Access America, Washington, D.C....... American Council of the Blind, Washington, D.C.. Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., Bowie, Md. Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., Baltimore, Md.. Board of supervisors, county of Los Angeles, Calif City of Baltimore, David Falk, Washington Rep.- Community Relations Commission, Baltimore, Md., John B. Ferron, Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, Van Nuys, Calif... International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Office of State Attorneys General: Hon. Robert Abrams, State of New York.. Hon. Morton M. Tytler, State of Washington. Hon. Bronson C. La Follette, State of Wisconsin. Pierce, Frances L., Lansdale, Pa... Sakayan, Harold A., P.A., Rockville, Md.. PART 2.-ATTACHMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE SOCIETY OF REAL Equal Opportunity Resolution, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Feb- "Committee Cautions Membership to Review Appraisal Procedures to Assure Compliance with Fair Housing Law Developments," Appraisal Motion of the United States for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Society of Real Estate Appraisers, and Memorandum in Support Thereof.--- "Race and Residence: An Analysis of Property Values in Transitional Areas, Atlanta, Ga., 1960-71," Howard Openshaw, School of Arkon PART 3.-ADDITIONAL MATERIALS BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Statement submitted by H. P. Hudson, commissioner of insurance of the State of Indiana, and president of the NAIC, and Wesley J. Kinder, commissioner of insurance of the State of California, and vice president- chairman of the executive committee of NAIC_ Letter to Senator Birch Bayh, September 13, 1979.. Letter to Mr. Ben Dixon with an enclosure from Clark G. Roberts, regional director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, midwestern regional office, to H. P. Hudson, president N.A.I.C., August 17, 1979; response from PART 4.-ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY "Constitutionality of Legislative Proposal to Eliminate Various Exemp- tions for Single-Family and Owner-Occupied Dwellings from the Federal Fair Housing Act"; prepared by the Library of Congress, American Law Statement from Carl Holman, president, National Urban Coalition. Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Association.... Letter and statement from the U.S. Conference of Mayors... Letter and prepared statement of the Independent Insurance Agents of National Association of Independent Insurers Letter from Ron Guenther to Senator Birch Bayh in support of S. 506-- PART 5.-SUBMISSIONS FROM THE Department oF JUSTICE Brief for the United States. United States of America v. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors, et. al, v. Supplemental Appendix for the United States, United States of America v. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors, et. al, v. John E. Milloway.. Memorandum of the United States in opposition to the motion of the Defendant Society of Real Estate Appraisers to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. United States of America v. The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, The United States League of Savings Associations, and The Mortgage Bankers Association of America__ Plaintiff's response to the first set of interrogatories of the defendant, 1 1 1 1 1 FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1979 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1979 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 6226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Bayh, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and Mathias. Staff present: Nels Ackerson, chief counsel and executive director; Mary K. Jolly, staff director; Ben Dixon, professional staff member; Linda-Rogers Kingsbury, chief clerk; Tom Parry, minority chief counsel; Jim Lockemy, counsel for Senator Thurmond; Steve Markman, counsel for Senator Hatch; Marion Morris, counsel for Senator Mathias, and Charles Wood, counsel for Senator Simpson. Senator BAYH. I will ask our subcommittee to come to order this morning. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BIRCH BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Today we begin hearings on S. 506, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1979. On March 1, 1979, Senators Mathias, Metzenbaum, Javits, Heinz, and I introduced the bill as a comprehensive amendment to the Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1968. I say "so-called" because in 1968 we had expected to be able to come forth with much greater impact than we were able to under title VIII. We wanted a much stronger piece of legislation than the empty shell we ended up with. The legislation my colleagues and I are now pursuing is to try to finish the job that was only started in 1968. To end housing discrimination in the same decisive way that voting discrimination was ended by the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. We all know that the present act is not an instrument we can use to move toward justice, that is, toward an end to segregated housing in this country. Rather, title VIII should be called the "civil-rights promises of 1968"-for promises is all that act now delivers. Title VIII promises "fair housing throughout the United States." It says: To discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any way in housing-from publishing notices to see or rent, to financing the selling or rental of a house the actual rental or sale-is illegal. That was the promise that was made 11 years ago. It is a prom I feel, that goes to the heart of the interlocking system of segregati both formal and informal, that we have been trying to tear down the last 25 