Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525518
label
Ford Press Releases - Civil Rights, 1965-1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525518
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Civil Rights, 1965-1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Civil rights
Equal rights amendments
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525518
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-08-31
month
8
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-03-01
month
3
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2877a2c5b1297dd7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Civil Rights,
1965-1970" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
DECLARATION
for the
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
meeting at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.
March 10, 1965
PURPOSE
The Republican Coordinating Committee was created (1) to
broaden the advisory base on national party policy; (2) to
set up task forces to study and make recommendations for dealing
with the problems that confront the people of our nation; and
(3) to stimulate communication among the members of the party and
others in developing a common approach to the nation's problems.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Recent denials to Negro citizens of their basic Constitutional
right to vote have aroused the conscience of every American. In
some areas these rights have been denied by force and fraud and
we are outraged that in the year 1965 these conditions should
exist.
For more than 100 years the Republican Party has fought to pro-
tect the rights of every minority group and we urge all citizens
to join us in this cause. We urgently favor Federal action to
assure all citizens of the United States of their Constitutional
rights without discrimination on account of race or color.
The goal of the Republican Party is that by the 1966 elections
every American citizen shall be assured of his Constitutional
right to vote.
-2-
FOREIGN POLICY
Republicans, in their role as the loyal opposition, have consistently
advocated, and now support, the Administration's announced policy in
defending free South Vietnam against Communist aggression. We deplore
the disruptive voices of appeasement in the Democratic Party which undercut
the President in his conduct of foreign affairs, at a time of national crisis.
The President can always count on Republican support where the
Administration's foreign policy is firm and decisive on the side of freedom.
By the same token we owe a duty to the nation to point up those areas where
the Administration's policy has failed and to offer constructive alternative
proposals. Our Task Force on Foreign Policy shall have as one of its major
objectives the examination of some of the most massive failures in foreign
policy in recent American history -- the consolidation of the Communist
beachhead in Cuba, the expansion of Communist influence and control in
Africa and the Near East, the deterioration of the Atlantic Alliance.
America's voice in the world, once strong and clear, now with rare
exceptions is mute, indecisive and inconsistent. It will be the Republican
goal to fill this vacuum of international leadership not merely by criticizing
what we believe is wrong, but by proposing those policies we believe are right.
TASK FORCES
The Republican Coordinating Committee today established the
following task force assignments and requested the Republican National
Chairman, Dean Burch, and his elected successor as of
- 3 -
April 1, Ray Bliss to appoint the members of the task forces
after appropriate consultation with the members of the Coordinating
Committee;
(1) On Human Rights and Responsibilities
(2) On the Conduct of Foreign Relations
(3) On the Functions of the Federal, State and Local
Governments
(4) On Job Opportunities
(5) On Federal Fiscal and Monetary Policies
Other task force assignments are still in the discussion
stage and will be announced.
The Committee enthusiastically endorses the statement delivered
by President Eisenhower as a guide line for future action. He
has suggested basic problems and goals on which Republicans are
agreed.
The next meeting of the Republican Coordinating Committee has
been scheduled for June 1, 1955 in Washington, D. C.
##########
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 1965
I am shocked by the impression given to the press by President
Johnson that he warns of possible riots in Washington if the District
of Columbia is not given the responsibility of home rule.
It should be emphasized that the merits of home rule for the
District of Columbia are not involved, This issue should be resolved
in a calm and deliberate atmosphere.
It is a tragic day for responsible civil rights champions and
the entire Nation for the White House to possibly tempt those who
might generate rioting and plundering.
By using the stark, sad and tragic memory of Los Angeles as a
weapon, a pistol has been aimed at the head of Congress in an attempt
to force Congress to abandon its responsibility to exercise its own
judgment and independent will as a legislative body.
The lawless element, which flaunts the orderly processes of
government with brazen disregard, has been given what amounts to an
invitation to trigger terrorism in the streets.
Because of the tinderbox-like atmosphere the President should
clarify his damaging statement immediately in the interest of
maintaining law and order in Washington and elsewhere.
####
STMT- GIVK RTS
HOME RULE 165
NEMS
аяоя .54 GJAR30
32A3J38
REGAL sauon
SEASIST STATISMMI ЯОТ
2001 as deuguA
w aserg edd of nevin edd vd becicode me I
sointed odt It notgoldesW at stole 10 BOTEN ed Jadd normdol
,DIUT and 10 willdlenoquer orit nevig Jon at 10
edit not olut 10 atless odd tarit bedleadque ad bluode JI
bevioeor ed bluode oweal aid? absv.,Covit Jon 0'18 to Johnson
brie mino B at
bm enolquado addat Ilvio Vab olgant B et JI.
oder asset agreed vidlesoq of earoli edd 709 notten edd
birth gattois ederency triglin
8 as selençã Bal 10 Proment olgers bits has exasta add galse VS
aquatte ne nt 10 beed add de bomie good and Intelq B
nwo att emistexe of att hobneds of DOTO? of
. yhod evitsIcigal B us Hlw bas Insurybut
10 assessorg Virebro edd address doldw eselwsi edT
as of ejnuom deriw nevig need and dain
effects edd nt reggist of noldetivni
bluoria edj exedqeomts add 10 secused
to deotal sit at Inamstate salgemet ald Vilusio
has notghtdaeW at ISDTO brie wal
1 * # #
affice Capy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
COMPLETE TEXT OF AN EXCHANGE OF TELEGRAMS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BETWEEN MR. CHARLES EVERS, MISSISSIPPI
Nov. 6, 1965
FIELD DIRECTOR OF NAACP; AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
"DEAR CONGRESSMAN:
"WE UNDERSTAND BY NEWS MEDIA THAT YOU WILL SPEAK FOR THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NATCHEZ ADAMS COUNTY MISS WHICH IS A TOTAL
SEGREGATED PARTY THIS COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF 12 THOUSAND WHITE
11 THOUSAND NEGROS WE URGE YOU TO EMPHASIZE TO THOSE WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU COMING HERE THAT WE THE NEGRO COMMUNITY
WILL LIKE TO BE IN ATTENDANCE IF THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT THE
ATTENDANCE OF NEGROS WE REQUEST THAT YOU CANCEL YOUR ENGAGEMENT"
(Signed) CHARLES EVERS MISS FIELD DIRECTOR NAACP
"Dear Mr. Evers:
"I have been informed by Republican officials sponsoring Nov. 15
luncheon meeting in Natchez, Miss., that tickets are available
for purchase by anyone who is willing to pay regular charge.
I assume anyone attending the luncheon is interested in building
the two-party system in Mississippi through he Republican Party"
(Signed) Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
15" BOLD* N°0"
"Wreq molideqeR edd dynomit at medeva wisq-owt edd
gribitud ni beteement at Hosdonal edj galbaetts епо уль emeas I
TOL belopsee ph surone upo TO MIJITOR to b&h LeEnJeL operSe*
eldelieve OIS tadi toselM at galdeem moedonal
at раде peezi ph abousor.ru8 MOA® R
400% 10.6 gases
(278000) CHVBTE2 EAEB2 WI22 LISTD DISECLOU ИУУСЬ
VALERINCE OR MECHOS ME JHVG ION СѴИСЕГ 1005
AITI TIME 10 BE III V.LLENDVACE In JHEX MITT MOL УССЕЫ JHE
RESTONSIBLE LOH ION СОНТИС HEBE JHVJ AS JHE ИЕСНО COMMITTA
II JHOSEVND иконог AE AVCE 100 to TO JHOSE MHO VHE
SECEIVIED JHIS CONNILLEE E HYS nb OR IS LHONEVED MHLIE
НЕЫӀВГӀСѴИ LVEJI OF MVLOHES VDVN8 CONNET MI22 ARICH 12 V JOIVT
aME BX 11042 NEDIV IHVL zon HEY 26EVK LOH LHE
#DEVE
CEEVED 5' LOND
LIETD DIEECLOE OF ИУСЬ VMD
BELAEEN 105" CHVETES EAEB2'
nos" of raes
COMBILIE LEXL OR VII EXCHVMGE OR
LOK IMMEDIVIE BEFEYED
HOME revors
KETEVSE
СЕКУГР is LOND
NEMS
HOME PULE 165
5.14.918 71012 - LWLS
affice Capy
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Immediate Release
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Phone: 225-6168
August 1, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Civil Rights Act of 1966
The Republican Party and the Republican Members of the House of Representa-
tives have consistently led the fight for justice and progress in human rights.
This is not a cause that we have discovered recently. This year, as in other
years, we advocate and support legislation that will strengthen and advance the
cause of civil rights under the law. For respect for law and order is basic to
the achievement of common goals within our nation. Illegal breach of the peace,
violence, and riot by the mob, weaken the nation and undermine the American goal
of equal opportunity for all.
It is unfortunate that the controversy regarding title IV of the Civil Rights
Act of 1966 has completely dominated public and Congressional attention. As a
result, certain provisions in this Act that represent a solid advance in the field
of civil rights have been downgraded and all but forgotten. For example:
Title I of this bill would update and reform the present federal jury system.
At the present time, no uniform source of names of potential jurors is prescribed,
and the selection process is largely left to local determination. Under this
title, a uniform jury selection system would be assured and the rights of liti-
gants protected. Thus, an even higher standard in federal jury selection to
which all citizens may look with pride and confidence would be required.
Title II is designed to facilitate the elimination of all forms of unconsti-
tutional discrimination in the selection of State court juries. It would
authorize the Attorney General to initiate proceedings for preventive relief
against State jury officials. In the event there is a finding of discrimination,
the federal court would be authorized to grant various types of relief, including
a decree which would suspend the use of State qualifications or standards.
However, no State and no court which have maintained high standards will be
required to change either its law or its rules for the selection of jurors by
the provisions of this title.
Title V of the bill would require an assumption of federal responsibility
that is long overdue. The need for a modern law to deter civil rights crimes
has been demonstrated by the many and sometimes unbelievable instances of violence
against certain of our citizens. Under this title, the full weight of federal
law enforcement machinery can be brought to bear where the victim is engaged in
a lawful civil rights activity. With federal prosecution stripped of the present
necessity for proving specific intent to interfere with civil rights, and with C.
penalty structure that will allow punishment commensurate with the magnitude of
the proven crime, title V, when enacted into law, will prove a powerful deterrent.
Title V will not do violence to our Federal-State relationship in an area of
federal law enforcement. It is designed to operate only where there is a
failure or refusal or State justice in the courts. Hopefully, it will accomplish
more through deterrence than actual application.
These proposals reaffirm this country's commitment to equal justice. These
are areas in which a need has been identified and legislation to meet this need
has been fashioned.
