1997, the number of CRD staff persons decreased by six. With an increase in funding in FY 1999, the Division increased its staff by 16 FTEs.


TABLE 4.3
CRD Staffing History

 

 

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

568

1995

579

1996

579

1997

573

1998

573

1999

589

 

 

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


FIGURE 4.2
DOJ/CRD Staffing History

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program or these years.)


Disability Rights Enforcement

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act significantly expanded the responsibilities of the Division, affecting workloads of the Appellate Section, the Educational Opportunities Section, the Employment Section, the Special Litigation Section, as well as the Disability Rights Section. In 1995, all disability-related coordination and enforcement responsibilities were transferred from the Coordination and Review Section into the newly established Disability Rights Section (DRS). The activities of the Disability Rights Section affect six million businesses and nonprofit organizations, more than 100 federal agencies, and more than 50 million people with disabilities.[37]

In FY 1992, the Coordination and Review Section, which handled disability-associated enforcement at that time, received 575 ADA complaints and initiated investigations in 301 of those.[38] Since then, the number of investigations initiated has increased (see table 4.5), yet remains low in proportion to the number of complaints received. In FY 1999, DRS received approximately 10,878 complaints and began only 928 investigations.[39]

Meanwhile, the number of pending cases increased between FY 1994 and FY 1995 (see table 4.5). Although staff levels for DRS rose during this period (see table 4.4), the National Council on Disability stated in June 2000 that the Disability Rights Section had insufficient numbers of staff members to fully perform the section's responsibilities. [40] Between FY 1996 and FY 1998, DRS experienced no increase in staff levels (see table 4.4). By FY 1999, the Section was understaffed, and while facing increasing workloads, found it increasingly difficult to sustain a nationwide litigation program. Although the Disability Rights Section requested an increase of six FTEs for that year, it received only four additional FTEs.[41]

According to the CRD FY 1999 budget submission, although the number of cases filed annually by the Disability Rights Section increased between FY 1994 and FY 1999, the Section still files too few cases in court.[42] According to CRD, litigation is resource intensive, yet it is an essential tool for credible and efficient enforcement. [43] To effectively meet the needs of people with disabilities, the Disability Rights Section needs staffing and budget enhancements. Thus, the FY 2001 budget request seeks an additional 12 FTEs.[44]


TABLE 4.4
Disability Rights Section Staffing History

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

48

1995

66

1996

69

1997

69

1998

69

1999

73

 

 

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


TABLE 4.5
Disability Rights Section Workload History

Fiscal year

Cases filed

Cases pending

Investigations initiated

Investigations pending

1994

692

892

1995

12

12

2,444

863

1996

29

12

999

2,888

1997

28

22

805

3,017

1998

28

50

922

2,707

1999

35

66

928

2,046

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Performance Measurement Table: Presented by Decision Unit, Disability Rights Section 1997 2000. (Data for 1994 found in FY 1996 Budget Submission under Public Access Section.)


Coordination and Review

In August 1992, 40 FTEs were reprogrammed from the Coordination and Review Section (CORS), to establish the Public Access Section (now known as the Disability Rights Section), thus severely reducing the number of CORS staff.[45] In 1996, the Commission stated that CORS was without the staff necessary to conduct an effective and comprehensive Title VI coordination and enforcement program. [46] Unfortunately, the number of CORS staff persons has continued to decline (see table 4.6). FTE levels for CORS decreased 40 percent between FY 1994 and FY 1999. As a result, the number of complaints per investigator has risen from 2 in FY 1995 to 31 in FY 1999.


