OF AMERICAUNITED STATES

<iongrcssional1Rc(ordth .

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 90 CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

VOLUME 114-PART 3

FEBRUARY 8, 1968, TO FEBRUARY 22, 1968

(PAGES 2603 TO 3952)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1968

Febl'uary 15, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3121acts. and that the GSlvernment cannot acceptthe obstruction of Government as a legiti­mate form of protest.

DR. KING TO MEET WITH MAYORON BIG MARCH

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident. I ask unanimous consent to insertin the RECORD an article by Paul Delaney.star staff writer. under date of February14. 1968. entitled "King To Meet WithMayor on Big March," which appearedin the Washington Evening star.

There being no objection. the articlewas'ordered to be printed in the RECORD.as follows:KING To MEET WITH MAYOR ON BIG MARCH­

FAUNTROy SAYS PLAN FOR JOBS CAMPAIGNwn.r. BE PRESENTED

(By Paul Delaney)Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wlll meet with

Mayor Walter E. Washington in the next fewweeks to inform him of plans for the massivedemonstrations that King hopes to launchhere in April.

City Council Vice Chairman Walter E.Fauntroy, who heads the local unit of King'sSouthern Christian Leadership Conference,said yesterday that a meeting between Kingand the mayor would be "very useful" beforethe nonViolent demonstrations begin.

"I'm sure that when Dr. King's plans forthe spring campaign are finalized, he'll wantto apprise the mayor of them," Fauntroysald. "And I'm sure the mayor will want tomeet with him,"

Mayor Washington, when asked at a pressconference yesterday if he felt such a meet­ing would be In the best interests of the city.replied: "I suppose so, at the proper time."

PLANNING FOR CONTROL

As theclty's top officials indicated thatefforts would be made to Insure order duringKing's "poor people's" demonstration forjobs and Income, the man who coordinatedthe Army's response to the massive peacemarch on the Pentagon last October said thegovernment must be willing to "make a tre­mendous commitment of resources" to con­trol civil disobedience here.

Robert E. Jordan nI, deputy general coun·sel of the Army, told members of the D.C.Bar Association yesterday that the mostetrectlve deterrent to large-scale ciVil dis­obedience was a policy of "restraint" and"passive defense," He spoke of the Pentagondemonstration last fall but did not referspecifically to King's upcoming campaign.

He said the general government responsein Washington has always been to commit"large resources" to make demonstrationcontrol as non-violent as conditions permIt.

Jordan said that the massive numbers oftroops USed by the Pentagon to back up lawofficials during the demonstrations hadcaused comment in the press and from pUb­lic officials.

BACKS MASSIVE supPOaT

Massive support is necessary, he said. "un­less you are going to stop It by shooting ortear gas. Then you can get by with a smallnumber of people to enforce that policy."

Jordan's remarks came during a panel dis­cussion on "The Law and Protest," as partof a bar association meetIng at the MayfiowerHotel.

His philosophy of large-scale "passive de­fense" is Involved in current discussions atthe District Building. where it is knownthat city omc1als have been qUietly confer­ring with representatives of several federalagencies and the mllital")' about planningfor possible disorders here this summer.

At the press conference yesterday. MayorWashington WaB asked if he were makingsuch contingency plans.

CXIV--l97-PRrt 3

"We're making plans for the summer, fall,Winter and spring," he said. "We're alwaysmaking plans."

The mayor expressed optimism about thesummer. He remarked that "all cities haveproblems, we know that. If problems deVelophere we'll have to handle them. I'm opti­mistic."

Fauntroy was asked yesterday whetherblack power militant Stokely CarmichaelwoUld be asked to sit In on a meeting be­tween King and Washington. The Vice chair­man questioned whether it would be neces­sary to Include Carmichael.

"I don't know if Stokely's presence atsuch a meeting would be relevant," Fauntroysaid. "Dr. KIng's interest is In the jobs orincome-poor people's-campaign. He's nothere to mix nonviolence with violence."

