Senator ERVIN. Well, that is what the laws says. As Mr. Williamson points out, as distinguished from the House bill, this covers everything.

Mr. THOMAS. Senator, I think you are making a very far-fetched example.

Senator ERVIN. I am telling you what is in the bill, and one of the reasons they amended this in the House was to change this result.

The Masonic Order in a number of States has established homes for aged Masons and their wives, and under this bill they could be compelled to receive into those homes people who are not Masons and are not the wives of Masons. Do you think that is right?

Mr. THOMAS. I think under this bill, Senator, it would only be compelled to receive Negro Masons.

Senator ERVIN. No, they would be compelled to receive people who are not Masons at all.

Mr. THOMAS. I am in favor of it, Senator.

Senator ERVIN. You are in favor of the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. I am still in favor of it.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Williamson, you said this bill does not deprive people of personal property rights.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, I say that; that is right.

Senator ERVIN. Under the present situation we do not need the bill then, if it does not affect property rights, do we? Isn't the very purpose of the bill to deprive all Americans of their property rights? Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, it is not. It is to give all Americans their property rights.

Senator ERVIN. Well, your statement indicates that you believe the bill is offered primarily for the benefit of the people of your race. Does it not deprive everybody in the United States who owns residential property, of your race and every other race, of the right to sell or lease that property to whom they please?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, it does not.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Williamson pointed out in his testimony that, if any of these dwelling are involved in the consumption of Federal funds, then they should be made accessible to every citizen.

Senator ERVIN. This bill does not apply only to buildings that are acquired by Federal funds. It would apply to my dwelling house, and there is not one penny of Federal funds in it.

Mr. Cox. My point, Mr. Chairman, is that it is very difficult not to be involved in the consumption of Federal funds by virtue of the fact that the highway or the road that leads to your house is in some way involved, has in some way been involved, in receiving Federal funds to establish it.

Senator ERVIN. Well, the road that leads to my house doesn't involve any Federal funds.

Mr. Cox. We will exclude your house.

Senator ERVIN. Federal funds had nothing to do with it.

Mr. COLLIER. I have one point, Mr. Senator. If the property is financed, if it has to obtain a mortgage, it would come under some respect to be protected with Federal funds, that is, insured by the Federal Government, which the loans are made by banks and savings and loan associations.

Senator ERVIN. That is another aspect of the bill. But this provision would apply if a man went up into the wilderness on top of a mountain where there was not anything but a trail that he made himself, and built a cabin with the wood that he cut down with an ax on his own land. If he wanted to sell that house he could not sell it to the person he preferred.

We have a lot of use for words. You used the word "freedom", "let us give freedom in housing," but this bill takes away freedom.

Mr. THOMAS. Senator, I do not think there is any Negro who would object to this bill on the basis that it takes away his freedom. The freedom he seeks is the freedom to live anywhere he chooses to live, anywhere he has the money to buy.

Senator ERVIN. Well, he can buy now anywhere he finds a willing seller or a willing renter.

Mrs. MARTIN. Mr. Ervin, may I interject something here? It seems to me that the examples which you have cited are the kind of examples which in every area of American life have special kinds of limitations and would not even be pertinent in the overall consideration of providing adequate housing to all families without the superficial barriers relating to race and, therefore, these isolated situations should not. even be considered.

Senator ERVIN. Mrs. Martin, can you show me a word in title IV that undertakes to improve the quality of housing for Americans? Mrs. MARTIN. Mr. Ervin, our purpose in being here is to urge the adoption of legislation which will eliminate artificial restrictions placed against certain people because of their color. It is not to promote any kind of legislation which is restricting people. Once a house is advertised for sale or a unit is advertised for sale or rent on the open market to the public then any person in that public who can afford to buy or lease should be permitted to do so, and this is what we are requesting.

Senator ERVIN. Well, the bill that you are talking about is not this bill. This bill covers all housing whether it is advertised for sale to the public or not. This bill forbids a man who is selling a house or renting a house from preferring a person of his own race or his own religion or his own national origin to a person of another race or religion or national origin. That is what the bill does.

