Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1979

1 "(b) In any administrative proceeding based on a charge 2 under section 810(a) of this title, the Secretary may award to 3 any prevailing party (other than the United States with re4 spect to attorney fees) reasonable attorneys fees as a part of 5 a final order under section 811(b) of this title.

6 “(c) Any court in which a proceeding is instituted under 7 this title shall assign the case for hearing at the earliest 8 practicable date and cause the case to be in every way 9 expedited.".

INTERFERENCE, COERCION, OR INTIMIDATION

SEC. 9. Section 817 of the Act entitled "An Act to 12 prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or intimidation, 13 and for other purposes" (Public Law 90-284, approved April 14 11, 1968) is amended by striking out "section 803, 804, 805, 15 or 806." and inserting "this title." in lieu thereof

CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TITLE IX OF 1968 CIVIL

RIGHTS ACT

18 SEC. 10. Section 901 of the Act entitled "An Act to 19 prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or intimidation, 20 and for other purposes" (Public Law 90-284, approved April 21 11, 1968) is amended by inserting ", handicap (as defined in 22 section 802 of this Act)," immediately after "sex” each place 23 it appears.

CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 28 OF UNITED

STATES CODE

SEC. 11. (a) Section 2341(3)(B) of title 28 of the United

4 States Code is amended by inserting "or the Secretary of 5 Housing and Urban Development, as the case may be❞ im

6 mediately after "the Secretary of Agriculture".

(b) Section 2342 of such title 28 is amended

(5);

(1) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph

(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting "; and" in lieu thereof; and

(3) by adding immediately after paragraph (6) but before the final sentence, the following:

"(7) all final orders of the Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development under the Fair Housing Act.".

Senator BATH. If there is any one person who is more dedicated to the mission designed to be accomplished by S. 506 than our first witness, I don't know who it is. If there is anyone devoting more of their lifetime to try to symbolize both in word and deed the need to accomplish the quality of opportunity in housing and many other areas of urban need than our first witness. I don't know who it is.

So, without further ado, let me ask our distinguished leadoff witness, the distinguished Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Patricia Harris, to give us her thoughts.

I consider it a privilege to not only know her professionally and politically but personally. I think she epitomizes what I would like to describe as: Mankind trying to determine our own destiny.

She is a person who has given of herself to try to make this whole world, our country, and her community a better place in which to live. Secretary Harris, it is a privilege to welcome you to our committee this morning.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY STERLING TUCKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Secretary HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be before this committee.

And may I say, even without regard to the final remarks that you made in your opening statement, that it is never an imposition to listen to the chairman. It is always a privilege to have the opportunity to hear the chairman express his concern for the matters before us this morning the kindness and concerns to which you have devoted your life.

So, I will look forward to reading your remarks that you have put into the record and would have been delighted had we heard them directly from you.

It is a real opportunity for me, for which I am grateful, to testify before the subcommittee in support of S. 506, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1979.

The proposed changes in title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1969— known as the "Federal Fair Housing Law"-will strengthen significantly the impact of that law.

The Federal fair housing law was enacted to reflect the commitment of our Government to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity in housing.

Unfortunately, it is a law without teeth.

The fair housing law identified and prohibited most forms of discrimination in housing. It did not provide the Government with the tools necessary to address such discrimination effectively or to enforce the prohibitions against it.

It is no recent discovery that conciliation alone, without additional machinery to back it up when it proves inadequate, is scarcely a remedy at all.

Conciliation wasn't considered adequate for enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act, wage-and-hour laws, environmental requirements, or health-and-safety legislation. Congress also recognized,

in its 1972 amendments to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, that conciliation couldn't assure fair employment.

However, as the result of extended congressional debate in 1968 in the original civil rights bill, cease-and-desist powers for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development were deleted from that bill.

Special problems require special solutions. And we now have numerous agencies with responsibility to conduct hearings and to issue orders-where necessary to assure compliance with a full range of important national objectives.

That is what S. 506 seeks with reference to a national policy that the Supreme Court has recognized as being 113 years old the national policy against discrimination in housing.

Fair housing enforcement by HUD is now "by invitation." And when a respondent doesn't accept our invitation, the aggrieved party has no remedy.