Fauntroy said he saw no potential con­flict between the mayor and King, sinceKlng's demonstrations w11l be aimed at COn­gress and not the District. The vice chairmanadded that the fact that District pollcemenmight have to arrest demonstrators won't bea problem.

"I think people place too much emphasison arrest," Fauntroy sald. "It's not plannedin the Initial stages for people to be ar­rested-only if COngress proves uncoopera­tive.

"However, by the very nature of ciVil dis­obedience, if the demonstrations get to thatpoint, the participants expect to get arrestedand to stay in ja11.

"We are in for a new experience," Fauntroyadded.

AUTHORIZATION FOR PRINTING ASA SENATE DOCUMENT "THE COSTOF CLEAN WATER"

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I ask unanimous consent that theSenate reconsider its adoption, yester­day. of Senate Resolution 249, to printas a Senate document the report of theSecretary of the Interior entitled "TheCost of Clean Water"; that the Senateamend the resolution, in line 5, by strik­ing out "Public Law 89-234" and substi­tuting in lieu thereof "Public Law 89­753"; and that the resolution as thusamended be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered,

ACTION SLATED THIS WEEK ONPUPIL DEMANDS

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres­ident, I ask unanimous consent to insertin the RECORD an article by Ernest Hol­sendolph, Star staff writer, which ap­peared in yesterday's Washington Eve­ning star. entitled "'Action Slated ThisWeek on Pupil Demands."

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:ACTION SLATED THIS WEEK ON PUPIL DEMANDS

(By Ernest Holsendolph)The Distrlct·s assistant superintendent for

secondary schools will meet with high schoolprincipals FrIday to begin some of the changerequested by students at a citywide meetingMonday.

George R. Rhodes said yesterday he willInsist that principals "re-examine the natureof stUdent involvement" In their schools andextracurricular actiVitIes.

SOurces within the school administrationsay privately there Is a "qulet desperation"among officials to "get the Initiative" fromm111tant students who have been gaining

followers in every high school in the citysince last spring.

The StUdent Nonviolent CoordinatingCommittee In the District is attempting toorganize separate, citywide groups of Negrostudents. parents and teachers which to­gether may llnk up with Stokely CarmI­chael's Black Unlted Front to seek substan­tial "black community" control over schoolsin Negro neighborhoods.

A SNCC spokesman said yesterday that thestUdent, parent and teacher groups werebeing mobl11zed by Willlam W. Hall. a SNCCfield organizer.

The recently formed Black Students Unionat various DIstrict high schools would serveas a nucleus for the citywide student group.the organization hopes.

Form letters distributed by Black StudentUnion members at Monday'S citywide studentgripe ses.~ion at McKinley High SChool urgedthat students to "become aware of yourpower In unity" and join the organizations.The telephone number of SNCC headquarterswas llsted at the end of the fiyers for per­sons desiring further informa.tlon.

"We have just got to stop merely react­ing," an official said.

Rhodes said he will instruct principals, asa first step, to drop requirement for mem­bership in student councils and other gov­erning organizations.

"I'm convinced that, with the exception ofthe honor societies, there should be no re­qUirements for partIcipation in a group ex­cept for membership in the student body,"Rhodes said.

Among other notions whIch he will beginexploring with the principals FrIday is theneed for more support for college-bound stu­dents of all abilities.

"I want to set up some year-round equiva­lent to the Upward Bound programs operatedby the University of Maryland and HowardUniversity, and other enrichment efforts toget students oriented toward college," Rhodessaid.

"We should do all that we can to assurethe success of every student who tells us hewants to go to college."

Rhodes said he feels the enrichment pro­grams are needed as a "step beyond" thesuperintendent's announced expansion ofcourses to be otrered after school and Satur­day mornings.

STIPENDS SUGGESTED

Rhodes hopes to help stUdents who oftenmust make a hard choice between takingpart in a summer enrichment program orworking to earn needed money.

"I'm sure we can find money that can bepaid to stUdents as stipends equal to the$1.40 an hour that most of them earn onsummer jobs," he said.