TABLE 4.6
Coordination and Review Section Staffing History 

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

32

1995

21

1996

22

1997

21

1998

19

1999

19

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


Voting Rights Enforcement

Over the past decade, the enforcement duties of the Voting Rights Section have expanded. After the 1990 census, the workload for the Section increased. The Section received 5,445 redistricting submissions after the 1990 census, compared with only 2,931 such requests following the 1980 census.[47] The Section is still resolving conflicts over redistricting plans in the wake of the 1990 census,[48] and the Voting Rights Section predicts a dramatic increase in reviews of redistricting plans after the release of the 2000 census.[49] Past experience has illustrated that an influx of redistricting reviews is staff intensive and reduces the amount of voting rights litigation.[50]

The work of the Voting Rights Section continues to grow as a result of the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992,[51] which extended and expanded the Voting Rights Act to increase language minority coverage, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993,[52] which improved access to voter registration. Supreme Court rulings in such cases as Shaw v. Reno[53] and Miller v. Johnson[54] have added to the Section's responsibilities by increasing the burden for showing that there is a compelling justification for creating majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act.[55] Such decisions added to the Section's work as it became involved in defending the constitutionality of redistricting plans from several states.

Although defense of disputed majority-minority districts is an essential responsibility of the Voting Rights Section, it is equally essential for the Section to focus on cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[56] Unfortunately, it is cost intensive for the Voting Rights Section to conduct such lawsuits.[57] In FY 1994, the Voting Rights Section filed a total of 27 cases, 5 of which were filed under Section 2.[58] By FY 1998, the Voting Rights Section filed only 4 cases, none of which were Section 2 cases.[59]

In the face of these overwhelming workload obstacles, the Voting Rights Section experienced a decrease in staffing between FY 1994 and FY 1999 (see table 4.7). The Voting Rights Section plays an essential role in protecting one of the foundations of our democracy the right to vote. Therefore, CRD requested an increase of six FTEs for the Voting Rights Section for FY 2001.


TABLE 4.7
Voting Rights Section Staffing History

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

88

1995

86

1996

86

1997

86

1998

85

1999

86

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


Civil Rights Prosecution

CRD's work relating to the prosecution of civil rights violations was enlarged in 1991 with the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act,[60] which has heightened attention to the incidence of hate crimes under its reporting provisions. The Division also was given responsibility for prosecuting cases under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994.[61] CRD's duties were further increased as a result of the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which has resulted in a number of prosecutions for arson and desecration. As a result of these new laws, the workload of the Civil Rights Prosecution Section has increased substantially since FY 1994 (see table 4.9). The Section received 45 percent more complaints in FY 1999 than it did in FY 1994.

In addition, civil rights prosecutions involving official misconduct by law enforcement officers have risen since FY 1994. In FY 1998, the Civil Rights Prosecution Section charged a record number of law enforcement officers with criminal civil rights violations. Although the Section filed 10 more cases in FY 1999 than in the previous year, fewer enforcement officers were charged as defendants. This is a result of inadequate resources available for official misconduct cases, essentially all of which require extensive and time consuming investigative efforts on the part of both lawyers and investigators. [62]

Between FY 1994 and FY 1997, the number of FTEs in the Civil Rights Prosecution Section remained relatively stable (see table 4.8). The Section experienced no increase in staffing until FY 1998. Meanwhile, between FY 1994 and FY 1998, the Section's number of pending matters increased by 35 percent (see table 4.9). The CRD budget request included an increase of 10 FTEs for the Civil Rights Prosecution Section in FY 2000 and an increase of 4 FTEs in FY 2001.[63]


TABLE 4.8
Civil Rights Prosecution Section Staffing History

 

 

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

49

1995

47

1996

47

1997

47

1998

54

1999

61

 

 

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


TABLE 4.9
Civil Rights Prosecution Section Workload History

Fiscal year

Complaints received

Matters investigated

Pending matters

1994

8,342

2,633

1,936

1995

8,864

2,370

1,806

1996

11,721

2,619

2,227

1997

10,891

2,753

2,613

1998

12,188

2,955

2,617

1999

12,132

2,547

2,680

Source: Performance Measurement Table: Presented by Decision Unit, Civil Rights Prosecution Section, 1994 2000.