The House Republican Policy Committee, however, is opposed to the provisions
of title IV. As proposed by the Administration, title IV was politically
(over)
2.
motivated and unrealistic. Since its inception, it has created confusion and
bitterness. It has divided the country and fostered discord and animosity when
calmness and a unified approach to the civil rights problems are desperately
needed. As amended and reported by the Committee, it is subject to widely-
varying interpretations. It ignores the lessons learned through the adminis-
tration of fair housing laws in many of our States.
Racial discrimination in any form is a social and moral wrong. However, a
federal prohibition on discrimination in the sale or rental of an individual's
home, or the rental of rooms therein, raises grave and far-reaching questions.
As Associate Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court has stated:
"Freedom of the individual to choose his associates or his neighbors, to use and
dispose of his property as he sees fit, to be arbitrary, capricious, even
unjust in his personal relations are things entitled to a large measure of
protection from governmental interference. This liberty would be overridden,
in the name of equality, if the strictures of the [fourteenth] amendment were
applied to governmental and private action without distinction."
It has been alleged that the Fair Housing Board created by section 408 is
merely a mechanism for conciliation. However, a closer reading reveals that
title IV gives both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the FHB
powers comparable to, and in at least one respect greater than those of the
National Labor Relations Board. Thus, the enactment of this title may create
another super agency larger and more powerful than the NLRB to investigate the
thousands of complaints that are bound to arise under this bill.
Although civil actions by individuals under title IV are subject to a six-
month statute of limitations, actions by the Attorney General and by the
Secretary of HUD and the Fair Housing Board do not have this limitation. Thus,
under this provision, there would be at least a six-month cloud over many sales
and rentals. Certainly, the time within which such suits must be filed should
be as limited as possible. If discrimination is practiced, a meaningful remedy
cannot be fashioned unless the action alleging such discrimination is filed
before a bona fide sale or rental is consummated. Stale claims and continuing
potential liability will not discourage discrimination but they may encourage
nuisance suits and legal harassment.
Title IV would establish
broad Federal authority over private
housing. It could supersede local and State authority and take away local and
State jurisdiction in this area. This title, in effect, sets aside local and
State law and invokes a maze of Federal procedures to remedy discriminatory
housing practices. Fair housing solutions must be developed and carried out
locally. Federal legislation in this area should encourage and promote
appropriate fair housing programs at the community level. The Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 and 1965 affirmative ancouraged State local action. This bill
would reverse this important and Yorward-looking policy.
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Immediate Release
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Phone: 225-6168
August 1, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Civil Rights Act of 1966
The Republican Party and the Republican Members of the House of Representa-
tives have consistently led the fight for justice and progress in human rights.
This is not a cause that we have discovered recently. This year, as in other
years, we advocate and support legislation that will strengthen and advance the
cause of civil rights under the law. For respect for law and order is basic to
the achievement of common goals within our nation. Illegal breach of the peace,
violence, and riot by the mob, weaken the nation and undermine the American goal
of equal opportunity for all.
It is unfortunate that the controversy regarding title IV of the Civil Rights
Act of 1966 has completely dominated public and Congressional attention. As a
result, certain provisions in this Act that represent a solid advance in the field
of civil rights have been downgraded and all but forgotten. For example:
Title I of this bill would update and reform the present federal jury system.
At the present time, no uniform source of names of potential jurors is prescribed,
and the selection process is largely left to local determination. Under this
title, a uniform jury selection system would be assured and the rights of liti-
gants protected. Thus, an even higher standard in federal jury selection to
which all citizens may look with pride and confidence would be required.
Title II is designed to facilitate the elimination of all forms of unconsti-
tutional discrimination in the selection of State court juries. It would
authorize the Attorney General to initiate proceedings for preventive relief
against State jury officials. In the event there is a finding of discrimination,
the federal court would be authorized to grant various types of relief, including
a decree which would suspend the use of State qualifications or standards.
However, no State and no court which have maintained high standards will be
required to change either its law or its rules for the selection of jurors by
the provisions of this title.
Title V of the bill would require an assumption of federal responsibility
that is long overdue. The need for a modern law to deter civil rights crimes
has been demonstrated by the many and sometimes unbelievable instances of violence
against certain of our citizens. Under this title, the full weight of federal
law enforcement machinery can be brought to bear where the victim is engaged in
a lawful civil rights activity. With federal prosecution stripped of the present
necessity for proving specific intent to interfere with civil rights, and with C.
penalty structure that will allow punishment commensurate with the magnitude of
the proven crime, title V, when enacted into law, will prove a powerful deterrent.
Title V will not do violence to our Federal-State relationship in an area of
federal law enforcement. It is designed to operate only where there is a
failure or refusal or State justice in the courts. Hopefully, it will accomplish
more through deterrence than actual application.
These proposals reaffirm this country's commitment to equal justice. These
are areas in which a need has been identified and legislation to meet this need
has been fashioned.
The House Republican Policy Committee, however, is opposed to the provisions
of title IV. As proposed by the Administration, title IV was politically
(over)
2.
motivated and unrealistic. Since its inception, it has created confusion and
bitterness. It has divided the country and fostered discord and animosity when
calmness and a unified approach to the civil rights problems are desperately
needed. As amended and reported by the Committee, it is subject to widely-
varying interpretations. It ignores the lessons learned through the adminis-
tration of fair housing laws in many of our States.
Racial discrimination in any form is a social and moral wrong. However, a
federal prohibition on discrimination in the sale or rental of an individual's
home, or the rental of rooms therein, raises grave and far-reaching questions.
As Associate Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court has stated:
"Freedom of the individual to choose his associates or his neighbors, to use and
dispose of his property as he sees fit, to be arbitrary, capricious, even
unjust in his personal relations are things entitled to a large measure of
protection from governmental interference. This liberty would be overridden,
in the name of equality, if the strictures of the [fourteenth] amendment were
applied to governmental and private action without distinction."
It has been alleged that the Fair Housing Board created by section 408 is
merely a mechanism for conciliation. However, a closer reading reveals that
title IV gives both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the FHB
powers comparable to, and in at least one respect greater than those of the
National Labor Relations Board. Thus, the enactment of this title may create
another super agency larger and more powerful than the NLRB to investigate the
thousands of complaints that are bound to arise under this bill.
Although civil actions by individuals under title IV are subject to a six-
month statute of limitations, actions by the Attorney General and by the
Secretary of HUD and the Fair Housing Board do not have this limitation. Thus,
under this provision, there would be at least a six-month cloud over many sales
and rentals. Certainly, the time within which such suits must be filed should
be as limited as possible. If discrimination is practiced, a meaningful remedy
cannot be fashioned unless the action alleging such discrimination is filed
before a bona fide sale or rental is consummated. Stale claims and continuing
potential liability will not discourage discrimination but they may encourage
nuisance suits and legal harassment.
Title IV would establish
broad Federal authority over private
housing. It could supersede local and State authority and take away local and
State jurisdiction in this area. This title, in effect, sets aside local and
State law and invokes a maze of Federal procedures to remedy discriminatory
housing practices. Fair housing solutions must be developed and carried out
locally. Federal legislation in this area should encourage and promote
appropriate fair housing programs at the community level. The Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 and 1965 affirmativ encouraged State local action. This bill
would reverse this important and forward-looking policy.
affire
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--JUNE 7, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN ON MEREDITH SHOOTING.
All decent, law-abiding Americans, including the overwhelming majority of
citizens in the South, must deplore this reprehensible attack. The most serious
aspect of the wounding of James Meredith is that there still obviously prevails
among a few in this country the belief that crimes by one race against another
will go unpunished. This idea must be erased from the minds of the advocates of
violence if America is ever to make good on the promises in its Bill of Rights
and its Constitution.
The only way to confound the law breaker who turns to violence in the belief
he can get away with it is to make sure he is dealt an appropriate penalty
provided by law. If justice cannot be obtained under existing circumstances,
then the Meredith case will become still another persuasive argument for federal
legislation.
Early in 1966 a number of Republicans, including Congressman Charles McC.
Mathias, Jr. (R-Md.), sponsored legislation which would be applicable in these
circumstances. The Congress should hold public hearings on the Mathias proposal
and consider such legislation immediately.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
According to this morning's Washington POST, the Vice President of the United
States went into one of our largest Southern cities last night, while major outbreaks
of lawlessness were deeply scarring several other of our big cities, and expressed
what seemed to be sympathy for mob disregard of law and order.
May I quote from the article, datelined New Orleans, July 18, in this morning's
Washington POST:
"Vice President Hubert Humphrey said today that if he had to live
in a city ghetto with rats nibbling on his children's toes, he might
'lead a mighty good revolt' himself.
"Addressing the National Association of Counties conference here,
he called for a national drive to vipe out slum housing.
"Without rent supplements or rent subsidies for the poor, he said,
'We will have open violence in every major city and county in America...'
"I'd hate to be stuck on a fourth floor of a tenement with rats
nibbling on the kids' toes--and they do--with garbage uncollected--and
it is--with the streets filthy, with no swimming pools, with little or
no recreation.'
"Humphrey told the county officials that if he were forced to live
under such conditions, 'I think you'd have more trouble than you have
had already, because I've got enough spark left in me to lead a mighty
good revolt under those conditions.
Every member of the House deplores slum conditions, and every member--
regardless of party deplores riot, revolt and rebellion. I sincerely hope that this
almost incredibly irresponsible statement by the Second lighest Official in our
nation, the man who stands one heartbeat from the White use, was incorrectly
reported by the Washington POST.
If not, I sincerely hope that President Johnson, who I understand is holding a
news conference tomorrow, will repudiate such inflammatory statements by his Vice
President before more tragic damage is done.
The golden virtue of silence would be helpful in this crisis. The Vice President's
verbal spark is well known. I hope this latest spark, which did not shed much light,
will not ignite conflagrations which even he cannot blow out. This is not time for
incitement to riot from any source, and certainly not from the Vice-President of the
United States.
# # #
STMT 1966 - CIUIL RTS
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
TUESDAY PM's
March 29, 1966
STATEMENT ON FHA SCANDALS ISSUED BY
THE REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE AT ITS
MEETING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MARCH 28, 1966
The government's official watch-dog agency--the General
Accounting Office--has frequently detailed a record of bank-
ruptcies and mortgage insurance losses in the Federal Housing
Administration. Senator John J. Williams (R-Del.) has also
called attention to these, the latest in a series of Johnson-
Humphrey Administration scandals. An article in the April,
1966, issue of The Reader's Digest entitled "The Stench at
FHA," points out that "nearly one out of every ten FHA apart-
ment or multi-family projects across the country has gone
bankrupt." And, the article goes on to say that "At the end
of the last fiscal year FHA was addled with 575 of these fail-
ures which had cost it $536 million. It was also still stuck
with 46,261 homes which cost $520 million."