Rhodes said he would make It clear toprIncipals Friday that a representative groupof the city's stUdents to be formed withinthe next two weeks must be freshly elected­not just desIgnated from existing studentgroups.

Rhodes said yesterday after emerging froma meeting with school officials:

"Above all else I want the students to un­derstand that we were not just talking yes­terday. We mean to do something about theirgrIevances."

INTERFERENCE WITH C:rvn.RIGHTS

The Senate resumed the considerationof the bill (H.R.2516) to prescribe penal­ties for certain acts of violence or intImi­dation, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepending question is the amendment of­fered by the senator from Minnesota[Mr. MONDALE).

3122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE: February 15, 1968';

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi­dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceed­ed to call the roll.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President. I ask unani­mous consent that the order for the quo­rum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I havejoined in sponsoring the fair housingamendment because I am convinced thatresidential segregation on a racial basisis a basic inequality that underlies andstimulates other forms of discrimination.For the Congress to refuse to deal withthis most blatant form of discriminationin the pending bill to protect constitu­tional rights seems to me unthinkable.

More than a decade ago, the SupremeCourt ruled out segregation in education,pointing out that "separate but equal" isin fact "inherently unequaL" The sameprinciple applies in the field of housing.Indeed, I believe there is even less jus­tification to assert equality in separation.

It has been pointed out many timesthat housing is the only commodity thatis not available in the open market ac­cording to a man's ability to pay. Yethousing is a basic necessity, a commoditywhich no family can do without. And itbears importantly on all major aspects ofliving-health, education, employment,and recreation among them.

Restricted access to the whole housingmarket because of race has been a majorcause of the concentration of nonwhitepopulation in our cities. In 1910, it is esti­mated that 73 percent of the Negro pop­ulation lived in rural areas. Today thatsame percentage, 73 percent, lives inurban areas, mostly in ghettos. To ourshame, the Federal Government hashelped to build these ghettos.

The Federal responsibility here ap­pears to be little known. But it is great,as the National Committee AgainstHousing Discrimination showed in itsreport, "How the Federal GovernmentBuilds Ghettos." A powerful indictmentof Federal policies and practices in thehousing field, the report, issued inFebruary 1967, warned:

The ghetto system, nurtured both directlyand Indirectly by Federal power, has createdracial alienation and tensions so explosivethat the crisis in our cities now borders oncatastrophe. It has excommunicated Negroand other minority-group citizens frommembership In the American community. Ithas Isolated the white majority inside aworld of conscious and subconscious racism.

Housing segregation is at the root of theghetto way of life and all of its attendantevils and turmoil. Witness the intolerableconditions of life in the Impacted racialghetto, and the inevitable hopelessness, bit­terness and rebelllon of those who are Im­prisoned Within Its confines. Witness mount­ing strife over segregated. overcrowded, in­herently unequal schools. Witness unem­ployment and under-employment of mil­lions of nonWhites in the midst of unprec­edented affluence among whites. Witnessthe appalllng disparity in mortality andhealth statistics between the privileged andthe discriminated-against. Witness the wid­ening breach between white suburbia andthe Inner city. Witness the deterioration anddecay of the nation's cities, .w1th their

shrinking tax bases and expanding costs foressential services.

The report points out that from thetime the Government entered the hous­ing field in the late thirties, it hasshunned any real responsibility for af­firmative action to assure equal housingopportunity. In its earliest days, the Fed­eral Housing Administration actuallyurged use of restrictive covenants to keepout "inharmonious racial groups." Upuntil a few years ago the Federal HomeLoan Bank and the Home Owners LoanCorporation recommended racial segre­gation in residential neighborhoods as ameans of protecting the stability andvalues of the area. And all along the line,the financing agencies have, again andagain, protested their powerlessness totake positive· action to root out the evilof racial discrimination.

One result has been, according to theNCDH, that while the FHA and the Vet­erans' Administration have togetherfinanced more than $120 billion worth ofnew housing since World War II, lessthan 2 percent of this has been availableto nonwhite families, and much of thatonly on a strictly segregated basis.