Fair Housing Enforcement

Another substantial increase in CRD's enforcement responsibilities occurred with passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.[64] This act created a new administrative enforcement mechanism, which requires CRD to initiate litigation in two situations: (1) when a party to a HUD complaint elects to have the case tried in federal court as opposed to the HUD administrative process; and (2) to seek prompt judicial relief when necessary while HUD completes its investigation and disposition of a complaint.[65] In 1995, the Commission stated that these changes to the Fair Housing Act have increased both the number and complexity of cases in litigation . . . thus reducing the [CRD s] capacity to bring traditional pattern and practice cases. [66]

In 1992, two new initiatives under the Fair Housing Amendments Act were announced. The first provided for the creation and implementation of a new fair housing testing program. The second initiative directed CRD to take the lead in the investigation of discrimination in home mortgage loans.[67] Those initiatives significantly increased the number of pattern and practice suits filed by the Section. For example, the Housing Section filed 63 percent more HUD election cases in FY 1994 than it had in FY 1993.[68] Even though election cases had substantially increased, pattern and practice cases also have increased as a result of the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

However, since 1994, the number of election case filings has significantly dropped year by year. In FY 1997, the Housing Section filed only 23 election cases. Still, in the same year the Section filed only 14 pattern and practice cases.[69] Even though the Housing Section filed 85 percent more election cases in FY 1994 than in FY 1997, the number of pattern and practice cases filed in FY 1997 was 25 cases below the FY 1994 figure. In FY 1999, the number of pattern and practice cases that the Housing Section filed increased slightly to 19, but was still dramatically below the FY 1994 figure. Meanwhile, the Section filed only 24 election cases in FY 1999.[70] Because of their broad impact, pattern and practice cases are the highest priority of the Section and most important that it brings. [71]

At a time when its nondiscretionary caseload is decreasing, the Housing Section should be able to increase its discretionary caseload. Yet, the Housing Section's staff level has hindered its ability to conduct discretionary cases even with a decreased workload.[72] In fact, between FY 1995 and FY 1999, FTE levels at the Housing Section decreased significantly from 96 FTEs to 77 FTEs, a 19.7 percent reduction.


TABLE 4.10
Housing Section Staffing History

 

 

Fiscal year

FTE level

1994

89

1995

96

1996

95

1997

93

1998

86

1999

77

 

Source: DOJ/CRD, Congressional Budget Submissions, Salaries and Expenses, FY 1994 2001. (For individual sections, also see Summary Resources by each program for these years.)


Summary

The Civil Rights Division is requesting an FTE level of 730 for FY 2001. This is an increase of 141 FTEs over the FY 1999 staff level.[73] With expanded responsibilities and increased workloads, CRD is in need of these requested staffing enhancements if it is to fulfill its crucial role of enforcing, in a fair and uniform way, the nation's civil rights laws, as well as meeting the Division's mandate to proactively fight discrimination through pattern and practice suits.



[1] 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq. (1994).

[2] 42 U.S.C. 2000c 2000c-9 (1994).

[3] 20 U.S.C. 1681 1688 (1994).

[4] Pub. L. No. 93-380, Title II, 88 Stat. 484 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 1701 1758 (1994)).

[5] 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2000e-17 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[6] 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[7] Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k) (1994)).

[8] 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[9] 42 U.S.C. 3601 3619 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). In 1988, Congress officially designated Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 the Fair Housing Act, the name by which it was commonly known.

[10] 42 U.S.C. 3601 3619, 3631 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[11] Id.

[12] Pub. L. No. 93-495, 88 Stat. 1521 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1691 1691c (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)).

[13] 42 U.S.C. 1973 1973bb-1 (1994).

[14] Pub. L. No. 98-435, 98 Stat. 1678 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973ee 1973ee-6 (1994)).

[15] Pub. L. No. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973ff 1973ff-6 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)).