We deplore the laxness which again appears to be besetting
a Democratic Administration. We deplore the fact that prominent
Democrats appear to be playing major roles in the use of FHA
mortgages for windfall profits. We deplore the fact that pol-
itical cronies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration have
once more turned FHA into an agency to fatten personal profits
through raids on the Treasury of the United States. We deplore
the fact that Democratic Congresses have chosen to ignore
eleven reports submitted by the General Accounting Office
pointing out the rot in FHA since President Johnson took office.
MORE
LIBRARY
2.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration now demands a rent
subsidy program that may ultimately cost as much as 6 billion
dollars. It is proposed that this rent subsidy program be man-
aged by FHA. These multi-mallion dollar scandals already have
led to the resignation of one high official. They hardly justify
the launching of a new easy-money program under such clouded
circumstances.
To a great extent, the problems in FHA are the product of
the law which permits the agency to utilize ever-increasing
sums without returning to Congress for annual appropriations.
Once before, during the Truman Administration, the nation
was shocked with scandals in FHA. Now again history seems to
repeat itself.
We urge that Congress act. We urge that a full and complete
investigation by the Congressional committees concerned begin
immediately to bring out the full story. Our citizens and
taxpayers are entitled to no less.
-30-
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, MAY 5, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
I am confident that the House will uphold the recommendation of its
Committee on Appropriations and defeat the Rent Subsidy Appropriation
when it comes to the Floor next week.
"The cat is out of the bag." Secretary Weaver this week reaffirmed
his intention to make rent subsidies available to middle income families,
those with incomes from $6,000 to $11,000 annually, just as Republicans
have been warning for the past year.
The American people simply are not in favor of the Federal government
paying an unlimited percentage of the rent for middle income families, and
never will be.
###
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
FRIDAY AM'S
JULY 15, 1966
HOUS ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Republican Coordinating Committee today detailed a constructive program to
meet the housing and urban development needs of the Nation's more than 00 metro-
politan areas.
The report was adopted by the Coordinating Committee at its June 27 meeting in
Washington. It was released today by GOP National Chairma Ray C. Bliss. The paper
is one of a series of documents adopted by the Coordinating Committee. It was re-
leased today as a companion paper to a study on metropolitan problems issued yesterday.
Housing and Urban Development was prepared for the Coordinating Committee by
the Task Force on the Functions of Federal, State, and Local Governments, chaired
by former ongressman Robert Talt, J1. of Ohio.
The paper stated that past solutions to metropolitan problems have often "left
out
of the equation the vital human factor. All too frequently we have ignored
the problems of people."
Calling attention to the "remarkable effort by private enterprise" which has
supplied the "great bulk of our housing needs," the paper also noted the reluct-
ance of private firms "to enter the lower income housing field." The paper urged
that ways must be found to make such efforts profitable, and therefore called for
greater research efforts by Federal and State governments into the development
-2-
of low-cost building materials.
Pointing to the "widespread existence of inflexible or obsolete local
building codes," the Republicans said that "a generation of studies on a model
building code should suffice." The GOP group urged top priority efforts to
develop such a code to be adopted by local communities. The Republican paper
also "commended the example set by those States which have created commissions to
foster the development and adoption of model codes."
The report also advocated modernized Federal or local tax policy "to encourage,
rather than penalize, the owner for improving his property."
Pointing to the activities of the Federal Housing Administration, the high-
level Republican group criticized the Administration for being unable "to make
up its mind whether FHA is a salesman of loan guarantees or a social worker."
"FHA's handling of welfare programs has done an injustice both to its basic
mission to encourage private housing construction and also to the social welfare
programs superimposed on that basic mission," the document charged. This contra-
diction, it was noted, has resulted in the "deplorable relaxation of standards
for approvals in FHA's basic housing insurance programs" which have been "pointed
out by the General Accounting Office in a series of reports to Congress which
have been ignored.' An immediate Congressional investigation was demanded by
the Republican statement, as also was a divorce of FHA housing insurance programs
from "its social experimentation functions."
Greater use was urged of present structures stressing rehabilitation and use,
and the paper called for utilization "of the Republican-sponsored program of short-
term leasing of existing housing, voluntarily offered by private landlords at public
housing rental levels. " Also encouraged were programs to make ownership of housing
units available to persons who "show the initiative to move above public housing"
levels.
-3-
The GOP document urged a strengthened urban renewal program which would not
merely relocate slums and create "new blight in other sections.' Criticism was
leveled at programs which create "residential re-use out of the price range of
those displaced." The paper also noted that "fully a third of small businesses
forced out of urban renewal areas have gone out of business."
The Republicans called for a four-point program to revamp urban renewal:
--By increased use of rehabilitation and code enforcement to
diminish the need for massive new buildings and clearances;
- -By better techniques to solve the relocation problem;
--By a re-emphasis on residential renewal to limit the use of
Federal funds on the commercial aspects of redevelopment; and
--By speeding up project completions and ending costly delays.
The document called for a Congressional study of the urban renewal and slum
clearance programs, and advocated greater State efforts to "encourage regional
and local planning and coordination."
#
#
#
Adopted by
The Republican Coordinating Committee
June 27, 1966
Presented by
The Task Force on the Functions of
Federal, State and Local Governments
HOUS ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Prepared under the direction of:
Republican National Committee
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Presiding Officer: Chairman, Republican National Committee
Former President
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Former Presidential Nominees
Barry Goldwater (1964)
Thomas E. Dewey (1944 & 1948)
Richard M. Nixon (1960)
Alf M. Landon (1936)
Senate Leadership
Everett M. Dirksen
Leverett Saltonstall, Chairman
Minority Leader
Republican Conference
Thomas H. Kuchel
Thruston B. Morton, Chairman
Minority Whip
National Republican Senatorial
Committee
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
Republican Policy Committee
House Leadership
Gerald R. Ford
H. Allen Smith, Ranking Member
Minority Leader
of Rules Committee
Leslie C. Arends
Bob Wilson, Chairman
Minority Whip
National Republican Congressional
Committee
Melvin R. Laird, Chairman
Republican Conference
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Planning and Research
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Committee
Republican Policy Committee
Representatives of Republican Governors Association
John A. Love, Governor
Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor
of the State of Colorado
of the State of New York
Robert E. Smylie. Governor
William W. Scranton, Governor
of the State of Idaho
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
George W. Romney, Governor
of the State of Michigan
Republican National Committee
Ray C. Bliss, Chairman
Donald R. Ross, Vice Chairman
Mrs. C. Wayland Brooks,
Mrs. J. Willard Marriott
Assistant Chairman
Vice Chairman
Mrs. Collis P. Moore
J. Drake Edens, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Vice Chairman
Republican State Legislators Association
F. F. (Monte) Montgomery
Robert L. L. McCormick, Staff Coordinator
Members of the Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on
the Functions of Federal, State and Local Governments
Robert Taft, Jr., Chairman
Member of Congress from Ohio, 1963-65
Karl Mundt, Vice Chairman
United States Senator from South Dakota
Mrs. Consuelo Northrop Bailey
Secretary of the Republican National Committee
Henry Bellmon
Governor of the State of Oklahoma
George C. S. Benson
President, Claremont Men's College
Neal Blaisdell
Mayor of the City of Honolulu
Joseph L. Budd
Republican National Committeeman for Wyoming
Howard H. Callaway
Member of Congress from Georgia
Frank Carlson
United States Senator from Kansas
Roger Cloud
Auditor of the State of Ohio
William Cowger
Mayor of the City of Louisville, 1962-65
Walter DeVries
Executive Assistant to the Governor of the State of Michigan
Daniel J. Evans
Governor of the State of Washington
Denison Kitchel
Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona
Warren P. Knowles
Governor of the State of Wisconsin
Mrs. Jewel S. LaFontant
Attorney, Chicago, Illinois
Edwin G. Michaelian
County Executive, Westchester County, New York
Winthrop Rockefeller
Republican National Committeeman for Arkansas
Craig Truax
Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Wittenmeyer
Republican National Committeeman for Iowa
Robert J. Huckshorn
Secretary to the Task Force
HOUS ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
As the Nation's population becomes more concentrated in metropolitan
areas, the problems of urban and suburban living have taken on new importance.
In the past, individual efforts by our private enterprises, citizens, and
local public bodies have combined to provide continuing improvements in the
urban standard of living. While Republicans believe that efforts of these
elements in our society will continue to play the primary roles in the further
upgrading of metropolitan areas, the rising demands of our urban population
will require more energetic statesmanship by both State and Federal governments.
Problems facing urban America and the inadequacies of previous efforts
to find solutions to these problems have a common root: in the past, the
challenge has been viewed as one concerning physical and environmental changes
alone. Left out of the equation, too often, has been the vital human factor.
All too frequently, we have ignored the problems of people, as for example the
difficulties involved in relocation.
Nowhere is this more true than in providing adequate housing and a suitable
living environment for our urban citizens. Without pretending to catalog
all possible problem areas, we offer here valid criticisms and reasonable
suggestions in response to these needs.
Emphasizing the Role of Private Enterprise
Private enterprise always has supplied the great bulk of our housing
needs. This remarkable effort by private enterprise and local initiative
should not merely be noted, but encouraged most actively by citizens and their
governments. The accomplishments performed by private firms in housing nearly
-2-
200 million Americans are a tribute to the American free enterprise system.
Let us hope that future efforts will not be shackled by inflation.
In particular, Americans should encourage the actions taken by private
sources to eliminate racial and religious barriers.
Private enterprise in recent years, however, has been increasingly
hesitant to enter the lower income housing field. While the efforts of non-
profit groups and public bodies have contributed to meeting the needs of these
citizens, it should also be possible to encourage private enterprise to a
greater effort. We should seek ways to make such efforts profitable. For
example, one basic problem is the cost of building materials.
This problem of expensive building materials is aggravated by the lack
of research into low-cost or desirable materials. Given the nature of the
building and real estate industry, large commitments to research are sometimes
difficult to obtain. Yet, private industry can solve such problems. Plumbing
is a classic American example of private achievement in housing; more recent
accomplishments have occurred in flat glass, aluminum, plastic and other
materials -- in all of which private research played a key role.
The Federal and State governments should, therefore, make a far more
energetic effort to encourage all types of private research in this field,
directed at improving lower income housing. Where necessary, grants should be
provided for basic research into the development of low cost materials and
methods of new construction and rehabilitation.
Another major problem in conquering the costs of housing materials and
construction is the widespread existence of inflexible or obsolete local building
codes. Even where information and research is available, it is often unprofit-
able or impossible, for private enterprise to use it under the present building
code situation.
-3-
A generation of studies on a model building code should suffice. We
believe that the private building industry and the trade unions should give
top priority to efforts to develop such a code which should be adopted by local
communities. We also commend the example set by those States which have created
building code commissions to foster the development and adoption of model codes.
