from obtaining housing in these areas often are effectively excluded from access to better paying jobs.

They are also hindred in their efforts to obtain better education and increasingly are relegated to segregated and inferior schools. In establishing a right to nondiscriminatory access to housing, S. 3296 will also open the doors to equal economic and educational opportunity.

Although we support the major provisions of title IV, we believe the bill should be amended to make the remedies more effective. As presently written title IV relies exclusively upon the initiation of lawsuits by the aggrieved party or the Attorney General. Experience in the field of civil rights has shown that exclusive reliance upon individual lawsuits is not an effacious way of remedying widespread violations of Federal law. In the field of voting, Congress provided this type of remedy in 1957, 1960, and 1964 and ultimately conceded its failure by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishing nonjudicial remedies. The House has passed amendments to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to strengthen the administrative enforcement machinery of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggesting that in the employment area, too, there is a recognition that judicial remedies alone are inadequate. Our already overburdened courts, moreover, provide little hope for prompt enforcement, and the Attorney General's office already has major responsibility for suits in other important areas. Thus, we propose that Congress vest in a Federal agency administrative authority to investigate and make prompt determinations of fact in cases involving violations of this title, and to issue cease-and-desist orders enforceable in the courts.

We also believe that the bill should be amended to make more effective use of another sanction, the conditioning of Federal financial assistance upon action to afford equal housing opportunity.

Several years ago, the Commission examined in some detail the role of the Federal Government in relation to housing finance. We concluded then, and we believe it is equally true today, that "the Federal Government is the Atlas of the Nation's home finance community, supporting the entire structure with its resources, its prestige, and its blessings.' Through programs of FHA mortgage insurance and VA loan guarantees, the Federal Government insures private lending institutions against loss and facilitates the entire housing market. of January 1, 1966, the total outstanding FHA mortgage insurance was estimated at $47.6 billion and the outstanding principal balance of VA guaranteed loans was estimated at $30.4 billion. The Federal Government also grants charters and insures accounts of lending institutions that are responsible for a major portion of the Nation's home financing. As of January 1, 1966, these institutions held, in the aggregate, residential mortgage loans of over $170 billion. It has been estimated that the combination of federally underwritten loans and conventional loans made by federally supervised lending institutions accounts for more than 80 percent of all home loans. Surely this massive Federal involvement in the housing market should be brought into play in making equal housing opportunity a fact of American life.

To some extent, of course, the sanction of fund withdrawal is already provided by law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Execu

tive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing, issued by President Kennedy in 1962, both address themselves to preventing housing discrimination by means of the leverage of Federal assistance. Both title VI and the Executive order, however, are limited in their coverage. Title VI excludes FHA and VA insurance and guaranty programs from its ambit. The Executive order, while it covers new housing provided through FHA or VA assistance, does not deal meaningfully with housing provided under assistance agreements executed before the date of the order. Thus, for example, hundereds of thousands of multifamily units built prior to the order, but still assisted by FHA mortgage insurance, are not subject to any Federal requirement of nondiscrimination. The order, moreover, covers only an estimated 17 percent of the new housing starts. In recent years the FHA and VA share of the new housing market has been declining. Furthermore, neither title VI nor the Executive order relates at all to Federal assistance by way of Federal chartering or insurance of accounts in federally supervised lending institutions.

The Executive order has not had a significant impact even with respect to housing which it does cover. By administrative regulation, FHA has eliminated owner-occupied one- and two-family houses from coverage. FHA and VA have relied exclusively on complaints, undertaking no affirmative action to enforce the nondiscrimination requirement. Many cases become moot either because the Negro family involved cannot wait for a house pending conclusion of the administrative proceedings or because, owing to the lack of machinery for immediate relief, the house is sold. Furthermore, sanctions against builders have proved ineffective because they have been able to turn to conventional financing free of any nondiscrimination obligation. Title IV of this bill would correct the existing gaps in coverage by extending coverage to all housing, regardless of how it was financed. We believe this breadth of coverage should be supported by legislation requiring federally chartered or insured banks and savings and loan associations, as a condition of continued chartering or insurance, to follow nondiscrimination policies in mortgage lending and to include in loan agreements executed with builders a provision that the builder will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin in the sale or rental of the homes for which the financing is provided. Proposed legislation along these lines might appropriately be enacted by amending title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Finally, we think it important to recognize that even if this legislation is enacted and is effectively implemented, it will be of benefit primarily to those who have the means to afford middle income housing. Adequate housing within the reach of people with low incomes. is available only in limited quantity outside the central city. The problem is compounded by the unavailability of land for low income housing outside the central city and the refusal of suburban authorities to permit within their jurisdictions the construction of federally subsidized low income housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, if it is to make a contribution to solving the problems of our large cities, must address itself to the preparation of policy measures designed to provide better housing opportunities for citizens of all incomes throughout our metropolitan areas.

