They-the Browns, Jones, and Smith families-didn't exist as persons. They didn't exist as individuals with a reasonable amount of education or culture or ability to buy. None of these things mattered. They only existed as far as the housing industry was concerned as another symbol of a group that is beyond the pale.

It was forgotten that these were human beings involved, with hearts and minds and spirits, with hopes, dreams, ambitions and aspirations; human beings whose children are going to be the ones our world will depend upon tomorrow. The Browns, Smiths, and Jones cannot forget their demoralizing experiences. What happens to their feelings, to their belief in their fellow man, to their belief in the working of democracy, what happens to their dignity?

The experiences cited are typical of hundreds of American citizens who are called upon to bear every other part of responsibility of citizenship, but are shut out of the privilege and right of choice, the freedom of selection of one's home.

We are dealing with the fundamental issue of whether or not it is the role of a government to protect fundamental rights of citizens who are too weak to protect themselves. Or to put it another way, to protect people against the tyranny of a majority that in itself has set aside a group of people as not having the same equal rights.

The AFSC maintains that the role of law, the role of a legislative body, the role of government is to protect the rights of all its citizens. In the interest of decency and our our democratic ideals, the American Friends Service Committee and the Friends Committee on National Legislation urges immediate action by the Congress of the United States to adopt a provision which will guarantee equality of housing opportunity for all American citizens.

Our experience leads us to conclude that the role of legislation is indispensable in ending the rigid and widespread patterns of discrimination in the housing market. It holds the potential for bringing the equal protection of the law to the Negro family seeking a decent home. It is an essential part of an educational process. It restrains those who would do wrong and supports those who would do right. However, a fair housing law will not by itself usher in a new era of justice and harmony. Sustained efforts of individuals and organizations will be needed at the community level. And equally important, firm enforcement and affirmative action will be needed by Government. Affirmative action means Government initiative, lifting the burden of initiating complaints from the minority individual. There is a growing disillusionment with legislation and laws. Unless vigorous enforcement follows the passage of legislation, such disillusionment will grow. The answer is not less legislation, or despair with legislation, as some suggest, but good laws, strongly enforced.

The American Friends Service Committee and the Friends Committee on National Legislation support the fair housing legislation now under consideration by the Senate subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

STATEMENTS OF U.S. SENATORS

STATEMENT BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Mr. Chairman, equality before the law is so basic to democracy that it should require no explanation or defense. Yet in certain racial and economic groups in this country this principle has been violated for so long as to make these violations an almost approved part of our social conventions. Striking examples of these violations have been seen in the selection of juries where specific segments of the population are denied the right to determine guilt or innocence. It is seen in housing where segments of the population are excluded from enjoying the privilege of living in certain areas because of race; in education where equality of opportunity can be denied without the offended party having recourse to justice. It can be seen in the denial of the free exercise of the vote; in the inequality in public accommodations and employment; in the use of common carriers and even in participation in federally assisted programs.

Often accompanied by intimidation and violence, these abuses could not have bcome so deep seated in this country had those who were offended been able to bring and present their case effectively before objective juries. Conversely, these problems would never have developed had the processes to insure equal justice been established in the first place. These abuses will not be remedied until, as part of the remedy, steps are taken to establish those processes which will insure justice for the particular situation we now face in this country.

For this reason, the composite legislation proposed in S. 3296 and in other legislative proposals presented before this Committee are so important. S. 3296 provides that the Attorney General, an agent outside the local offending scene, may instigate action whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person has engaged in, or about to engage in any act or practice which would abridge or deny others and of the privileges mentioned in this legislation. This provision is particularly important since many of those offended are not able to make effective their own defense. Also important are the guidelines specifying exact procedures for jury selection and the clause which places the burden of proof for impartiality in the exercise of justice, upon the state or local office in cases of doubt. Finally, it is necessary to make intimidation and violence an offense since the exercise of human rights cannot be performed in an environment of fear. I also favor legislation which would designate the exact penalty for infraction of these rules.

My own state of Hawaii is demonstration enough that people of different racial ancestries can live together in a high degree of harmony. A number of factors have contributed to the high degree of equality under the law enjoyed there-organized cohesive ethnic groups, a relatively wide distribution of wealth, the availability of education, and the organization of unions. In the absence of most of these elements in minority racial groups in this country, such far reaching legislation as proposed, is necessary. It will establish the basis on which all racial groups, both minority and majority, can move toward a greater degree of acceptance and respect. Hawaii has shown that this goal can be accomplished.

U.S. SENATE, June 23, 1966.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Senate Judiciary Committee,
U. S. Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Earlier this month, a representative of the Oregon Association of Realtors appeared before your Subcommittee to present testimony regarding Title IV or S. 3296. News reports on his testimony indicated that the Fair Housing Law enacted by the state of Oregon in 1959 had caused great turmoil in the real estate field. The representative of the Oregon Association of Realtors stated:

"During that time all charges as to discrimination were heard and found to be invalid, except for one case where one of the principals involved died and the case was never heard, or it may have been discovered that it also had no

basis for its complaint. Under this law people are now harassed from time to time, costing a great deal of time and money for the hearings, and it is our opinion that should this proposal be enacted into law, harassment of the innocent would become the new style of entertainment and amusement for any crackpot that might think he had a claim, and supporting his admission with funds furnished by our government."

I have received the enclosed correspondence from the Assistant Commissioner of Labor of the Oregon State Bureau of Labor which refutes this testimony. You will note from the statement by the Civil Rights representative in the Bureau of Labor that:

"Since the inception of the 1959 Oregon fair housing law there have been 161 complaints filed with the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor as of June 15, 1966, 160 of these alleging discrimination because of race and one because of religion.

"Discrimination was found to exist in 100 of these complaints filed. All were corrected by conference and conciliation with the exception of two which went to a public hearing.

"In 38 of these cases no discrimination was found and the cases were dismissed. Seventeen cases were withdrawn at the request of the complainant. "There are 7 cases still pending."

I request that my letter and the enclosures be made a part of the hearing record.

With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,

MAURINE B. NEUBERGER,

U.S. Senator.

STATE OF OREGON, BUREAU OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,
Portland, June 16, 1966.

Hon. MAURINE NEUBERGER,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Perhaps you saw the enclosed clipping in the June 15th issue of the Oregonian, in which Mr. E. G. Stassens testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the Federal Fair Housing Bill. Mr. Stassens' reporting of the State of Oregon's experience with fair housing legislation was inaccurate, and I would like to ask you if you would be so kind as to communicate with the committee and present to them the correct facts, which are enclosed.

In addition to the clipping from the Oregonian, I enclose a copy of Mr. Stassens' printed testimony before the Sub-Committee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 14, 1966. On Page 2 appears his printed testimony containing inaccuracies concerning the number and disposition of complaints under the Oregon Fair Housing Law.

Also enclosed is a memo from Mr. Russ Peyton, Civil Rights Representative in the Bureau of Labor, giving the correct information from our files as to the complaints and their disposition under the Oregon Fair Housing Law since its passage in 1959.

I thought you would also be interested in the attached copy of the position statement on civil rights adopted last year by the Board of Directors of the Portland Board of Realtors. We believe that this position statement is more representative of the responsible attitude of Oregon realtors toward equal opportunity in housing, than those remarks quoted in the Oregonian of June 15, 1966.

Your assistance in making this corrected information available to the SubCommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to other interested parties, will be greatly appreciated in the interests of setting the record straight on our experiences with fair housing legislation in Oregon.

With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

CARL SALTVEIT, Assistant Commissioner of Labor.