On the other hand, we oppose any attempt by the National Government
to impose, through the influence of its programs, any specific code standards
on local communities. Nevertheless, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development can play a positive role in seeking new ways to make low income
housing an attractive field for private industry. Through successful Republican
efforts to amend the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, the new Depart-
ment has the responsibility to act as an information-gathering center concerning
both the use and content of building codes.
Modernizing Tax Policy as it Affects Slum Housing
As the result of a Republican amendment to the Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act of 1965, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been
instructed to study and report to Congress on the effect of tax policy of
housing supply.
We believe that this study should be useful in determining the means by
which Federal or local tax policy can be used to encourage, rather than penalize,
the owner for improving his property. Such encouragement could be based on a
tax credit or tax abatement approach, using as a guide the cost of the improve-
ment or the local property tax increase. Certainly, all levels of government
should study their tax laws to eliminate factors which encourage the maintenance
and spread of profitable slums.
-4-
Restating the Role of the Federal Housing Administration
One good indicator of the strength and resourcefulness of the housing
and housing-finance industries can be found in the fact that the demand for
FHA-insured mortgages has been decreasing. Between 1961 and 1965 , FHA's share
of the mortgage market dropped from 19 percent to 16 percent.
Nonetheless, the Federal Housing Administration, even in the new Department
of Housing and Urban Development, will continue to play an important role.
One major difficulty is that the Administration cannot seem to make up
its mind whether FHA is a salesman of loan guarantees or a social worker.
The Federal Housing Administration was originally designed in 1938 to
help undergird economically sound private housing. In more recent years,
however, it has been given the added responsibility of operating programs of a
social welfare nature. These include FHA jurisdiction over such higher risk
programs as rehabilitation loans, loan insurance, and moderate income housing
mortgage insurance. FHA will also administer the rent supplement program.
FHA's handling of these welfare programs has done an injustice both to
its basic mission to encourage private housing construction and also to the
social welfare programs superimposed on that basic mission.
This contradiction in purpose between economics and social welfare has
resulted in a deplorable relaxation of standards for approvals in FHA's basic
housing insurance programs. These weaknesses were pointed out by the General
Accounting Office in a series of reports to Congress which have been ignored.
These reported defaults constitute a serious danger to the insurance fund which
has been built up by the payments of individual home owners. We call upon
Congress to institute an immediate investigation of this deplorable situation.
-5-
To compound the confusion, FHA has also shown a reluctance to act on
behalf of its own welfare programs. These bureaucratic delays have created
hardships for many lower income citizens.
FHA should be divorced of all its social experimentation functions. Such
a separation of programs of social experimentation from the basic FHA mission
will free them from present delays, and at the same time allow Congress the
opportunity to judge these programs on their own merits. Confidence in FHA's
operations could then be restored and encouragement of a viable housing indus-
try assured by restricting FHA to its proper function as an insurance
instrumentality for an economically sound private housing.
Placing Greater Emphasis on Rehabilitation and Use of Existing Structures
One tendency in both the Federal urban renewal and public housing
programs has been to demolish existing structures and build anew. The
costs of such an approach, both in human and economic terms, have often
outweighed any benefits gained. At the same time, we have been ignoring
one of our greatest resources in the housing field: existing buildings
with a potential for rehabilitation or renovation.
Where public housing has been accepted by local decision, local public
housing officials should be encouraged to make use of the Republican-
sponsored program of short term leasing of existing housing, voluntarily
offered by private landlords at public housing rental levels. This
will not only supply additional housing units faster than any other way,
but the costs to the taxpayer will be much lower through the elimination of
expensive government construction and maintenance. Thus, the community will also
gain by keeping the property steadily on the local tax rolls. It will also be
a move away from the ghetto aspect of public housing.
-6-
Tenants of low-income housing projects should be encouraged to make an
individual effort to improve their positions. We believe that opportunities
for acquiring ownership of units must be enhanced. Persons who show the
initiative to move above the public housing level are often faced with
inadequate housing supply and landlord antipathy or indifference. Nevertheless,
they should be encouraged. Temporary lease guarantees, backed by local,
State or Federal government sources, could be explored. This approach is far
more in keeping with traditional American concepts of home ownership than
is any housing subsidy program.
Strengthening the Urban Renewal Program
The Federal urban renewal program was undertaken in the belief that
Federal assistance was necessary to supplement local and private efforts to
provide a decent home and suitable living environment for every American.
Its objective was to erase slums and other aspects of urban blight.
Despite the commitment of $5.5 billion, the surface of the need has been
barely scratched, and many of the Federal efforts recently undertaken have been
in the wrong direction. An over-emphasis of residential re-use out of the
price-range of those displaced has actually aggravated the housing shortage
for low income and minority groups. Dislocated businesses have been frequently
forced to the wall by the lack of adequate provision for new locations and
new markets; fully a third of small establishments forced out of urban renewal
areas have gone out of business.
In city after city, urban renewal has merely relocated slums and created
new blight in other sections of the urban area.
-7-
We believe that the following principles will cause a re-direction of
the urban renewal program:
(a) By increased use of rehabilitation and code enforcement to diminish
the need for massive new building and clearances. Massive clearance projects
very often invite high income re-use. Instead, much greater attention should be
given to renovation of housing which is, or could be made, structurally sound.
Strict code enforcement procedures are necessary to this type of a successful
urban renewal program. Residents of new and renovated low income housing should
be offered training in the proper use of space and equipment provided by such
housing. Incentives and sanctions should be applied strongly and fairly at
the local level to bring substandard housing up to par. These restored units
must be available to their low-income tenants at a price they can afford. A
coordinated approach to housing should realize that there is social benefit in
retaining the neighborhood which may be the only social institution with
meaning and value for the low income urban family.
(b) By better techniques to solve the relocation problem. Where re-
location is necessary, it should involve the total resources of the community.
Adequate checks must be made on the availability of new housing and new business
locations prior to displacement. Too often, families and businesses are forced
to relocate in areas as bad or worse as the one they left, with higher rent
costs as well. Needed are more adequate payments of moving expenses, and more
equitable compensation awards and procedures where property is taken under
eminent domain.
(c) By a re-emphasis on residential renewal to limit the use of Federal
funds on the commercial aspects of redevelopment. Given limited governmental
budget resources, family housing needs certainly deserve a higher priority than
commercial redevelopment. At present, however, some 35 percent of the Federal
-8-
funds go to commercial, non-residential projects. Even in residential projects,
almost half of there-use may be for commercial purposes. Congress should require
that top priority be given to residential projects in areas where housing needs
remain unmet. Emphasis should be given to increasing the supply of housing
within the reach of lower income families.
In addition, Congress should consider revamping the commercial renewal
program. The Federal Government's share of the costs should be repaid by
the community, at least in part, from increased tax revenues where these result
from the property improvement.
(d) By speeding up project completions and ending costly delays. When it
takes an average of ten years to complete an urban renewal project, the
residents face long delays in relocation, land lies vacant, and property
deteriorates in value within the area. This not only costs our cities
badly needed tax revenue and new housing, but has also discouraged private
interests from participating to the degree expected.
What Republicans Have Contributed to Urban Renewal
As a result of Republican contributions to the last two major housing
bills, improvements have been made in the program. These include:
(1) small business lease guarantees,
(2) an emphasis on rehabilitation as against clearance or bulldozer projects,
(3) encouragement of stricter local code enforcement efforts,
(4) low cost rehabilitation loans,
(5) more adequate relocation procedures,
(6) additional low-income housing opportunities, and
(7) more equitable compensation awards and procedures.
-9-
Unfortunately, the reluctance of the appropriate officials to put these
programs to full use immediately has dampened their effectiveness. A new
attitude is required on the part of those administering the urban renewal
program itself.
Although $5.5 billion has been committed over the past seventeen years,
no detailed or careful study of the operations of the Federal urban renewal
and slum clearance programs has ever been undertaken by Congress. Such a
study should include in-depth hearings involving the people directly affected
by the program. It is urgently needed and long overdue.
Improving Planning for the Future
Local officials and private developers have evidenced an increasing
awareness of the need to develop and utilize a coordinated approach to
community development. The assistance provided by the Federal Government
in the forms of planning grants or advances should be continued, but it should
be clearly understood that local elected officials, the persons responsive to
the electorate, are responsible for the decision to plan, and for the content
of such plans. Groups such as Chambers of Commerce, labor unions, and other
civic associations should take an active role in all such planning; the mere
fact that so many dues-paying members do not live in the core city area ought
never to dampen this basic civil responsibility.
State governments should encourage regional and local planning and
coordination. In highly urbanized States, departments of local government or
urban affairs within the State government can be focal points for housing and
urban renewal programs. These agencies can assist local and Federal programs,
particularly in the rehabilitation field.
The quality of housing affects more than the physical appearance of our
communities. It has a very real impact on the human environment as well.
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
June 23, 1970
Second Session
Statement Number 8
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 17495,
THE EMERGENCY HOME FINANCE ACT OF 1970
"Economic incentives will be developed to attract private
industry and capital to the low-cost housing market."
Republican Platform, 1968
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 17495,
the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
Twenty million Americans today live in substandard housing. To overcome
the existing backlog and meet the Nation's ever-expanding housing need, twenty-six
million units must be constructed in this decade.
Since 1950, when 1.9 million units were constructed, a continuing decline
in housing production, an outflow of funds from savings institutions supporting the
housing market, and a drying up of traditional mortgage sources have brought about
a housing crisis which threatens our national well-being.
Curbing inflation is basic to the easing of the critically tight money
market and is of the highest national priority. The housing industry, however, is
bearing a disproportionate burden of the inflationary pressures as well as the
anti-inflation measures instituted to restore price stability. To direct the flow
of additional funds into the home mortgage market and overcome this most pressing
restraint on housing construction, specific action by the Congress is required.
(over)
-2-
H.R. 17495 will stimulate private investment in mortgages, providing
needed assistance to home buyers, without undermining Republican efforts to
control inflation. The Act:
1) authorizes $250 million to be used by the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board to reduce interest rates charged by Federal home
loan banks to member associations, thus promoting the orderly
flow of funds into residential financing.
2) expands the purchase authority of the Federal National
Mortgage Association to include conventional mortgages, in
addition to the federally underwritten mortgages it now
purchases and sells.
3) authorizes the establishment of a Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, a secondary market facility to purchase residen-
tial mortgages.
4) increases the authority of the Government National Mortgage
Association in the amount of $1.5 billion, to provide
additional special assistance for low-income housing.
5) extends the authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Administrator of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration to set maximum interest rates on FHA and VA loans to
meet mortgage market conditions.
Enactment of these provisions will effectively stimulate the flow of
funds into the mortgage market.
