« AnteriorContinuar »
administrative agency rather than through the courts. Twelve years after the Brown decision it seems naive to say that a right denied to millions of Americans as a class can only be secured through a caseby-case journey through the courts.
Congress has already recognized that this procedure is lengthy, expensive, and unrealistic as a way to desegregate schools. How much greater these criticisms sbould be when applied to fair housing, where, except in cases of pattern or practice, each individual must go to court every time he is rebuffed by a landlord or real estate agent. With the Chair's permission, I would like to yield to Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Scott. If I may ask to make one statement before I have to keep an important appointment, I simply want to say that I find myself in much sympathy with the statement of the Senator from New York. I am very much concerned about the fact that no administrative order has been issued which could have bypassed this longer and certainly more costly proceeding. I say this without commenting as to my future disposition on this or other bills. The Senator from New York in my opinion is on the right track. Thank you.
Senator Javits. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his gracious intercession.
New York was one of the first States in the Union to have a fair housing law. Many other States and cities have followed this pattern by providing that administrative bodies shall receive and decide complaints of housing discrimination and shall issue cease and desist orders subject to court review. This is accomplished with speed and without cost to the complainant. And the respondent, of course, retains his right to appeal the Commission's decision to the courts. This procedure far more effective and realistic, should be incorporated in the Federal bill. And I am today offering an amendment to do exactly that.
(3) Title I of the bill provides for a uniform method of jury selection in Federal courts. If this method is not complied with, the defendant, or in civil cases either party is given the right to challenge compliance and obtain a stay of proceedings until a jury is chosen according to to law. This right, however, is not available to the prosecutor in criminal cases in spite of the fact that this very bill has arisen because of the alleged bias of defendant-oriented juries in civil rights crime cases.
Two bills of which I am the cosponsor S. 2845 and S. 2923, give the prosecutor the right to file this motion, and I am today offering an amendment to the pending administration bill to do that, too.
(4) The administration's bill contains no provision for the indemnification of persons injured because they exercise or attempt to exercise their constitutional rights. Many acts of violence and murder which have occurred since the inception of the civil rights movement have not only gone unpunished, but have left families and injured parties without any civil redress against the perpetrators. I am introducing an amendment today creating a Civil Rights Indemnification Board, and establishing a trust fund of $10 million to pay these claims, and to allow subrogation to actions against the State, municipality, or individual responsible for the injury.
(5) Another of the amendments which I am introducing today incorporates an automatic trigger provision in the selection of State juries, which is also part of the bill f introduced, S. 2923. This would create an automatic presumption for Federal intervention where certain evidence of discrimination on the grounds of race or color exists.
If, for example, over a 2-year period jury service by Negroes fell below a certain percentage of Negro population, an automatic presumption would be created that discrimination exists in jury selection, and the Federal courts would take over. The analogy is to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Finally, I am offering an amendment today proposing that the language of S. 3170, the removal of cases from State to Federal courts bill, be incorporated as an additional title in the administration's bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I say no one has greater respect here for the views of our chairman than I. I count my friendship with him and 'my respect for his judgment as very high, and I hope he feels the same way about me. And so I will take the liberty of stating what I consider to be the necessary other point of view. For a century the Negroes of this country have been depressed and deprived of justice in many areas of the country, and I do not exclude my own.
We are guilty, too. I think it is high time that we repair this damage to the moral fabric of our country and to its law, and I believe the Constitution permits what we are trying to do.
Perhaps what we have written here is defective or inartistic in some respects. We will find a way.
Ir. Chairman, I am resolved as one Senator at least, with every bit of influence and power that I have, to see that we do find a way. The job is not yet done, and I hope we can take another measurable step in this legislation.
Senator ERVIN. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New York. I think it would have been a fine thing if New York had solved all these problems and made itself a good example for the rest of the country to follow.
Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, I think we have set many good examples in this field and in others, but we do not claim perfection.'
Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the first witness is the Honorable Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Attorney General, before you proceed, I want to express my regret that we have kept you here so long. The subcommittee has received a tremendous amount of mail on this subject. As of June 1, from States outside of North Carolina, we have received 2.100 letters, of which all except 24 oppose the bill. Three-quarters of these letters come from areas outside of the South.
From my own State of North Carolina, I have received 254 letters, of which all except 3 are opposed to this bill. If the Department of Justice would like to read these letters, they certainly may.
STATEMENT OF HON. NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID SLAWSON, ATTORNEY ADVISER, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL; AND ALAN MARER, ATTORNEY, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General KATZENBACH. Perhaps your own opposition, Senator, has led some of the mail to be directed to you and you might find the experience in the other body would be somewhat different as to numbers and statistics.
Senator Ervin. I might add that a great many Senators from other areas of the country tell me their mail runs about the same.
Senator HRUSKA. May I ask what the schedule of the subcommittee is? The morning hour has terminated now. We have the bank holding bill coming up. It is considered kind of important to a lot of people, not only with reference to the instant situation, but what is the schedule for the rest of the week, so we can sort of gage the time?
Senator Ervin. I think we will probably make less progress if we try to hold sessions too long. It should seem to me we might let the Attorney General make his statement, and then we can postpone examination until tomorrow.
Senator HRUSKA. The morning hour has concluded. I have no objection to the meeting continuing beyond that time.
Senator ERVIN. I understand that you have made arrangements to be here tomorrow.
Attorney General KATZENBACH. I am available to this committee in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening and any hour it wishes me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. It seems to me in this circumstance, it would be well for you to make your statement and the members of the committee will forbear asking questions until you have completed.