TITLE V: CRIMINAL SANCTIONS TO PROTECT FEDERAL RIGHTS

Finally, we must develop effective legislation and executive measures to remedy the intolerable condition, found in parts of the Deep South, of violence and intimidation which goes unpunished. Assuring that juries are selected in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner is one important requisite to deterring and punishing racial violence. But Federal criminal remedies also must be strengthened if this goal is to be accomplished. In November of 1965, the Commission completed a study of discrimination in southern law enforcement. It found that in county after county, the persons responsible for bombings, arson, beatings, and murder of Negroes, and whites assisting Negroes in asserting their rights, were not being brought to justice. The perpetrators of the triple murder in Neshoba County, Miss., during the summer of 1964, the Penn killing on a Georgia highway, and the killing of Jonathan Daniels in Lowndes County, and Rev. James Reeb in Selma, Ala., are still unpunished. Based on testimony at its Mississippi hearing, the Commission found that between September 1963 and September 1964, in and near Adams and Madison Counties, Miss., there had been multiple instances of bombing and arson of Negro homes and churches, and of whipping, shooting and even killing of Negroes. No one was brought to justice by local law enforcement officials in Adams County; two men pleaded no contest and received minimal fines in Madison County.

The Commission found, in effect, that the administration of justice has broken down in parts of the South. Investigations of incidents of violence by the responsible law enforcement officials were perfunctory or nonexistent. In some cases officials treated civil rights workers as suspects rather than the victims of the violence.

Since the time of the Commission's investigation, law enforcement has improved in some parts of the South. In many places, political and community leaders have spoken out clearly against violence and have directed law-enforcement officials to provide protection for people and ideas they do not like.

But racial violence continues. On January 11, 1966, Vernon Dahmer, a Negro leader who had encouraged and assisted Negroes to pay their poll taxes and register to vote was killed during the fire bombing of his home in Hattiesburg, Miss. And this committee knows that even as these hearings began on Monday, James Meredith was struck down by a sniper as he marched in Mississippi, to urge Negroes to vote, and assure them there was nothing to fear. There have been numerous other recent acts of violence in some areas of the Deep South which have gone and continue to go unnoticed by the national news media. The Southern Regional Council, in a report issued in May of 1966, collected newspaper and other published reports listing nearly a hundred incidents of racial violence in a number of Southern States occurring between September 1965 and February 1966. It appears that in many areas the responsible State and local officials are still not completely willing or able to carry out their duties.

In this situation, there is a clear Federal responsibility for protecting the rights of citizens to be secure against violence and intimidation. Congress, in the last centry, enacted laws to fulfill this responsibility, but these laws have not proved effective.

Title V, unlike previous Federal criminal statutes to protect civil rights does not require the Federal Government to prove that the assailant specifically intended to deprive the victim of a specific constitutional right. Instead, the Government need only prove that the assailant intended illegal violence which has the effect of depriving the victim of a Federal right. The statute would cover acts of private individuals, whether or not they conspire together and regardless of whether local governmental officials also were involved. It also would provide for penalties graduated in accordance with the seriousness of the crime.

The Commission's investigations in Mississippi in 1964 and 1965 revealed that much of the violence that occurred was aimed at persons selected at random, and that such violence intimidated the Negro community as effectively as if directed at a person actually engaged in civil rights activities.