The bill, as originally proposed, provided for the establishment of a
National Development Bank, the main source of funds for which would be an annual
(more)
-3-
compulsory assessment of up to 2.5% of the assets of pension funds and private
foundations. The proposal is of doubtful constitutionality and is but a thinly
veiled attack in a continuing battle against a major segment of the Nation's
financial structure. The provision, which was opposed by the Nixon Administration,
was wisely deleted by the Banking and Currency Committee. Their action in
striking the provision, Title V of the bill, is strongly supported.
Title VII of H.R. 17495 authorizes the Federal Reserve to permit
commercial banks to invest portions of their cash reserves in agency securities
issued to finance residential real estate. Such authority, an extraordinary
precedent strongly opposed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, could well jeopardize the liquidity of commercial banks and lead to
directed investment of their assets. The deletion of the authority, contained
in Title VII of the bill, is urged.
Thus amended, the enactment of H.R. 17495, the Emergency Home Finance Act
of 1970, will contribute substantially to curbing rampant inflation in housing
costs. The House Republican Policy Committee urges its passage.
office
Copy
MINORITY STAFF
SECOND EDITION
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MARCH 30, 1968
MEMORANDUM ON H. R. 2516
This memorandum contains a more complete analysis
of H. R. 2516 (as passed by the Senate on March 11, 1968)
than that provided by minority staff in the first memorandum
of March 13, 1968. As in the first memorandum, the Senate
substitute is compared to relevant House-passed bills,
H. R. 2516 and H. R. 421 of the 90th Congress and H. R.
14765 of the 89th Congress. However, unlike the first
memorandum, this provides an analysis of Titles II through
VII of the Senate substitute which treat with Indian rights.
QERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
PAGE 1
TITLE I INTERFERENCE WITH FEDERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
Title I of the Senate version embraces the areas covered both
in H. R. 2516 and H. R. 421, as they passed the House in 1967. It should
be noted that Republican members of the Judiciary Committee expressed the
view in the Committee reports on both of these House bills that the two
bills actually reflected two sides of one problem, and that they therefore
should be joined together. The Senate has taken the suggested approach.
The first half of Title I is similar to the House version of
H. R. 2516. However, there are several differences. Both the House version
and the Senate version make it a crime for anyone, whether or not acting under
the color of law, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate or interfere
with any person because he is or has been participating in specified federally
protected activities. However, the Senate version requires that such injury be
done "willfully," whereas the House version requires that it be done only
"knowingly."
The Senate version divides the enumerated activities into two cate-
gories: the first might be called that of greater federal interest; and the
second, that of lesser federal interest. But only as to the second category
of activities does the Senate version purportedly require that racial motivation
(a shorthand term for "because of his race, color, religion or national origin")
be proved as an element of the offense. The House version does not divide the
enumerated activities into two categories, and requires that racial motivation
be proved as to all cases. The Senate version does not mimic the House version
in describing the substance of the protected activities. There are thus subtle
differences in the two versions.
After considerable debate in the House, it was agreed that "attempts
to interfere" with a person's federally protected rights were simply too tenuous
a basis for prosecution. The Senate version does not agree. However, neither
did the House version consistently take that position throughout the entire
bill. Compare Sec. 245 (a) with Sec. 245 (b), 245 (c) and 245 (d).
PAGE 2
TITLE I
The House version forbids discrimination on the basis of "political
affiliation" in the enumerated areas, whereas the Senate version does not.
After some discussion, the House, in the Committee of the Whole,
narrowly defeated (90-90) an amendment to protect businessmen during riots.
However, such protection is extended to such people by Sec. 245 (b) (3) of
the Senate version.
Sec. 245 (b) (4) (A) of the Senate version, which forbids inter-
ference with one "participating without discrimination on account of race,
color, religion or national origin in any of the benefits or activities"
enumerated, presents a serious problem. If the section is designed to proscribe
acts of terrorism against minority groups, it may be superfluous (and certainly
confusing) in view of the intimidation clause that was added by the Senate
at subsection 1 of the Sec. 245 (b). The House bill requires a separate acts-
of-terror section, 245 (b) (on page 3 of the House version), because it
does not have an intimidation clause comparable to that in Sec. 245 (b) (1)
of the Senate version. If, on the other hand, it is not designed to proscribe
acts of terrorism, but applies rather to civil rights workers (see Cong. Rec.,
March 7, 1968, page S 2352), it is likewise superfluous and confusing.
It should be noted that the language of the House version is
far more clear. The principal sections were not rewritten on the floor.
Thus the House version avoids awkward phraseology like that in proposed
section 245 (b) (1) : "whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by
force or threat of force willfully.
intimidates
any person.
in
order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons
from" participating in the activities described. Proposed section 245 (b) (4) (A)
repeats this language verbatim except that it adds the qualification that the
victim must be participating "without discrimination on account of race,"
etc. Is that a distinction without a difference? Probably SO.
Proposed section 245 (b) (2) requires racial motivation as an
element of the offenses concerning activities of lesser federal interest.
PAGE 3
TITLE I
This is the only place in Title I of the Senate version where racial motiva-
tion is made an element of an offense. But that requirement in proposed
section 245 (b) (2) is made meaningless by (b) (4) of such section which
makes it a crime to do what (b) (2) forbids even if racial motivation is
lacking.
Thus the element of racial motivation drops out of the Senate
version -- an effect which was probably not intended by the other body.
Thus, for example, if a fist fight breaks out in a labor dispute because one
party was "enjoying employment.
by any private employer" as, say, a
scab laborer, then a federal crime may have been committed. The same might be
true if two employees fought over the fact that one received a bonus (a
"perquisite") while the other did not. These results are not in harmony
with the probable legislative intent of the other body, let alone that of the
House.
One should recall that one of the earlier stalemates in the other
body was caused by the question whether racial motivation should be made
an element of the crime. Though subsections (b) (1) and (b) (2) give the
appearance of compromise on that question, subsection (b) (4) indicates that
the so-called liberal bloc lost the bargain.
The other example of a disparity in Title I between what was
intended and what was legislated grows out of the Mrs. Murphy amendment
[compare section 201 (b) (1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] proposed by
Senator Cooper (Cong. Rec., S 2351-52, March 7, 1968). The amendment
reads:
"Nothing in subparapraph (2) (F) or (4) (A)
of this subsection shall apply to the pro-
prietor of any establishment which provides
lodging to transient guests, or to any em-
ployee acting on behalf of such proprietor,
with respect to the enjoyment of the goods,
services facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations of such establishment if such
establishment is located within a building
which contains not more than five rooms for
rent or hire and which is actually occupied by
the proprietor as his residence.
PAGE 4
TITLE I
Thus if Mrs. Murphy wishes to imtimidate a prospective Negro
tenant she may do so without violating Title I of the Senate version.
But suppose the Ku Klux Klan intimidates Mrs. Murphy because she has a Negro
tenant. Does Title I of the Senate version protect her? No. The relevant
language is found in proposed section 245 (b) (4) (B) no one may intimidate
Mrs. Murphy for "affording another person.
opportunity
to so partic-
ipate."
The language refers back to (4) (A) whose coverage was truncated
by the Cooper amendment. Thus, since Mrs. Murphy was affording opportunities
beyond those delimited in (4) (A) she is not protected by (4) (B).
The House version of H. R. 2516 probably produces a different result
in both cases: Mrs. Murphy could not intimidate (by force or threat of force)
the prospective Negro tenant nor could the KKK intimidate Mrs. Murphy for
affording a room to such a tenant.
Thus it should be noted that these last two major differences
(racial motivation, protection of Mrs. Murphy) between Title I of the Senate
version and H. R. 2516 as passed by the House are somewhat accidental. It
is probable that the Senate did not intend to be different on those two
issues.
The question of protection from and protection of Mrs. Murphy
is not laid to rest by the Cooper Amendment to Title I. Since Title VIII
does not regulate Mrs. Murphy [section 803 (b) (2)] and since the purpose of
Title IX is only to enforce Title VIII with criminal sanctions, it would seem
that none of the criminal sanctions in the Senate Amendment apply to the Mrs.
Murphy situation. That was probably the intent of section 101 (b) of the
Senate version which states:" "Nothing contained in this section shall apply
to or affect activities under title VIII of this Act."
The argument would be valid if Title IX had been written to do no more
than enforce Title VIII. But Title IX, mirroring the approach of Title I, makes
it a crime to intimidate "any person because of his race
and because he
is
.renting
occupying
or negotiating for the
rental
PAGE 5
TITLE I
or occupation of any dwelling
11
Thus Mrs. Murphy may not intimidate the prospective Negro tenant.
And since Title IX also forbids intimidating anyone because he is "affording
another person
opportunity.
.SO to participate," the KKK cannot intimidate
Mrs. Murphy for renting to a Negro without subjecting itself to criminal
penalties.
Thus the results under Title IX, unlike those under Title I, appear
to square with the House version.
Both the Senate and House versions provide for the protection of
Civil Rights workers. While the House version protects Civil Rights workers who
are "persons," the Senate version protects only those who are "citizens." See
proposed section 245 (b) (5) in Title IX of the Senate version.
Both the Senate and House versions provide for an identical tier
of penalties for violations of the Act based upon the seriousness of the offense.
Two Senate amendments attempt to make the protection provisions
inapplicable to law enforcement officers. The first, proposed by Senator
Talmadge, insulates officers who are "lawfully" carrying out the duties of their
office, Sec. 245 (c). The second amendment, proposed by Senator Ervin, provides
that the operative sections shall not apply to "acts or ommissions on the part
of law enforcement officers.
.who are engaged in suppressing a riot or civil
disturbance or restoring law and order during a riot or civil disturbance."
Under the latter amendment, Sec. 101 (c), protection of the law may be wanting
when it is needed most. Although neither the term "riot" nor the term "civil
disturbance" is defined for the purposes of the chapter in question, it is
clear that the Ervin Amendment would seriously decrease the number of people
("whoever, whether or not acting under color of law") whose conduct would be
regulated by the proposed legislation.
The amendments to Sec. 241 and 242 of Title 18 concerning penalties
are the same in the House and Senate versions.
PAGE 6
TITLE I
The pre-emption Section of the House version says that no state
law is pre-empted unless it is "inconsistent" with the federal law, whereas
the Senate version makes clear that there is no pre-emption whatsoever. Since
it is unlikely that a State would seek to enforce a statute conflicting
with the federal policy stated herein, it is probable that the different
approaches would produce the same result.
Finally, Sec. 245 (a) (1) of the Senate version states that no
prosecution shall be undertaken unless the Attorney General certifies in
advance that it is"in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial
justice." The House version contains no such provision.
PAGE 7
TITLE I
H. R. 421 and the Thurmond-Lausche amendment contain almost
identical operative sections. However, the Senate version makes clear that
the overt act which is required may occur either during the travel or use of
the interstate facility or after the travel or use of such facility, whereas
the House version seemed to say that the overt act could occur only after
the travel or use of the interstate facility.
