Nor is the problem of jury discrimination limited to the exclusion of Negroes. Women, persons from low-income groups, persons of particular national origins, and others have sometimes been excluded from jury service either by law or practice.

Legal challenges to jury discrimination should not have to be the exclusive concern of individual criminal defendants or private citizens. Under present law, the Federal Government may not initiate action to eliminate jury discrimination in State courts. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Department of Justice only to intervene in jury discrimination suits brought by private litigants under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

(Pursuant to this authority, the Department recently has intervened in six such suits and participated as amicus curiae in five other recent jury discrimination cases.)

Substantial constraints often operate against the individual who seeks to initiate action against jury discrimination.

One was pinpointed in the observation of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a recent opinion (Whitus v. Balcom, 333 F. 2d 496, 1964):

We believe that we know what happens when a white attorney for a Negro defendant raises the exclusion issue in a county dominated by segregation patterns and practices: both the defendant and his attorney will suffer from community hostility.

Moreover, even if a criminal defendant or civil litigant decides to challenge jury discrimination, the records of jury selection-necessary to prove the allegation-may not have been preserved by jury officials or, if retained, may not be accessible to the complainant.

A somewhat different problem exists concerning jury selection in the Federal courts. Varying selection systems are used and the results in some cases can create the appearance of unfairness. At a minimum they lack desirable uniformity in the opportunities for service afforded to all segments of the community.

Of the varying methods now used to obtain source lists of names in the Federal courts, the so-called key man system is the most common. This system is used as the exclusive source of potential jurors in over 40 Federal judicial districts. It relies on a selected group of residents of the district-the key men-who are requested by Federal jury officials to submit names of persons whom they believe to be suitable for jury service.

Many of the persons selected for jury duty under this system are, inevitably, from the same social groups as the key men.

A recent informal survey taken by the Department of Justice in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, indicates substantial underrepresentation of Negroes on Federal jury lists when compared with the percentage of adult Negroes residing in the district.

FEDERAL JURIES

The basic purpose of title I is to insure that Federal jurors are drawn from a broad cross section of the community.

It provides, first, that no person or class of persons shall be denied the right to serve on Federal grand or petit juries because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.

Second, it specifies voter registration rolls as the exclusive source from which names of prospective jurors are to be drawn.

Third, it lays down definite requirements for the selection of names from the voter rolls and details mandatory procedures for each subsequent step in the juror-selection process.

Fourth, it provides a challenge mechanism for determining whether jury officials have followed the prescribed procedures.

Section 1864 requires the jury commission in each district to maintain a master jury wheel containing names from official voter registration lists.

These lists reflect a fair cross section of the community in most areas and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides the means to insure within the near future that they will do so in all areas.

This section also provides, however, that where Negroes or other groups are not yet adequately represented on the voting rolls, the judicial council of the circuit is to designate supplementary sources of names for the master jury wheel.

Thus, what is designed to be a fair original standard is supplemented by the discretion of Federal appellate judges.

Those whose names are drawn from the wheel must fill out a juror qualification form. Title I retains the qualifications prescribed by present law, including the requirement that a juror must be literate but this requirement based solely on his ability to fill out the form. Higher qualifications-in an effort to obtain "blue ribbon" jurieswould not be permissible.

The names of those found qualified then would be placed in a qualified juror wheel to be drawn as needed for grand and petit jury panels. Section 1867 establishes a special procedure in both criminal and civil cases for determining whether there has been compliance with the selection procedures.

If the court determines that there has been a failure to comply, it is required to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in conformity with this title.

STATE JURIES

Title II of the bill is designed to eliminate unconstitutional discrimination in the selection of jurors in State courts. It contains three basic provisions.

First, it prohibits discrimination in State jury selection processes because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or economic status. Second, it authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the prohibition by civil injunctive proceedings against State jury officials.

Third, it provides a discovery mechanism to facilitate determinations of whether unlawful discrimination has occurred in the jury selection process.

The terms of the prohibition on discrimination contained in section 201 are identical to the corresponding section in title I governing Federal juries. The effect of the prohibition of discrimination on account of sex and economic status, however, would be somewhat different.

Under title I, all Federal jurors would be selected at random from the voter rolls. No exemptions, excuses, or exclusions based solely on sex or economic status would be authorized.

Under title II, two types of State laws regulating jury service by women would be nullified:

First, those in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina which totally exclude women from jury service;

Second, those in Florida, Louisiana, and New Hampshire which exclude women unless they affirmatively volunteer for jury service by taking steps-not required of men-to sign up for jury service.

It would not nullify laws which exempt women from service only if they affirmatively claim exemption, such as exist in a number of States.

The ban on economic discrimination in title II would not outlaw every State procedure which may have some incidental economic impact.

State laws imposing direct economic qualifications for jury service would be nullified by title II. State laws prescribing the tax rolls as the exclusive source of names of jurors also would be nullified unless the tax base is so broad as to include practically every adult in the community.

Title II would authorize the Attorney General to institute a civil action in Federal court for preventive relief against State jury officials who violate the prohibition against discrimination. This provision is similar to those in other civil rights legislation.

If in such a lawsuit (or in a similar lawsuit brought by private persons under existing laws) the court makes a finding of discrimination, it would be authorized to grant effective relief. This would include suspension of the use of objectionable qualifications and procedures and, if necessary, the appointment of a master to operate à State court jury system.

A Federal court in Alabama recently took the position that under the present law it had the power to appoint a master for this purpose and would do so should other remedies fail.