At its Jackson hearing, the Commissioners heard testimony from one Negro resident of Adams County, Miss., describing a beating he had received from eight hooded men. The witness testified that he was not registered to vote and had never been involved in civil rights activity of any kind. He said:

they pulled my clothes off.

shoved me down on my stomach, then they started beating (They said:) "we know you're the leading nigger in Natchez, the NAACP and the Masonic Lodge". then they got me to my knees and put a double-barrelled shotgun right at the end of my nose said, “Well, now, you're going to tell a white man the truth." hit me in the face until he knocked me over. And he said, "Nigger run and when I fell . . . they clamped the light out and they shot right where they seen me last.

Then

and

he

This kind of attack to terrorize the Negro community would be dealt with expressly by section 501 (b)(1). This section will strengthen existing laws by covering random acts of violence against persons who have not attempted to exercise any of the rights enumerated in section 501(a), when such violence is intended to discourage other persons from exercising these rights.

Title V makes other improvements in existing law. As this committee knows, the Commission's 1965 law enforcement report recommended that the FBI make on-the-scene arrests when civil rights violations are committed in their presence. One objection that has been raised against this proposal is that because of the vagueness of sections 241 and 242 of title 18, FBI agents would be required to make complicated determinations about the intent of the assailants. Title V, by making specific the conduct prohibited, should remove this obstacle to on-the-scene arrests.

We recommend, in addition, that Congress give serious consideration to amending title V in the following respects:

1. Congress should enact a companion provision to 18 U.S.C. 242 which would enumerate those specific denials of due process rights which would constitute criminal acts. Such a provision would, for example, punish any law enforcement officer who inflicted bodily injury upon a person in the course of eliciting a confession to a crime. The provision would supplement the coverage of equal protection rights provided by title V of the bill. This addition would eliminate the need for establishing the specific intent to deprive the victim of his constitutional rights which is now required to be proven in all section 242 prosecutions.

2. A section should be included which would forbid private conduct designed to preclude a fair trial. Such a statute would reach lynching by providing punishment for private individuals who, acting alone or in a group not including law enforcement officials, for example, killed a person who was in custody awaiting trial for a crime.

3. Title V should be amended to prohibit acts of economic as well as physical coercion. Title V as now written applies only to acts involving "force or threat of force." In fact, the bill would narrow existing law by repealing criminal provisions in the Voting Rights Act which make intimidation and coercion by State registration officials and private persons, by any means including threat of firing or eviction, a crime. Yet economic coercion, as Congress recognized in connection with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, remains a serious impediment to the exercise of Federal rights. Since September 1965, newspapers have reported that 100 Negroes in St. Francisville, La., and 20 in Lowndes County, Ala., have been evicted from their homes for registering to vote. The Commission found in February of this year that in some areas of the South where Negroes have elected to attend formerly all-white schools, the Negro community has been subjected to evictions and loss of jobs as well as to other forms of intimidation. I have cited some examples previously.

There are many others. For example, the mother of a Negro student who selected a white school in Sumter County, Ga., was fired from her job as a maid within 24 hours after submission of the choice form. In Webster County, Miss., two Negro families who had selected formerly all-white schools for three children scheduled to enter the first grade in September 1965 were told by their white landlords to move out of their houses. Evictions of Negro families enrolling their children in previously all-white schools have been reported in Thomas County, Ga., and Merigold, Miss. Parents of such children have been reported threatened with, or actually subjected to, job loss in Baker County and Waynesboro, Ga., Rolling Fork, Anguilla and West Point, Miss., and Demopolis, Ala.

Such practices are properly treated as criminal acts, for they are deliberate and often effective efforts to interfere with the exercise of Federal rights. Since economic coercion is by its very nature a calculated act, it may be susceptible to deterrence by criminal sanctions even more than violence, which frequently is irrational. Acts of economic intimidation directed against the exercise of any of the rights protected by title V should be covered by the bill. And surely there is no warrant for taking the retrogressive step of repealing the criminal sanction against economic intimidation presently contained in the Voting Rights Act.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, although Congress spent many long and arduous hours in enacting the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that legislation was in a real sense only a beginning-not an end. It did not attempt to deal with the critical problem of discrimination in housing, and it did not fully secure the rights which it was the high purpose of those statutes to vindicate. Those rights were not fully secured because, to the extent that judicial remedies were provided, the remedies afforded were not wholly adequate. More important, intimidation of persons exercising or