Sec. 2101 (b) of the Senate version provides for a rule of
evidence. It is senseless. The House version has no such provision.
Sec. 2101 (c) of the Senate version provides that conviction or
acquittal on the merits under the laws of any state shall be a bar to any
federal prosecution "for the same act or acts." What is the scope of the
quoted phrase? The House version has no such provision.
Sec. 2101 (d) of the Senate version requires that the Department
of Justice quickly prosecute interstate rioters or report to Congress in
writing. The House version has no such provision.
Sec. 2101 (e) of the Senate version insulates labor unions from
the anti-riot provisions, so long as they are "pursuing the legitimate objectives
of organized labor." The House, in the Committee of the Whole, twice handily
rejected (120-66 on a division, Cong. Rec. H 8995, July 19, 1967, and 110-76
on a division, Cong. Rec. H 9000, July 19, 1967) similar exemptions for
labor unions.
Sec. 2101 (f) of the Senate version is the anti-pre-emption
section. It makes clear that the federal remedy is in addition to the state
remedies. The House version says that the federal remedy does not pre-empt
the state remedies unless they are "inconsistent." Since it is unlikely
that a State would seek to enforce a statute conflicting with the federal
policy stated herein, it is probable that the different approaches would
produce the same result.
Sec. 2102 of the Senate version defines the terms "riot" and "to
incite a riot," as does the House version. Both the House and the Senate ver-
sions make the mistake of applying the "clear and present danger" doctrine to
the definition of a riot, rather than the definition of "to incite a riot."
TITLE I
PAGE 8
For the doctrine sets down a rule by which freedom of speech is limited. See
Schenck V. United States, 249 U. S. 47,52 (1919). Thus Congress may limit
"speech" where it presents a clear and present danger of a riot. The
doctrine does not address itself to the issue of whether a riot, in order
to be defined as a riot, must present a clear and present danger of harm to
the community.
The Senate definition of "riot" includes not only acts of violence,
but also threats of acts of violence. The House version embraced only the
former. The Senate version, like the House version, of the definition of
the term "to incite a riot" states that such term does not mean the mere
advocacy of ideas or expression of belief. However, the Senate version makes
clear that "expression of belief" does not involve "advocacy of any act
or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit
any such act or acts," whereas the House version is silent on that particular
aspect.
PAGE 9
These six titles were added to H. R. 2516 in the Senate by
Senator Ervin. They constitute the exact provisions of S. 1843, a bill
which passed the Senate without debate on December 6, 1967 and is presently
pending before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
The bill has never before had the benefit of hearings in the House,
although the Interior Committee has scheduled hearings beginning March 29, 1968,
nor has such legislation been considered in any previous Congress.
A comprehensive analysis of these six titles concerning the
Rights of Indians is found in Senate Report No. 841, 90th Congress, 1st
Session (accompanying S. 1843).
TITLE II --RIGHTS OF INDIANS
This title creates a "bill of rights" for Indians in relationship
to their tribal government similar to the guarantees of our Federal Consti-
tution. It embodies portions of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh
and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 1, Sec. 3 of the Constitution and
applies them to Indians who are not now so protected. Indian tribal courts,
acting under Indian customs, presently are not subject to Constitutional
sanctions.
In addition to the specific portions of the Constitution made
applicable to Indians, this title provides additionally that: (1) tribal
courts may not impose criminal penalties in excess of $500 and six months
imprisonment, or both; (2) jurors may not be fewer than six; (3) assistance
of counsel shall be at the accused's own expense (present interpretations of
Constitutional minimum requirements of the Sixth Amendment applicable to non-
Indian citizens require lawyers to be appointed at no cost to the non-Indian
accused, if he is indigent and the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 provides pay-
ment for such lawyers in the Federal Courts); (4) habeus corpus application
for release from tribal detention shall be made in the Federal courts (under
present Constitutional practice, non-Indian citizens, if imprisoned under
PAGE 10
state law, must first seek habeus corpus by exhausting available state
court remedies before applying to Federal courts.)
TITLE III --- MODEL CODE GOVERNING COURTS OF INDIAN OFFENSES
This title authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to draft for
Congressional consideration a model code to govern the administration of justice
by Indian courts which would supplant the present code now reposing in Title
25 of the Code of Federal Regulations and which is more than thirty years old.
Curiously, this title requires that such code shall assure that any accused
shall have the "same rights, privileges and immunities" as non-Indian citizens
have under the Constitution. This blanket extension of protection under the
Constitution seems to make the partial enumeration of "rights" under title II
unnecessary or confusing.
TITLE IV --- JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS
This title authorizes states not having jurisdiction over civil and
criminal actions in Indian country within their boundaries to assume
such jurisdiction only with the consent of the Indians (majority vote of
adult Indians required). To accomplish that, title IV amends Public Law
83-280 (67 Stat. 588) which now permits States to assume such jurisdiction by
legislative action and without Indian consent.
Some States presently exercise jurisdiction over Indians by
authority of their own legislative enaction (PL 83-280) and some by Federal
mandate (18 USC 1162, 28 USC 1360).
To implement the purposes of the bill -- to govern Indians
only with their consent -- title IV repeals that part of PL 83-280 (Sec. 7)
which permits States to assume Indian jurisdiction without Indian consent.
The bill does not amend, however, those provisions of Federal law that
specifically require certain States to assume jurisdiction. Instead title IV
allows those States, along with the others now exercising jurisdiction, to
retrocede such presently exercised jurisdiction back to the United States.
PAGE 11
Retrocession presumably, would then permit those States to extend jurisdiction
back to Indians only upon the Indians' consent. But careful analysis of the
bill and Senate report No. 841 reveals a contrary result.
The Senate report says that title IV authority for States to
assume Indian jurisdiction -- with Indian consent -- extends only to those
States where no such jurisdiction "now exists." Thus, States now exercising
jurisdiction are not granted authority to extend such jurisdiction to Indians
even in the event they should retrocede that jurisdiction to the U. S.
This anomalous situation occurs because retrocession necessarily would be
a future event. The State retroceding jurisdiction would, at the time of
retrocession, and only then, become a State "not having jurisdiction." The
bill, as explained by the Senate report gives authority only to States where
no jurisdiction "now exists." Therefore, those retroceding States would
not be authorized by this or any other provision to regain jurisdiction
for subsequent extension to Indians once it is given up.
The apparent gap between the bill's purpose and effect is due
to the interpretation given the authority grant language, namely to those
States where no jurisdiction "now exists." Although this interpretation
frustrates the purpose of the bill, it is supported by the general rule that
Congress does not give its consent to acts that may occur in the future.
That doctrine is best demonstrated in the analogous situation where Congres-
sional consent to interstate compacts is required. In such cases, the con-
sent given is for only those acts presently occurring and not for acts that
may happen in the future.
TITLE V --OFFENSES WITHIN INDIAN COUNTRY
This title amends the "Major Crimes Act" (18 USC 1153) to include
an additional offense of "assault resulting in serious bodily injury." This
offense, along with other serious crimes, will be prosecuted in Federal courts,
since Indian courts may punish only up to $500 and six months, or both. Senator
Ervin, who sponsored this amendment, thus sought to have serious assaults
punished by more substantial penalties than imposed by Indian courts (Senate
PAGE 12
Report No. 841, p. 12.) But that may not be the result. Section 1153,
to which this crime is added, provides no specific penalty, but instead
provides such punishment as the offense would merit under other Federal
jurisdiction. But the crime this amendment specifically defines does not
appear in Title 18 U. S. Code. Therefore, no Federal penalty is provided.
The Federal assault statute most nearly similar in definition (18 USC 113d)
provides no greater penalty than the Indian court may impose. It could be
argued, however, that 18 USC 13 would apply to effect the purpose of this
amendment. 18 USC 13 provides that offenses occurring in Federal jurisdictions
that are not defined by Federal statute are punishable under applicable State
law. However, that application not only raises questions of State jurisdiction
over Indians which other parts of this bill would extend only with Indian
consent, but it also raises questions of whether similar State laws even
exist or, if they do, whether they provide greater penalties.
TITLE VI -- EMPLOYMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL
This title provides that when approval of agreements between
Indians and their legal counsel is required by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and takes longer than ninety
days in forthcoming, such approval shall be deemed granted.
TITLE VII
-- MATERIALS RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIANS
This title authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior
to revise, compile and publish certain documents and materials relating
to Indian rights, laws, treaties and other affairs.
PAGE 13
TITLE VIII OPEN HOUSING
This analysis will compare Title IV of the 1966 Civil Rights bill,
H. R. 14765, which passed the House on August 9, 1966, with Title VIII of
H. R. 2516, as passed by the Senate on March 11, 1968. The analysis will
attempt primarily to note the differences in the two approaches.
The House version was more narrow in its scope and more stringent
in its enforcement. The House version sought to regulate only real estate
brokers, their employees, salesmen and people "in the business" of building
developing, selling and so forth. The Senate version, rather than treat
the commerce of building, selling, and renting houses, embraces every dwelling
in the nation except for certain cases where the conduct of the owner
qualifies for an exemption from the law.
The House version established strict enforcement procedures.
It established a Fair Housing Board as a new government agency with broad
powers, similar to that of the National Labor Relations Board. Thus, the com-
plainant would seek the vindication of his fair-housing rights before the Board,
rather than going to court, as he would under the Senate version. Under
the House version, the Secretary of HUD served in an ancillary enforcement
capacity, but his powers were limited to investigating, publishing reports and
studies, and co-operating with other agencies in eliminating discriminatory
housing practices.
Under the Senate version, the Secretary of HUD is authorized to
educate, persuade and conciliate in order to eliminate discriminatory housing
practices. But, if the Secretary of HUD is unsuccessful, the sole recourse
under the Senate version is to the court, State or federal, and not any adminis-
trative agency, such as a Fair Housing Board.
The two versions differ in more particular ways. Under the Senate
version, the discriminatory basis is that of race, color, religion or national
PAGE 14
origin. The House version covered those four bases but also, at times,
referred to the factors of economic status and of children, both in their
number and their age, as discriminatory bases upon which the bill was predicated.
The House version forbade real estate brokers and the like to
refuse to use their "best efforts" to consumate any sale or rental because
of race, color etc., whereas the Senate version is silent.
Moreover, theHouse version forbade brokers and the like from engaging
in any practice to restrict the availability of housing on the basis of race,
color, etc., whereas the Senate version is silent.
The House version made clear that nothing in the Act would affect
the right of the broker to his commission, whereas the Senate version is silent.