The third important provision of title II is the special discovery procedure contained in section 204. This machinery, to be available in addition to that afforded under the Federal rules or applicable State law, would be set in motion whenever it is asserted in an appropriate case that discrimination had occurred in the jury selection process.

Local officials would be required to furnish information and records about their jury selection process to enable the court to base its decision on a complete record of the questioned events.

TITLE III: PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES

Considerable progress in the desegregation of public schools and public facilities has been made since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. With regard to public schools, much of the progress is attributable to title VI of that statute, which requires desegregation as a condition of eligibility for Federal financial assistance.

But in some areas, school authorities have yielded to community pressures and forfeited Federal aid rather than desegregate. And in school districts where "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plans have been formally adopted, intimidation of Negro pupils and their parents has prevented any meaningful integration of the schools. It is in these areas that the need for Federal intervention is greatest.

Yet the Attorney General now can sue to desegregate public schools and facilities only after he has received a written complaint from a local resident and determined that the complainant is unable to sue on his own behalf.

This complaint requirement is unrealistic in areas where the likelihood or fear of harassment makes Negroes understandably afraid to complain to the Federal Government. We have found that the other restriction in the present law-that the complainant must be found unable to sue on his own behalf-does not sufficiently serve the public interest in achieving orderly desegregation.

Title III of the bill is designed to insure that intimidation does not affect the power of the Federal Government to bring suits to desegregate schools and public facilities.

It would permit the Attorney General to sue when he believes suit to be necessary-giving him essentially the same authority he now has in the areas of voting, public accommodations, and employment. Thus, title III would repeal both the written complaint requirement and the requirement that the Attorney General determine the complainant is unable to sue. In addition, title III would provide a direct remedy against intimidation by authorizing the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief against interference by private individuals or public officials with desegregation of public schools and facilities. (Title V would impose criminal penalties for such interference.)

TITLE IV: HOUSING

In the years since World War II we have seen tremendous strides. toward full citizenship for the Negro American. Brown v. Board of Education did more than merely hold segregated schools to be in violation of the Constitution. It set in motion forces of democracy aimed at the ultimate goal of destroying every aspect of discrimination.

Substantial progress has been made in such areas as schools, voting, public accommodation, transportation, public facilities, expenditures of public funds and employment.

Yet we have hardly made a start in dealing with the one pervasive problem which silently sabotages efforts toward equality in all of these areas enforced housing in segregated ghettos of vast numbers of Negro citizens.

The period from 1910, when only 10 percent of this country's Negroes lived outside the South, through 1960, when that figure rose to almost 40 percent, has been a period of migration to northern cities. Economic necessity, restrictive covenants, and refusals by real estate dealers and landlords to lease or sell forced this group into racial ghettos.

Today, ghetto living is the fate of great numbers of our Negro citizens in urban areas across the United States. The housing is of inferior quality and overcrowding is intense. For example, in Harlem 237,792 people live in a 3% square mile area, or 100 people per acre. Ninety percent of the housing is more than 30 years old and nearly half was built before 1900.

This problem is not limited to any one region of the country. No section of the United States is free from housing discrimination and racial ghettos.

Segregated housing isolates racial minorities from the public life of the community. It means inferior public education, recreation, health,

sanitation, and transportation services and facilities. It restricts access to training and employment and business opportunities. It leads a large class of citizens to despair-a despair which has at times contributed to violent outbreaks against society itself.

The Negro citizen has not been able to benefit from the post-World War II housing boom on a par with other Americans. His choice of a place to live is limited not merely by his ability to pay, but by his color. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had concluded, today housing seems to be the one commodity in the American market that is not freely available on equal terms to everyone who can afford to pay."

Illustrative of the problem's scope is a recent survey of 235 Defense installations by the Department of Defense. The survey disclosed that Negro servicemen faced severe discrimination in obtaining housing near 102 of the installations.

Reported in the survey were case after case of Americans, in the service of their country, being denied houses or apartments, or being charged outrageous prices for housing, simply because of their skin color.

Often they were forced to live far away from their duty stations, sometimes in inferior dwellings in deteriorating neighborhoods. Many of these service members decided against having their families join them and be subjected to these conditions.

Among the instances reported was that of an officer who signed a contract for the construction of a home only to have the construction firm refuse to fulfill the contract after learning that he wanted the house built in an area where no Negroes lived. Despite efforts to resolve the problem, it was still unresolved when the officer departed for Vietnam.

A lieutenant colonel stationed near Washington was unable to rent a home in either of two communities near his base and found it necessary to purchase a house farther away.

Twelve officers reporting on their housing problems said, in part:

We often saw white nonrated men move into facilities which were "unavailable" to us. In many cases we were separated from our families for long periods as we watched persons reporting to the area after us acquire accommodations and rejoin their families.

Often persons have recommended "nice colored" locations usually served by "nice colored" schools which offer our children substandard education ***.

We simply want to be able to find decent housing just as easily (or with as much difficulty) as anyone else ***.

Often it is said that our situation is understandable and everyone sympathizes with us but very little can be done ***.

Mr. Chairman, experiences like this, repeated daily across the country and affecting hundreds of thousands of citizens, add up to a system of forced housing which disables our society.

State and local governments have made some headway in attacking this system. Fair housing laws have been enacted by 17 States and by a large number of municipalities. I might add, Mr. Chairman, I don't think any of those States are totalitarian and I don't think that you do. Efforts by private groups, such as Neighbors, Inc., here in the District of Columbia, have been made in many communities.

Nor has the Federal Government ignored the problem. In 1948, the Supreme Court held racially restrictive covenants unenforcible in both State and Federal courts. And President Kennedy's Execu