years. That interlocking system of education, employme and housing has been used to enslave a people by keeping them educated, jobless, and poor, as well as separately and substandar housed. In this system, each section feeds on and draws strength from others, thus making it easy to perpetuate inequality and nearly possible to break the cycle to end segregation. Let me give one example of this. The call for "neighborhood schools" as a solution to segregated e cation, so reasonable and just on the surface, has the effect of continu separate and, thus, unequal (substandard) education for blacks, cause the neighborhoods in question are all white or all black. However, if you change the housing patterns and desegregate neighborhoods, you may see a change in who is calling for neighb hood schools or who is in favor of busing. You will certainly see eq quality education for all. In 1968 the Congress made a fair-housing promise to the country. said that it was "the policy of the United States to provide *** fair housing throughout the United States." It was a noble sentime one the Congress should be proud of expressing. Unfortunately, the Congress went little beyond this finding. Government's promises were not to be backed up with any action. T only enforcement mechanism provided was by private suit. In other words, those least able to bear the burden were asked to t up the heavy load of enforcing the law. Those suffering from effects of centuries of segregation-those Americans-black Ame cans—who had been promised the equal protection of the law in 18 only to have their hopes dashed after the election of 1876 with enactment of "Jim Crow laws," were asked to be a substitute for HU Those American citizens-black Americans-who had just been gu anteed once again those civil rights rights that every American supposed to have as a birthright-were to be a stand-in for the I partment of Justice. It was an empty promise the Congress gave the American people 1968, inasmuch as the Government, which had promised so much, v empowered only to try to conciliate between the parties. Once th effort is made, the Government withdraws its heretofore helpful a and leaves the plaintiff to his own devices. The Government-to quote from title VIII-"shall endeavor to work out programs of voluntary compliance and of enforcemen Unfortunately, those endeavors usually do not work out. The reas for this deplorable situation lies in the political realities of 11 ye ago, when a compromise was forced on the proponents of the title VI bill setting up the present enforcement procedure-the result of wh was that the law could not be enforced. Many of us did not like this state of affairs then, but we could see any way to pass a bill without including the proposed compromi In 1979, unfortunately, we can say that, more than anything else, t compromise has kept title VIII from working to bring about fair housing throughout the United States. Eleven years has been too long a time for the United States to promise the redress of unconstitutional discrimination and not act. Eleven years has been too long a time for the United States to allow certain citizens to defy the law and the stated public policy of this country with impunity. Eleven years has been too long a time for the United States to impose solely on minority citizens the obligation of enforcing the law. And 11 years has been far too long a time for the United States to allow the continuance of discriminatory housing practices in this country. It is the obligation and duty of the Congress to see to it that the promise of open and decent housing for all Americans made 11 years ago is kept now. And it is the obligation and the duty of the Congress to see to it that this promise is properly enforced now. S. 506 would totally revise the enforcement scheme now available under title VIII by giving the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, real enforcement power and the victims of discriminatory housing practices control over how their cases are adjudicated. S. 506 would make the following changes in title VIII: First: It would provide HUD with cease-and-desist power and, in the alternative, standing to go to court through the Attorney General to enforce the fair-housing laws. Second: It would also give the Department of Justice the power to intervene in individual court actions-actions brought by individual aggrieved persons. Third: It would retain Justice's present authority to bring patternand-practice suits. Fourth: It would provide an aggrieved person with two alternative enforcement routes-administrative, by filing a charge with HUD, or judicial, by bringing suit in Federal Court. There would be rights of appeal in both kinds of cases. Fifth: It would allow attorneys' fees for prevailing parties under both enforcement mechanisms. And, sixth: It would expand the laws' reach by adding "the handicapped" as a protected class and by removing most of the so-called "Mrs. Murphy" exemptions from the law. However, the most important change would be in ending the Government's impotence in housing-discrimination cases. Not only would an aggrieved person-a person adversely affected by a discriminatory housing practice-be allowed to bring suits to privately enforce the law in court, not only would the Attorney General be empowered to bring pattern-and-practice suits and be allowed to intervene in private suit, but HUD would be vested with a number of routes to take to enforce the law once a charge of housing discrimination was filed. At any time after a preliminary inquiry into a charge, HUD could do the following: One: Enter into conciliation with the parties. Two: Refer the charge to appropriate State or local officials. Three: Refer the charge to another appropriate Federal agency. |