On the question of the breadth of coverage, Sections 403 (e) and 402 were at
the heart of the House approach in that they emphasized the freedom of the
typical home-owner in selling or renting. Sec. 403 said:
"(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, or be construed to
prohibit, a real estate broker, agent, or salesman from complying with the
express written instructions of any person not in the business of building,
developing, selling, renting, or leasing dwellings, or otherwise not subject to
the prohibitions of this section pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) hereof,
with respect to the sale, rental, or lease of a dwelling owned by such person,
if such instruction was not encouraged, solicited, or induced by such broker,
agent, or salesman, or any employee of agent thereof,"
The last sentence of Sec. 402 reads:
"But nothing contained in this bill shall be construed to pro-
hibit or affect the right of any person, or his authorized agent, to rent or
refuse to rent, a room or rooms in his home for any reason, or for no reason;
or to change his tenants as often as he may desire."
Since the House version regulated only those in the business of
selling, renting, or developing, those who were not in such business were
implicitly exempt although they were not expressly exempt. The only express
PAGE 15
exemption (the last sentence of section 402, quoted above) applied to home-
owners renting rooms in their own "homes" (whatever that means) even though
they might otherwise be "deemed to be in the business" of renting under section
402 (d).
However, the Senate version covers all classes of dwellings in
all transactions except three. They are as follows:
A. A single-family "house" (whatever that means) sold or rented by an owner
but only if the following four conditions are true:
1) he owns three or fewer single-family houses,
2) he sells no more than one non-residence in any two year period,
3) he sells without the services of a broker or the like, and
4) he sells without any discriminating advertising.
These conditions present some problems.
The first condition is modified by an attribution clause resembling
in purpose those found in the Internal Revenue Code. That is, the ownership of
an item by one spouse or relative is attributed to the other spouse or relative
lest some rule be circumvented. The attribution clause here is very loose in
comparison to IRC attribution sections.
The second condition is phrased in troublesome language:
"The exemption.
shall apply only with respect to one such sale within
any twenty-four month period." What if two non-residences are sold in such
time? Which sale gets the exemption? The first? Or is it the seller's
choice?
The fourth condition requires that, "after notice," there be no
discriminatory advertising. What "notice"? By whom? there is no intimation
in the entire Title of what is meant by "after notice."
However, it is clear that regardless of circumstances, no one can
"make
any notice, statement, or advertisement" that discriminates, section
804 (c). That applies to all dwellings except religious and fraternal organi-
zations exempted by section 807. Thus the fourth condition, which is stated
PAGE 16
in more narrowsterms (it requires less of the seller) apparently
contradicts the broader requirement of section 804 (c) stated above.
The fourth condition would seem to require only the avoidance of
written discriminatory advertising whereas section 804 (c) would arguably
require the avoidance of both written and spoken (a"statement" can be oral)
"indications of preference."
So, does the fourth condition mean that less is required? Or is it
simply a nullity?
Furthermore, don't these prohibitions violate "free speech"
under the First Amendment? Does not a citizen have the right to indicate
his preference by the spoken or written word? Those questions are not easy to
answer.
B. Mrs. Murphy's boardinghouse. It appears that under section 803 (b) (2),
there is an exemption for "rooms or units in dwellings" holding no more
than four families [" 'family' includes a single individual" -- section 802 (c)]
living independently of each other, if the owner resides therein. The exemption
applies to both the sale and rental of rooms and units, not merely to rental
as would be true if this were purely a Mrs. Murphy exemption. (Note in comparison
that private clubs are exempt only for rental purposes under section 807.)
Is it then possible for Mrs. Murphy to sell all her units (i.e., her house)
to one buyer and still be exempt?
If Mrs. Murphy is not exempt by section 803 (b) (2) in selling
her dwelling, is she exempt under section 803 (b) (1)? Is Mrs. Murphy's
house a "single-family" dwelling? From the use of language in Title VII,
especially in sections 802 (b), 802 (c) and 803 (b) (2), it would seem that
a "single-family" house is one which is "occupied as, or designed or
intended for occupancy as, a residence by one"family.
Thus if Mrs. Murphy has a boarder or if her house is designed
to hold both the Murphy family and others as well (i.e., it has an extra
room), then her house is not exempt for sale purposes under section 803 (b) (1).
PAGE 17
Of course, there are many homes that fit that definition. If the definition
is correct, then many dwellings considered exempt will not prove SO.
However, the sections delimiting the exemptions are not
so clear as they should be in view of their central importance.
It is interesting to note that a four-apartment condominium
would be exempt under section 803 (b) (2) whereas a co-operative would not,
because in the former, each family owns a unit, whereas in the latter
each family owns an undivided quarter which may not be considered by a
court to be a "room" or "unit." The policy for making such a distinction
is not clear.
However, the House version contained a provision, section 403 (b),
which was substantially similar to section 803 (b) (2).
C. 1. A dwelling maintained by a religious group for a non-commercial
purpose, exempt as to both sale and rental.
2. A dwelling maintained as a bona fide private club for a non-commer-
cial purpose, exempt as to rental only so that preference can be given to
members of such club.
In the House version, section 403 (c) exempted the same two
groups as to both the sale and rental to their own members.
Section 805 of the Senate version forbids banks and similar in-
stitutions from discrimination on the basis of race, color, etc. in the
financing of housing. So did section 404 of the House version.
Section 806 of the Senate version forbids discrimination in
the provision of brokerage services. So did section 403 (a) (6) of the
House version.
As for the enforcement of the open housing provision, it
was noted earlier that the House version provided for an administrative remedy
before the Fair Housing Board.
PAGE 13
In contrast, section 810 of the Senate version permits any
aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Secretary of HUD within 180 days
after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred. Within thirty
days after receiving a complaint, the Secretary must notify the aggrieved
person whether he intends to resolve the complaint. The Secretary, if he
intends to do so, then proceeds to correct the alleged discriminatory hous-
ing practice by informal methods of conciliation and persuasion.
The functions of the Secretary are delegable within the Department.
However, HUD has only six regional offices and one area office within the
United States. The bill does not make clear how or where a complaint will
be filed. However, section 808 (c) does state that conciliation meetings
shall be held in the locality where the alleged discrimination occurred.
Under section 810 (c), where there is a State or local fair-housing
law applicable, the Secretary is required to notify the appropriate State
or local agency of any complaint filed with him. If, within thirty days after
such notice has been given to the appropriate State or local official,
such official commences proceedings in the matter, then the Secretary must re-
frain from further action unless he certifies (why? to whom?) that such action
is necessary.
However, section 310 (d) interrupts this conciliation process by
permitting the aggrieved person within thirty days after the filing of a com-
plaint (that is, within the same period that the Secretary has to judge the
substantiality of the complaint) to file an action in the appropriate U. S.
district court against the respondent named in the complaint -- unless State
or local law provides "substantially equivalent" relief, whereupon such relief
must .e sought.
However, the Secretary may continue to seek voluntary compliance
up until the beginning of the trial (as distinguished from the commencement
of the law suit.)
PAGE 19
In the course of the investigation, the Secretary is permitted to
make whatever searches and seizures are necessary "provided, however, that
the Secretray first complies with
the Fourth Amendment." The Secre-
tary may issue subpenas to compel production of such materials and may issue
interrogatories and may administer oaths. Any person who is found in contempt
of the Secretary by"willfully" neglecting to attend and testify or to answer
any lawful inquiry or to produce records shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Thus, in summary, the Secretary's powers are limited to education,
conciliation, and investigation. He apparently cannot enforce the title; only
a court can.
However, section 808 (c) yields a contradictory implication. It
empowers the Secretary to prescribe the "rights of appeal from the decisions
of his hearing examiners.' That implies administrative enforcement of the
prohibitions of the title. It might be the source of an unintended enlargement
of administrative power. Caution would require its elimination.
Section 812 states what is apparently an alternative to the
conciliation-then-litigation approach above stated: an aggrieved person within
180 days after the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, may, without
complaining to HUD, file an action in the appropriate U. S. district court.
At this point, two commands come into play: Section 812 commands the court
to wait to determine if the Secretary can achieve voluntary conciliation, while
section 814 requires that the court "assign the case for hearing to the earliest
practicable date and cause the case to be in every way expedited." Note further
that the command of section 814 to expedite applies only in the situation
PAGE 20
where the aggrieved party has not sought the assistance of the Secretary of
HUD, but has instead filed a civil action without the prior aid of the
Secretary. If the aggrieved party has first sought the assistance of the
Secretary and then files an action within thirty days of his filing the com-
plaint with the Secretary, then the civil action arises under section 810 (d),
a section to which the expedition requirement of section 814 does not apply.
Section 812 (a) also changes the law concerning the bona fide
purchaser and the doctrine of lis pendens. Under section 812 (a), it appears
that a person who purchases a house that is involved in a law suit is termed
a bona fide purchaser if he does not actually know of the law suit, even though
he has constructive knowledge that such a law suit was pending.
Section 812 (b) permits the court to appoint an attorney for the
plaintiff where justice requires it. However, the court has that power only
where the action is brought under section 812 and not where the action is brought
under section 810 (that is, after the assistance of the Secretary has been
sought.) Note that under section 812 (c), the court may award up to $1,000
in punitive damages. The House version contained no such provision.
Both the Senate version, section 115, and the House version, section
407 (a), stated that the provisions of the federal law do not pre-empt State
and local open housing laws, but do pre-empt State and local laws which re-
quired or permitted discriminatory housing practices.
Section 817 of the Senate version establishes a civil cause of
action in tort for the interference by coercion or threats with any person
in the enjoyment of his right to fair housing. Section 407 of the House
version is comparable.
Section 819 of the Senate bill is a separablilty clause.
The House version contained no such clause. However, whereas the 1966
House bill fell within the Congressional power over interstate commerce, the
more far-reaching Senate bill probably does not and must look to section 5
PAGE 21
of the Fourteenth Amendment as its constitutional basis. Since section 1
of the Fcurteenth Amendment focuses only on "State" action, it has long been
doubted that Congress could reach private discriminatory action through legis-
lation to "enforce" section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, See Civil Rights
Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883). However, six Justices of the Supreme Court
of the United States, in the case of United States V. Herbert Guest, 383 U. S.
745 (1966), stated in dictum that section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
empowers Congress to enact laws which reach private discrimination.
The following is a list of the comparable sections in the
House and the Senate versions:
HOUSE VERSION 1966
SENATE VERSION 1968
401
801
403 (a) (1)
804 (a)
403 (a) (2)
804 (b)
403 (a) (3)
804 (c)
403 (a) (5)
804 (d)
403 (a) (6)
806
403 (a) (8)
804 (e)
403 (b)
803 (b) (2)
403 (c)
807
404
805
405
817
406 (a)
812 (a)
406 (b)
812 (b)
406 (c)
812 (c)
407 (a)
813
410
815
PAGE 22
TITLE IX
PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATION IN FAIR HOUSING CASES
Title IX of the Senate version provides criminal sanctions in the
the fair-housing area, just as Title I provided criminal sanctions in the
areas enumerated in that Title. The Senate version apparently classifies
the open-housing area as one of lesser federal interest and thus, as in
Title I, requires racial motivation as an element of the crime in one section,
but not in another. Compare section 901 (a) with section 901 (b) (1).
