Page 8
Summer Session Kansan Friday, July 22.1966
Writer explains civil rights bill provisions
By Arnold B. Sawislak
(Editor's Note—The House is heading toward floor debate on the far-reaching civil rights legislation proposed by President Johnson. It will be the most controversial measure to be considered by the election-year Congress this session. Two features of the bill involving a ban on discrimination in the housing field and ways to punish violence against Negroes and civil rights advocates would have the greatest impact—North as well as South. In this article, Arnold B. Sawislak of the UPI House staff explains what these provisions would do and what the legislative outlook is.)
WASHINGTON—(UPI)—"It is the policy of the United States to prevent discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin in the purchase, rental, lease, financing, use and occupancy of housing throughout the nation."
To some, that 34-word statement of national policy in President Johnson's civil rights bill means "fair housing." To others, it connotes "forced housing." And to everyone, it represents the most emotionally charged and politically difficult issue to face Congress this year.
JOINSON'S PROPOSALS for nondiscrimination in jury selection and tougher penalties for racial violence came out of the House Judiciary Committee without major change. But the housing section emerged with some significant modifications and there is a strong chance that it will be worked over more when it gets to the House floor.
There is no certainty that the House will not kill the housing section entirely. Even though the committee approved the final
version by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, the administration's original plan at one point came within two votes of being dropped from the bill altogether.
BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S proposal and the committee version, now supported by the administration, forbid racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing.
But both coverage and enforcement were drastically altered before the committee voted out the legislation.
The committee bill would require open occupancy in less housing and prohibit discrimination by fewer persons than the President's plan. At the same time, it would provide cheaper and faster legal relief for home-seekers who have been turned down because of their race, religious or ethnic background.
Here is a rundown on the two basic approaches:
COVERAGE — The administration bill would have covered all housing and vacant land. Property owners and their employees, real estate agents and brokers and all persons engaged in financing housing would have been covered.
The committee version would exempt from regulation the sale or rental of owner-occupied single family homes and multiple dwellings with up to four apartments. Vacant land and housing operated by religious and fraternal groups for their own members also would be exempted.
Persons in the real estate and financing industries would be forbidden to discriminate. Property owners would be exempt unless they participated in the sale or rental of more than two dwellings in a single year. After that, they would be considered to be in the housing business and subject to
the antidiscrimination requirements.
ENFORCEMENT—The administration would have authorized aggrieved persons to sue in federal or state courts for damages and injunctions to stop discrimination. If discrimination was widespread in an area, the Justice Department could sue.
The committee bill would retain the court enforcement, but create a new "fair housing board" within the housing and urban development department. The special board would have power to investigate complaints of discrimination and issue cease and desist orders to violators.
Even with the exemptions, the committee bill would cover a lot of housing. This would be true especially in big cities, where big apartment buildings are the rule and in burgeoning suburbs where developers build hundreds of houses at a time.
BUT WITH the exemption on sales of existing single family homes and rentals of small apartment buildings, many of the dwellings that Negroes can afford could be denied to them.
There is a disagreement of some significance about the scope of the exemption approved by the committee for owners who do not sell or rent their property more than twice a year.
The authors of the provision say it would permit discrimination by the owner himself or by an agent instructed by the owner to restrict sale or rental of the property. They emphasize, however, that the agent may discriminate only if explicitly told to do so by the owner. The agent may not suggest or initiate such practices on his own.
CIVIL RIGHTS groups disagree with this reading of the provision.
They say the exemption is valid only for the owner, and cannot be transferred to his agent.
Amendments from both sides designed to make clear the position of agents in such cases are sure to be offered when the bill reaches the floor. The prospects are for exemption of the agent who is expressly instructed to discriminate by the owner.
There also was some initial confusion about the role of the fair housing board. The first word was that it would have only conciliation powers, but bill's language makes clear that it would have the same strong quasi-judicial enforcement powers in the housing field as the national labor relations board has in labor-management disputes.
A STRONG EFFORT will be made on the house floor to eliminate the fair housing board enforcement procedure. Civil rights militants will fight for it as hard as for the housing section itself. But its removal may become the price of support demanded by wavering Republicans and Democrats.
The outlook then is for a final housing section substantially weaker than proposed by the president.
Seasoned legislative tacticians in the pro-civil rights ranks concede that even this will be hard to pass in a troubled Congress. They argue, however, that it is worth the effort to establish the open occupancy principle in federal law even if only a relatively few homes are made available outside the present racial ghettoes.
HOWEVER, THERE is a possibility that civil rights groups might react furiously to a seriously weakened housing section. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) already has
rejected the entire bill. Less militant groups might leave the bill in no better condition than if it were too strong for a majority of the house to swallow.
The atmosphere of doubt about the fate of the housing section is similar to the situation in 1957, when Congress was considering the first civil rights bill to become law in the 20th century. No one was sure what it would take to win then. The same is true now.
THE REASON for the doubt is that the housing section is the first civil rights proposal to hit the North with equal—if not stronger—impact than the South.
Northern delegations that have been all but unanimous in favor of liberalized federal voting, public accommodations and fair employment proposals in the past nine years appear to be wavering on open housing. At the same time, southerners are still overwhelmingly opposed to any further legislation in the civil rights field and are eagerly looking for northern allies to fight the 1966 bill.
PASSAGE OF PAST rights bills has required two elements that so far do not seem to be present for open housing. The first is strong two-party support within Congress. The majority Democrats cannot pass a civil rights bill without the backing of Republican leaders and the votes of the GOF rank and file. In the present dispute, they haven't clinched that kind of bipartisan backing yet, especially in the Senate.
The second necessary ingredient is strong support from outside Congress, including the White House. President Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson gave top priority to the five bills that passed in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965.