the Commission could have been faced with a rather difficult situation.

In the area of international claims, the Commission's recently completed programs against the Government of Cuba and the People's Republic of China demand considerable attention on a continuing basis. In these programs, no funds have been made available for the payment of awards validated by the Commission.

There are some 6,300 claimants whose losses have been valued by

the Commission in excess of $2 billion. These claimants have an intense interest in any reported or rumored activity between the United States and the Governments of China and Cuba that suggests the possibility of any agreement that would result in payment. Due to recent references of the Press to the possibility of resumed diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba and the possibility of a claims settlement with China, the Commission has been, and expects to be, involved in a high volume of activity with respect to these particular programs.

Payments to Vietnam Prisoners of War

and

Civilian Internee Claims

Until the Vietnam missing-in-action question is finally resolved, the Commission will have a continuing responsibility under the War

Claims Act.

As of this time, the Commission has granted awards to all former prisoners held during the Vietnam conflict who have been certified as having been in such a status.

As of March 1, 1977, the Commission had granted awards to 696 Vietnam Prisoners of War for $5,043,345; $226,832 to 40 Civilian Internees and $68,675 to 83 members of the crew of the USS Pueblo for a total of $5,338,852. The Commission still has a balance of $11,266,148 of the $16,565,000 appropriated in Fiscal Year 1973 for the payment of

these claims.

The Commission is of the understanding that there still remain 33 potential claimants among the 756 MIA's who are classified as POW's by

the Department of Defense. If upon a further review of the status of these cases, they are actually certified to the Commission as having been prisoners, it is anticipated that an additional $230,000 will be awarded to such claimants.

Rental Payments to General Services Administration

At the time of our appearance last year, a discussion took place relative to the Commission's payment to the General Services Administration for Standard Level User Charges.

During the current year, the Commission is functioning with 7,500 square feet of space at a total cost of $52,000. We have been advised by the General Services Administration that charges for the same space will be increased by $5,000 to $57,000 for Fiscal Year 1978.

Our request for Fiscal Year 1978 for this purpose is $66,000, an increase of $14,000 to cover the acquisition of a small amount of additional space, renovation of our present quarters to achieve more effective utilization and for the purpose of paying the increased rate.

Along with plans to redesign our present space, we will dispose of certain records no longer of permanent value and transfer other records to the Federal Records Center in order to make more space available for personnel.

In summary, the net result of our action in this regard will be to increase our space by slightly more than 5% to accommodate a nearly

doubled staff.

In conclusion, I would like to assure the Committee that the Commission will make every effort to gain maximum use of its resources

and that it will continue to carry out its assigned programs responsibly and timely.

Senator HOLLINGS. In the 1977 supplemental we were talking of claims in East Germany and we were trying to get some progress. I understand there could be some with respect to China. Are you all discussing these things now?

Mr. BELL. We are. We haven't had discussions in the State Department. It is their prerogative.

Senator HOLLINGS. I see. They handle that. You just hand out the payout? Is that once the agreement is made?

Mr. BELL. No, sir. We handle the adjudication. We examine and determine the amount of the awards and then certify to the State Department or the appropriate agency.

HIGHLIGHTS OF STATEMENT

Senator HOLLINGS. Tell me what you want to highlight.

Mr. BELL. Sir, as our statement points out, we are requesting $180,000 more over the current budget, which in turn is substantially less than what we requested in the past.

The major part of our request is to fund the new East German claims program. Then we also have, as we point out, the residual activities of the Commission.

Senator HOLLINGS. How long will the East German program take? Mr. BELL. Four years. Normally, Senator, each program by statute runs for 4 years.

GAO REPORT

Senator HOLLINGS. On April 6, GAO published a report entitled "Compensation Provided to American Claims Through Foreign Claims Settlement." Are you familiar with that report?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir, we are. As a matter of fact, we had been asked that question at a previous meeting last year in one of the Senate committees.

I can only say, Senator, it really doesn't affect our workload. Whether we award $1,000 or $1 million, it requires no greater effort on our part. But we are in favor of anything that would help make Government more efficient that will reduce the time that a claimant has to wait for his payment and reduces paperwork. I think this is what that recommendation is designed to do.

Senator HOLLINGS. Would there be any great saving in the initial payment being raised?

Mr. BELL. Frequently, Senator, there will be a maximum and maybe two subsequent payments. So it calls for both administrative and technical efforts on the part of the paying agency.

Senator HOLLINGS. What would be the effect on your administrative expenses if you raised that maximum?

Mr. BELL. None whatsoever as far as our agency is concerned.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. It would help the Treasury Department. Right now the first payment is up to $1,000. If we have, for example, a principal amount of $2,500, that would enable Treasury to pay that claim off completely and not go back and service that award again by a pro rata payment.

Senator HOLLINGS. Are you going to recommend the legislative change?

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir. We supported that at the time the East German legislation was going through the course of Congress. But the bill came up at the very end of the Congress. We didn't want to slow down the progress by the amendment which would force it to go to conference.

Senator HOLLINGS. Who handles that? Is that the Foreign Relations Committee?

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, and the International Relations Committee in the House. Mr. Bingham is chairman of our subcommittee.

Senator HOLLINGS. Good. We don't need anything further. We appreciate your coming this afternoon.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, sir.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

STATEMENT OF DR. M. OSKOUI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

Senator HOLLINGS. We have next Dr. M. Oskoui, associate professor, University of Pittsburgh. He would like to be heard.

Dr. Oskoul. It is a great pleasure to meet you, sir.

Senator HOLLINGS. Welcome to the committee. We would be glad to hear from you at this time.

Dr. OSKOUI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of this opportunity to appear before you. It is important that this committee be aware of EEOC shortcomings in accomplishing with its funding those worthy objectives which it has always promised in its budget justification.

I come to share with you and the committee an experience that is relevant to consideration of the budget appropriation for EEOC. I have been encouraged to come by others also who have experienced employment discrimination and retaliation at the University of Pittsburgh and who have sought corrective action through the EEOC, to no avail.

As a tenured associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh, I have had occasion to file charges of employment discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC against my employer. My subsequent experiences with EEOC since 1974, however, have led me to conclude that EEOC has not and does not today use its funds effectively to achieve objectives mandated in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to provide relief to individuals like myself and others similarly affected who are victims of discrimination and to eliminate discriminatory features of employment systems.

In my case, EEOC after investigation made a finding and determination my charges were true, but thereafter has failed utterly to take corrective or supportive actions and denied me legal support or any protection from further reprisal by my employer.

The deficit in the handling of my case by EEOC as in the handling of the cases of numbers of others similarly affected has resulted in the employer attitude of arrogance, that it can violate equal employment opportunity law with immunity and impunity.

I myself have concluded that unless the EEOC can be required to use its funds more effectively, this committee would be better advised to discontinue all funding of the EEOC.

There is a critical need for an alternative to the present EEOC in the Federal enforcement for equal employment opportunity in our country. As it is, the EEOC does considerable damage to complainants of discrimination by exposing them to further retaliation without protection and then not bringing all enforcement actions at its disposal into play.