[16] Pub. L. No. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1 1973gg-10 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)).

[17] 42 U.S.C. 1973j(d), 1973aa-2 (1994).

[18] 42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(2) (1994).

[19] 8 U.S.C. 1324b (1994).

[20] 18 U.S.C. 479, 1503 (1994).

[21] E.g., 18 U.S.C. 245 (1994) (covers a variety of protected minority rights); 42 U.S.C. 1973j(a) (c) (1994) (certain voting rights involving race or color); 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-3 (1994) (voting rights of language minorities); 42 U.S.C. 1973bb(b) (1994) (right of 18-year-olds to vote); and 42 U.S.C. 3631 (1994) (housing).

[22] 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 (1994).

[23] 42 U.S.C. 1997 1997j (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[24] 42 U.S.C. 1997a(a) (1994).

[25] Id. 1997(1).

[26] 42 U.S.C. 2000b et seq. (1994).

[27] Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694 (codified at 18 U.S.C. 248 (1994)).

[28] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 14141 (1994)).

[29] 50 U.S.C. app. 1589b et seq. (1994).

[30] Exec. Order No. 12,250, 3 C.F.R. 298 (1981), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 note (1994).

[31] 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 ( 1-201(c)) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). CRS formerly performed coordination duties under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A March 1995 reorganization transferred this responsibility to the Disability Rights Section. USCCR, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, June 1995, p. 26 (hereafter cited as USCCR, 1995 Budget Report).

[32] 42 U.S.C. 1-202 1-207.

[33] Id. 1-401.

[34] USCCR, 1995 Budget Report, p. 26.

[35] U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Oversight Hearing on the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, July 12, 2000, p. 129 (hereafter cited as 2000 DOJ Oversight Hearing).

[36] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (DOJ/CRD), Salaries and Expenses FY 1997, p. 77 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, FY 1997 Budget).

[37] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission, p. 54 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget).

[38] DOJ/CRD, Salaries and Expenses FY 1994, p. 19.

[39] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 96.

[40] National Council on Disability, Promises To Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, June 2000, p. 40.

[41] DOJ/CRD, FY 1999 Congressional Budget Submission, pp. 48 49.

[42] Ibid., p. 134.

[43] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 54.

[44] Ibid., p. 56.

[45] USCCR, 1995 Budget Report, p. 33.

[46] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 139.

[47] DOJ/CRD, Salaries and Expenses FY 1992, p. 20.

[48] Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, The Test of Our Progress, 1999, p. 109.

[49] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 33.

[50] Ibid., p. 34.

[51] 42 U.S.C. 1971 note, 1973aa-1a (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[52] 42 U.S.C. 1973gg 10 (1994). The Voting Section is responsible for the Attorney General's civil enforcement of the Voting Rights Language Assistance Act under 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-9(a) (1994).

[53] 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

[54] 515 U.S. 906 (1995).

[55] Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, The Test of Our Progress, pp. 109 10.

[56] Ibid., p. 111.

[57] 2000 DOJ Oversight Hearing, p. 121.

[58] DOJ/CRD, FY 1997 Budget, p. 44.

[59] DOJ/CRD, FY 2000 Budget, p. 82.

[60] Pub. L. No. 101-275, 104 Stat. 140 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 534 note (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)).

[61] 18 U.S.C. 248 (1994).

[62] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, pp. 21 22.

[63] DOJ/CRD, FY 2000 Budget, p. 16; DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 20.

[64] 42 U.S.C. 3601 3619, 3631 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).

[65] USCCR, 1995 Budget Report, p. 30.

[66] Ibid., p. 31.

[67] Ibid., p. 32.

[68] DOJ/CRD, FY 1997 Budget, p. 56.

[69] DOJ/CRD, FY 2000 Budget, p. 94.

[70] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 88.

[71] Ibid., p. 46.

[72] Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, The Test of Our Progress, p. 238.

[73] DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget, p. 7.