One of my predecessors called it "an invitation to intransigence." Even the private actions provided by the statute require the complainant to use his or her own resources. They are a remedy largely available only to the financially secure; they are not substitutes for Government action to protect important public rights.

S. 506 would be called the "Fair Housing Act." And with the enforcement powers you propose to provide, that is what it will be. The President has recognized the inadequacy of the present law. In his State of the Union Message, the President referred to the law's "weakness." And he characterized title VIII as being "largely an empty promise because of the lack of an adequate enforcement mechanism."

He expressed his commitment to work with the Congress for the enactment of legislation to provide more effective enforcement. I am here today to reinforce that commitment.

The substance of the Fair Housing Amendments Act indicates that the sponsors fully comprehend the need. Their introductory remarks demonstrate their sensitivity both to the failings of the present law and to the persistence of housing discrimination.

A recent HUD-sponsored fair housing marketing survey indicates that blacks were discriminated against in 30 percent of the rental transactions and 22 percent of the sales transactions. The far-reaching impact of such continuing patterns of discrimination has been voiced by Senator Bayh.

Given its limited enforcement capability. the fair housing law of 1968 has not been entirely devoid of accomplishments. It has provided remedies for those with the time and money to go to court, and has supported actions for voluntary compliance by conscientious realestate brokers, land developers, and financial institutions.

It has been "singularly ineffective"-in the words of Senator Heinz-in assisting individual victims of discrimination.

It defined prohibited practices, but provided Government no adminrative enforcement tools-such as cease and desist.

It gave HUD authority to investigate complaints, but no authority redress those complaints except through "conference, conciliation,

ersuasion."

inadequate substitute for HUD's enforcement authority, it 1 limited and confusing private litigation rights and negligible y damages.

It provided substantial remedies only in cases of "pattern or practice" of discrimination brought by the Attorney General.

S. 506 reflects a clear understanding of these limitations and addresses them vigorously and effectively. If enacted, it will fulfill the promise of title VIII by providing significant enforcement tools now unavailable to HUD, to the Department of Justice, and to the private litigant.

S. 506 would provide HUD with comprehensive administrative enforcement authority to stop violations and to punish violators through temporary injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, and assessment of substantial penalties. The authority to order temporary relief before final disposition of a charge will be particularly useful to assure that a dwelling in controversy remains available to the aggrieved person while his complaint is being heard.

Additionally, the proposed bill would authorize HUD to refer complaints to the Department of Justice for the purpose of filing a civil suit even in cases that may not constitute a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. This would provide HUD with two alternative enforcement routes: The judicial route in cases where there appear to be substantial damages, and the administrative route in complaints where the primary issues are discriminatory policies and the securing of the housing in controversy.

S. 506 would expand the enforcement capability of the Department of Justice significantly beyond its present authority to bring "pattern or practice" suits. The Department would have the authority to seek remedies on behalf of aggrieved individuals through intervention in court actions brought by such individuals and by the filing of suits on complaints referred by the Secretary.

Further, the remedies available through suit by the Attorney General would be substantial-equal to the remedies which the amendments make available to private litigants.

Finally, the proposed bill would provide the aggrieved individual significantly greater flexibility in seeking remedies. It would give such a person the option of seeking administrative relief through HUD or pursuing private civil remedies through the courts.

The obstacles and ambiguities now circumscribing the latter course of action would be removed. The confusion arising from the present dual private-litigation process would be eliminated.

Further, a suit could be brought by an aggrieved individual at any time within 3 years after the discriminatory practice occurred.

The potential remedies available to the aggrieved individual would be substantial.

Finally, in either an administrative or a judicial proceeding, fees and court costs could be awarded to the prevailing party regardless of his or her financial status.

I applaud this carefully formulated network of complementary enforcement tools. It constitutes a comprehensive enforcement approach which offers both the Government and the aggrieved individual maximum flexibility to choose the most appropriate route to redress a complaint.

An important element of this enforcement strategy is a recognized conciliation process, and I support its inclusion in the administrative process. I have indicated that, in the absence of effective enforcement authority, this tool has often proved to be a paper tiger. When such

« 이전 계속 »

도서

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1979: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the ...