Mrs. MARTIN. May I suggest that this is your interpretation and we need not debate this interpretation.

Senator ERVIN. I would not think so. This interpretation is plain. I do not think it is subject to debate.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. AUTRY. Just one.

Mr. Williamson, on page 7 of your statement you state the bill, if enacted, will rid the cities of the black ghettos. New York has a fair housing law, does it not, with coverage as broad or almost as broad as that which is proposed in title IV?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I do not know the details of the New York law.
Mr. AUTRY. But several States do have open housing laws.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Several States have fair housing laws.

Mr. AUTRY. Have the black ghettos in those States been eliminated by such laws?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. But they are new and those laws have not had time to work yet in those States. It will take even this one some time to work if it were passed.

Mr. AUTRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. MARTIN. May I say something in relation to that? I would like to say this. I am both a realtist and a realtor. I think it is important that you understand the significance of those two terms.

A realtist is a member of this organization which we represent sitting here at this table. The realtor designation comes from membership in the National Association of Real Estate Boards as was represented by one unit in one of the States of this Nation, by the previous gentleman, who sat here at this table, and which, I must admit, that, as a real estate broker in this country, I bow my head in shame that anybody in the real estate industry could promote the kind of discrimination and segregation which those men represented, which can do nothing except to stir up contention and trouble throughout our country.

However, the pattern of segregation in housing in this Nation has been developed not because of the average property owner in the Nation but because there has been an intensified campaign on the part of the organized realtor interests of this Nation for 55 or 60 years. For that time they have promoted this program which has created a much more segregated nation that we had 55 or 60 years ago, and it is interesting, and I am quoting from the periodicals which I get regularly, that

It was pointed out that the Nation's realtors are the only organized group which is opposing the Federal Government's entrance into the areas of, as they claim, forced housing.

There is nothing in this legislation, proposed legislation, as we see it, and as we interpret it, which forces any kind of housing on anybody. I am quoting from realtor publications when I quote what I just did. Senator ERVIN. Thank you.

(The following telegram is inserted at the request of the chairman:)

Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
Washington, D.C.

JULY 15, 1966.

Respectfully request leave to amend and clarify my testimony of yesterday in the light of press misinterpretation of the position of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, Inc. on Title IV of proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. The Association strongly objects to exemption from coverage of owner occupied properties of four dwelling units or less, as amended in the House Judiciary Committee. However, it strongly supports those amendments which provide for administrative enforcement by a Fair Housing Board, authorize investigation of violations by the HUD Secretary, and cover principals or agents involved in three or more housing transactions within the preceeding twelve months.

Respectfully urge inclusion of this clarifying supplement in the record with our testimony so that our position will be clear and unequivocal. Q. V. WILLIAMSON,

President,

LEON COX, Jr.,
Executive Director,

National Association of Real Estate Brokers, Ino.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Vernon Miles, president of Missouri Real Estate Association, whose appearance was scheduled at the request of Senator Symington and Senator Long of Missouri.

65-506-66-pt. 2- -9

STATEMENT OF VERNON MILES, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER L. WOLFE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Mr. MILES. Mr. Chairman, Vernon Miles is my name, and I have with me our counsel, Br. Chester Wolfe, and also the executive vice president of the Missouri Real Estate Association.

I am the president of the Missouri Real Estate Association.

Senator ERVIN. On behalf of the subcommittee I want to thank you gentlemen for making your appearance and giving us the benefit of your views.

Mr. MILES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as president of the Missouri Real Estate Association I appear before you in opposition of title IV of S. 3296, the Civil Rights Act of 1966. This bill is presented to your committee as a civil rights bill when in fact it denies to all citizens of this country the right of freedom of contract. Thus this bill in attempting to create rights destroys rights for every

one.

In the past civil rights legislation has been passed on the theory of protecting minority groups from local or State governments but title IV of this bill place an onerous and unnecessary burden on 36 million homeowners in America.