Attorney General KATZENBACH. I have quite a long statement, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to forego reading it all, if that would expedite the consideration of the matter. It has sometimes been my experience that the statement itself answers or anticipates questions and that it is helpful to read it.
Senator ERVIN. Yes, I think so. I am sure you have given a great deal of attention to the preparation of the statement and I think the members of the subcommittee would be happy to have you read the entire statement unless you prefer not to.
Attorney General KATZENBACH. No, I am happy to do that, but before I proceed, I wonder if I could address one question to the Chair. There is a reference on page 12 of your statement to a hospital in North Carolina. If the facts are as you state, they are completely contrary to the policies of HEW in this regard, since there are no such requirements as the facts would indicate there, and I wonder whether I could have the name of that hospital, because it seems to me that the subcommittee might be interested in having the actual facts with respect to that hospital.
Senator Ervin. Yes, I will be glad to supply you with the name of the hospital. I would rather not do it publicly.
Attorney General KATZENBACH. Then perhaps I can at least submit the facts as we see them.
Senator Ervin. I called the Department of HEW and they promised me an answer about 4 weeks ago and I have thus far, unless it has come since this hearing started, not heard from them.
Attorney General KATZENBACH. My point is that there is no such rule or regulation, talking about a ratio between hospital population and population within the area. That does not exist. That is not the way the bill is being implemented. It has nothing to do with it, and I wouldn't want to leave you, sir, with a false impression of what HEW was doing.
Senator ERVIN. I had the situation called to my attention accompanied by a letter which the hospital had received from HEW. The substance of the report which was transmitted to me and which included the letter from HEW was: That HEW found no discrimination, but that they had notice that the percentage of nonwhite patients the hospital did not correspond with the percentage of nonwhites residing in the community served by the hospital, which would indicate that there was discrimination. There was a threat to withhold funds from the hospital unless the hospital investigated the cause of this apparent discrimination and took positive action. I transmitted it to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with the explanation of the hospital to the effect that there was in that same community a heavily endowed hospital which had been established some years ago for nonwhites. By reason of its heavy endowment, the rates were much cheaper in that hospital than they were in the hospital in question. It seems to me that that ought to have been sufficient explanation, but I got a promise that I would eventually receive a reply, which I have not yet received. But I will give you the name of the hospital. Senator Javits. Could we all have a copy of your reply? Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.
Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Attorney General, before you proceed, would you identify, please, sir, for the record, your associates?
Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes. I am accompanied by Mr. Alan Marer on my right and by Mr. David Slawson on my left, both attorneys in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I appear to urge enactment of S. 3296, the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. This is a bill designed to accomplish a few simple, clear objectives.
Titles I and II seek to end racial discrimination in our Federal and State jury systems. There is nothing more fundamental to our legal system than the right to have an impartial trial of the facts in every criminal and civil case. There may be no more fundamental duty of citizenship than to serve on juries when called.
Any invidious discrimination in the selection of jurors is incompatible with these tenets.
Title III would provide the tools to complete the desegregation of schools, which 12 years ago was ordered carried out with all deliberate speed."
Title IV would end compulsory residential segregation, a formidable obstruction to progress toward human equality.
Title V would provide capacity to deal effectively with racial violence. The title is a response to the number of killings and assaults which have gone unpunished.
Problems treated by this bill are deeply engraved on the national consciousness and conscience. They are not undefined shadows on a distant horizon. To the common citizen as much as to the constitutional expert they are apparent and present realities.
This administration is committed to continue the national effort to expunge the blight of human neglect and injustices as long as such problems remain.
The commitment was voiced by President Johnson only 5 days ago when he pledged his days and talents "to the pursuit of justice and opportunity for those so long denied them."
Mr. Chairman, before I turn to detailed warrants for each section of the bill, I would like to comment on the labeling of title IV by some of its opponents as a “forced housing” proposal.
I find this ironic. For forced housing is just what title IV is designed to eliminate--forced housing through which walls of segregation not only force Negroes to stay out of some residential areas but, conversely, force them to remain in others.
Title IV would not force an owner to sell or rent his home.
It would not force him to sell or rent to anyone who is financially unsound or otherwise legitimately undesirable.
What it would do is assure that houses put up for sale or rent to the public are in fact for sale or rent to the public.
What it would do is free the housing market of barriers built only on encrusted bigotry-barriers which are often unwanted handicaps not only for the Negro buyer but also for the white seller.
I submit that forced housing exists today.
I suggest that all Americans truly opposed to forced housing unite in support of title IV-just as all Americans dedicated to the finest ideals of democracy should support the entire bill.
Let me now turn to a title-by-title review of the bill.
TITLES I AND II: JURY REFORM
Exclusion of any person from jury service in any court in this country on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or economic status is inconsistent with our principles.
Yet discrimination against potential jurors continues to infect our system of justice.
There have been scores of cases involving such discrimination over the past century. In recent years, there have been State court findings of jury discrimination in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina.
There have been more than 30 Supreme Court decisions relating to jury discrimination in the States. And in the past few months, Federal courts have found that Negroes have been systematically excluded from jury service in Lowndes and Macon Counties, Ala. Such discrimination strikes a triple blow at Negro citizenship:
It deprives Negro defendants and litigants of fair trials;
It denies, in some places, Negroes and civil rights workers equal protection of the laws by virtually insuring that juries will not truly represent the interests of the entire community in securing convictions of civil rights violators when warranted by the facts;
Finally, such discrimination denies to qualified Negroes the opportunity to participate in the operation of their government in one of the few direct ways open to the average citizen.