Since the treatment of open housing in Title IX is identical with Title I's treat-
ment of the areas of lesser federal interest, there is no readily apparent
reason why Title IX could not have been incorporated into Title I.
Title V, section 501 (a) (5) of the 1966 bill, passed by the
House, also provided criminal sanctions for the interference with any person
because of his race, color, religion or national origin while he is seeking
to engage in the purchase, rental, or cccupancy of any dwelling.
Note that both of these protection provisions with criminal
sanctions are broader in scope than the open-housing rights recognized for
civil-law purposes. In both versions, the criminal sanctions apply with ref-
erence to "any dwelling" without exception.
Note also that because both versions protect the right to
occupy any dwelling, that they are both public-accomodation and open-housing
provisions.
PAGE 23
TITLE X -- CIVIL DBEDIENCE
Three new Federal crimes punishable by $10,000 or five years, or both:
1. Teaching or demonstrating the use of making of firearms or
explosives or incendiaries or techniques capable of causing
injury, knowing or having reason to know such devices will be used
unlawfully in a civil disorder adversely affecting commerce or the
performance of a federally protected function.
2. Transporting or manufacturing for transportation in commerce
a firearm or explosive or incendiary knowing or having reason to
know that such device will be used unlawfully in furthering a civil
disorder.
3. Commission of an act to obstruct a law enforcement officer or
fireman lawfully engaged in performing his duties incident to
and during a civil disorder which adversely affects commerce or
the performance of a federally protected function.
Section 232 defines "civil disorder" as a "public disturbance
involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons
"
This definition of civil disorder is different from the Title I definition
of "riot" (pages 7-8 of this memo). Civil disturbances for gun control and
firemen and policemen protection purposes require acts of violence (but
not threats) by assemblages, whereas riots require acts of violence (or
threats of violence) by only one person as part of an assemblage. There
seems no apparent reason for this confusing difference except that the
"riot" amendment was offered by Senators Thurmond and Lausche and "civil
disturbances" amendment was offered by Senator Long (D-La.) From the debate
record, it appears that both sections were meant to treat with the same kind
of "disturbance" or riot.
Section 231 (a) (1), listed as number 1 under Title X above
raises questions as to the scope of "teaching" and "demonstrating" either
PAGE 24
use of weapons or "techniques capable of causing injury. ." " when coupled
with criminal liability for those acts by "having reason to know" that such
weapons or techniques will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil
disorder. What does that prohibition include? Also, what is the meaning
of the requirement that the disorder adversely affect commerce? Does
scienter also include knowledge of the affect on commerce?
The prohibition against transportation or manufacture for
commerce of firearms and incendiaries, unlike the teaching and demonstrating
prohibition, does not require that the disorder affect commerce. Does that
difference make the disorder any more or less serious. Should teaching
about firearms, incendiaries or "techniques" that cause injury become
criminal only in disorders that affect commerce and should shipping firearms
and incendiaries become criminal in disorders that do not affect commerce?
The firearms sections differ substantially from the proposals
now being considered in the House and Senate Judiciary Committess (Dodd,
Celler, Hruska and Biester-Railsback bills) in that these Title X sections
prohibit the domonstration and transfer and manufacture of firearms and explo-
sives with respect to their subsequent use. The bills in Judiciary Committees
would simply regulate commerce of such devices and would not rely on subsequent
use. Use of firearms and similar divices has been a matter for local control
by states and political subdivisions.
Law enforcement officials, lawfully performing their duties, are
excluded from the prohibitions of Title X.
Neither the 1966 nor the 1967 House passed Civil Rights bills
contained provisions affecting firearms.
Full distribution
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
August 10, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the resolution proposing a Women's
Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Speaker: Men are not generally speaking anti-women; it simply appears
to work out that way.
I, for one, do not plead guilty to the charge. In my own defense, I would
note that I am very happy to confer all rights -- and responsibilities -- on my
wife. In addition, I would point out that I had something to do with the fact
that 15 of the last 16 House members to sign the petition discharging the House
Judiciary Committee from jurisdiction over H. J. Res. 264, the Women's Equal Rights
Amendment, were Republicans.
In all seriousness, I am delighted to have had a hand in bringing to the
House floor the proposed Women's Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The purpose of the amendment is most laudable: To provide constitutional
protection against laws and official practices that treat men and women differently.
The proposed amendment would provide that: "Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex."
This amendment would insure equal rights under the law for men and women
and would secure the right of all persons to equal treatment under the laws and
official practices without differentiation based on sex.
Adoption of the amendment would, of course, require a two-thirds vote of
both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. I hope
the Congress will recognize the justice of this amendment and the clear and present
need for it. I call upon this House to render its two-thirds approval.
We like to believe that we live in an enlightened age. How can any age
and any nation be termed enlightened if it continues discrimination against women?
And we do, of course, still have discrimination against women simply because they
are women.
This amendment has been pending before the House Judiciary Committee for
47 years -- since 1923. You would almost think there had been a conspiracy. Under
the circumstances it is almost silly to say it is time we did something about it.
It is long past time.
(more)
-2-
The great French writer Victor Hugo said: "Greater than the tread of
mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."
There is no question that the Women's Equal Rights Amendment is just such an
idea. Its time has come just as surely as did the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution 50 years ago, giving women the right to vote.
I think it is fitting that today, when the Women's Equal Rights Movement
may well be crowned with success, the initiative to implement full equal rights
for women comes in the House. After all, the House has remained quiescent or
adamant on this score -- take your choice -- for 47 years while the Senate has
twice passed a Women's Equal Rights Amendment, in 1950 and 1953. And we are passing
the amendment free and clear of anything like the Senate's Hayden rider, which
threw in a qualifier unacceptable to women.
It is also most fitting that the House should be the first to act today
because the prime mover of this amendment in the Congress is my dear colleague from
Michigan, Rep. Martha Griffiths. Passage of this amendment would be a monument
to Martha.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment should really be unnecessary. But it clearly
is mandatory because women today do not have equal rights. This amendment will
give them those most valued of rights -- the rights to a job, to a promotion, to a
pension, to equal social security benefits, to all the fringe benefits of any job.
There is no denying that these rights are different for women than for men.
It is, of course, easy to jest about this matter. For instance, I am sure
our G.I.'s will not complain if women are drafted into the Armed Forces in the same
numbers as men. And I'm sure there are men who will welcome the awarding of
alimony to husbands in divorce actions.
In any case, I know that men will still look upon women as the fairer sex
and will want to continue opening doors for them. This is not inequality, just
"woomanship."
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Griffiths and others have made an excellent case for
adoption of the Women's Equal Rights Amendment. I urge overwhelming House approval
of H. J. Res. 264.
###
NOTE TO FIFTH DISTRICT NEWS MEDIA
On Monday, August 10, the House of Representatives will consider
House Joint Resolution 264, the Women's Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and is expected to approve it by more than the two-thirds
majority required. The resolution had been locked up in the House Judiciary
Committee and reaches the House floor only by virtue of the fact that 218
House members, a majority, signed what is known as a "discharge petition."
A discharge petition, if it receives enough signatures, takes a bill away
from a committee which is sitting on it. This particular discharge petition
was introduced by Rep. Martha Griffiths, D-Mich. Lacking enough signatures,
she appealed to Ford. Since Ford is Republican leader of the House, he used
his "powers of persuasion" and the net result was that 15 of the last 16
signature's needed to bring the number of petition signers to 218 came from
Republicans. That is the background for the five-minute speech Ford is
scheduled to make on the House floor Monday. A copy of that speech is attached.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
August 10, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the resolution proposing a Women's
Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Speaker: Men are not generally speaking anti-women; it simply appears
to work out that way.
I, for one, do not plead guilty to the charge. In my own defense, I would
note that I am very happy to confer all rights -- and responsibilities -- on my
wife. In addition, I would point out that I had something to do with the fact
that 15 of the last 16 House members to sign the petition discharging the House
Judiciary Committee from jurisdiction over H. J. Res. 264, the Women's Equal Rights
Amendment, were Republicans.
In all seriousness, I am delighted to have had a hand in bringing to the
House floor the proposed Women's Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The purpose of the amendment is most laudable: To provide constitutional
protection against laws and official practices that treat men and women differently.
The proposed amendment would provide that: "Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex."
This amendment would insure equal rights under the law for men and women
and would secure the right of all persons to equal treatment under the laws and
official practices without differentiation based on sex.
Adoption of the amendment would, of course, require a two-thirds vote of
both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. I hope
the Congress will recognize the justice of this amendment and the clear and present
need for it. I call upon this House to render its two-thirds approval.
We like to believe that we live in an enlightened age. How can any age
and any nation be termed enlightened if it continues discrimination against women?
And we do, of course, still have discrimination against women simply because they
are women.
This amendment has been pending before the House Judiciary Committee for
47 years -- since 1923. You would almost think there had been a conspiracy. Under
the circumstances it is almost silly to say it is time we did something about it.
It is long past time.
(more)
-2-
The great French writer Victor Hugo said: "Greater than the tread of
mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."
There is no question that the Women's Equal Rights Amendment is just such an
idea. Its time has come just as surely as did the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution 50 years ago, giving women the right to vote.
I think it is fitting that today, when the Women's Equal Rights Movement
may well be crowned with success, the initiative to implement full equal rights
for women comes in the House. After all, the House has remained quiescent or
adamant on this score -- take your choice -- for 47 years while the Senate has
twice passed a Women's Equal Rights Amendment, in 1950 and 1953. And we are passing
the amendment free and clear of anything like the Senate's Hayden rider, which
threw in a qualifier unacceptable to women.
It is also most fitting that the House should be the first to act today
because the prime mover of this amendment in the Congress is my dear colleague from
Michigan, Rep. Martha Griffiths. Passage of this amendment would be a monument
to Martha.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment should really be unnecessary. But it clearly
is mandatory because women today do not have equal rights. This amendment will
give them those most valued of rights -- the rights to a job, to a promotion, to a
pension, to equal social security benefits, to all the fringe benefits of any job.
There is no denying that these rights are different for women than for men.
It is, of course, easy to jest about this matter. For instance, I am sure
our G.I.'s will not complain if women are drafted into the Armed Forces in the same
numbers as men. And I'm sure there are men who will welcome the awarding of
alimony to husbands in divorce actions.
In any case, I know that men will still look upon women as the fairer sex
and will want to continue opening doors for them. This is not inequality, just
"woomanship."
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Griffiths and others have made an excellent case for
adoption of the Women's Equal Rights Amendment. I urge overwhelming House approval
of H. J. Res. 264.
###