This bill is unnecessary and will not contribute a solution to the problems it is designed to meet: This proposition has received serious consideration in the State of Missouri. A forced housing bill was introduced in the Missouri Legislature last year. In 4 hours of testimony by the proponents of this bill only one specific case was cited in which there may have been discrimination on the part of a seller because of the race of a purchaser. After serious consideration, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives determined that there was not enough need or justification for a law which would place all homeowners in jeopardy of unjustified complaints that could lead to lengthy and serious litigation regardless of the guilt or innocence of the homeowner.

I have visited with many people in the real estate business from our cities and I find that members of minority groups are buying homes in all areas of our larger cities. Among my correspondence I have a letter from Henry A. Schneider, a well-known realtor in St. Louis. Mr. Schneider states that he has been a realtor in the same area for 43 years, and to quote from his letter he says: "Persons of all races and creeds are buying homes with little opposition in the areas in which I have been working; therefore, might I ask: Why the contemplated Government strong arm?"

In most areas in the State where there are housing projects, they are built to be sold under F.H.A.-insured or V.A.-guaranteed loans. We are all familiar with the fact that there can be no racial discrimination when such financing is used by reason of the executive order of 1962.

In St. Louis County, where there is no forced housing law, there is an addition known as Bel Nor where the prices of homes range from $18,000 to $40,000. There are at least three Negro families living in the area and white owners are also buying homes there. Based on my

own observation it appears to me that racial integration is taking place in a more orderly fashion where there is no force or threat of the law and where the owners of property have a freedom of choice. The only reason that anyone of any race cannot purchase a home in projects which are assisted by Government financing or loan insured is that the purchaser cannot qualify financially for the loan.

The city of St. Louis has an ordinance which involves the same philosophy as the bill under consideration and this ordinance has produced negative results. In general, since the enactment of this ordinance, the market on multifamily housing for sale to investors in St. Louis is at a standstill. There is simply no interest in purchasing such property. In the philosophy of this bill we have something much broader to deal with than a building or a landlord. It is a stark sociological fact that people of a given racial group tend to cleave to themselves. This is not a matter of bigotry or hatred.

Surely the owner of multifamily dwellings, from the standpoint of self-interest, would be happy to accommodate an enlargement of his market made up of all minority groups if such could be done consistently with his financial security; but the apartment owners must necessarily consider the attitude of his tenants to whom he looks for financial reward. The decision to rent to less than all racial groups is not motivated by bigotry but rather by prudent financial consideration. The thrust of this law is most manifest on the investors of real estate who are compelled to rent property inconsistently with their obvious financial security and with no protection or guarantee of the law against loss through compliance with it.

The situation which I described in St. Louis is particularly relevant in the light of the changes in title IV made by the House Judiciary Committee. I have been asked repeatedly whether the so-called softening of title IV made by that group alters our position. I can state unequivocally that it does not. The discrepancies between the initial press reports on what the House Committee did and the reading of the actual language of the amended version indicate that the amendments must have been adopted in haste and that the spokesmen for the committee did not fully understand what they had approved. It was widely reported, for example, that a real estate broker would not be covered by title IV if he were acting on instructions from his principal. Nowhere in the language of title IV, however, is this spelled out, or even implied. In fact, the language of section 403 (c) of the bill which says that no person covered by that section may "print or publish" any statement regarding restrictions or to purchase was amended to read "to make, print, or publish."

Certainly, the signing of a listing contract by a broker would seem to be covered by this new language, so that he would be prevented from executing, or "making," a listing contract in which the owner seeks to exercise his freedom of choice in selecting prospective purchasers.

The purpose of the proposed Federal Fair Housing Board was described as conciliatory, but in reality it is an entirely new administrative tribunal which would take its place alongside such regulatory agencies as the National Labor Relations Board, after which it was patterned, the Federal Trade Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, and others. Even if an exemption were written into the law pertain