I know from personal experience theapathy and lack of interest within theagencies to establish, much less promote,programs to open the housing market toall citizens on an equal basis. For exam­ple, some years ago I sought executiveaction against a builder who stated pub­licly that he would not sell to Negroesin a burgeoning subdivision in southernNew Jersey. But the HHFA insisted thatit was unable to halt the flow of Federalassistance which enabled him to continuewith construction of the development.

We ,all recall the "stroke of the pen"so much talked about in the 1960 cam­paign. It was not until 1962 that theExecutive order was finally signed and,according to the testimony of SecretaryWeaver before the senate Committee onBanking and Currency this year, theorder is an ineffective instrument. In­deed, this is the basis on which the Sec­retary supported the f,air housing billbefore the committee.

The absence of any strong effectivepush for integrated housing has alsobeen noted by the American FriendsService Committee. In its report to thePresident in May 1967, it stated:

Executive Order 11063 is being widely andflagrantly violated by builders, brokers andlenders who participate In FHA and VA pro­grams. We are struck by the disparity be­tween the stated policies of President John­son and the actions of federal agenciescharged with the execution of these pollcles.

The committee's report stated further:More disturbing and more harmfUl than

the Industry's disregard to the Imperativesof the Executive order have been the Inertia,obstruction and lack of sympathy the Ameri­can Friends Service Committee has foundIn the two Federal agencies charged withprimary responslblllty for enforcing thenondiscrimination and equal opportunityrequirements In federally assisted housing.

The story with respect to public hous­ing is an equally dismal tale. Again, letme cite an example from my own State.In July 1966, I wrote to the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development with

regard to testimony before the New JeF­sey Advisory Committee to the U.S. CivilRights Commission wllich indicated thatpublic housing in the citY of Newark wasbecoming more rather than less segre­gated and that policies of the local hous­ing authority were in large part respon­sible.

It took 6 months before HUD repliedand its reply, I regret to say, was mis­leading .to say the least. I was totallyunable to discern in it any real concernfor the central problem. Rather, its Wholethrust was to present the housing au­thority in a creditable light, emphasizingits good intentions and deemphasizing,indeed omitting, many salient facts.Since then, many of these facts h,avebeen made plain in the Ugly riots thatoccurred in Newark last summer andin the report just released of the Gover­nor's commission to inquire into thecauses of the riot.

The letter I received from HOO reads,in part, as follows:

Our New York office made a special reviewof the Newark Housing Authority's compli­ance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil RightsAct and we have analyzed their findings aswelI as other data available to us. Our NewYork office has coricluded, and we concur,that the Newark Housing Authority Is fullyaware of its responsIbllltles under Title VI;and that It is attempting to make progresstoward achieving open occupancy and racial­ly balanced tenancy despite difficulties oc­casioned by population shifts, traditionalbiases and social behavior patterns and prob­lems. We do not mean to represent or Implythat the racial distribution of the NewarkHousing Authority tenant body leavesnothing to be desired. There are five projectsIn Newark's Central Ward which are over 90percent Negro-occupied. There are five proj­ects In other parts of the City which are lessthan 10 percent Negro-occupied. The racialdistribution of tenants in the Authority'Sother seven projects shows more raclalIy bal­anced proportions. The reasons for this dis­tribution appear to be related to factorswhich have little to do .with the HousingAuthority'S tenant selection practices orwith changes in Its regulations. We are en­closing with this letter a summary of theNewark program which serves as a substanti­ation for our conclusions.

When I submitted this repOrt to thechairman of the New Jersey AdvisoryCommittee hearing, I was advised that-

No progress has been made .in achievingracial balance in the last four years, sincethe U.S. Commission hearings in September1962, in Newark. At that time there were 14projects in Newark under the authorlty­four of them over 90% white and 2 over90% non-white. At that time the announcedpolicy for Integration, as stated on page 127of the Commission hearings, was this: ". . •If an apartment adjacent to a Negro familywere offered to a white family and it wasrefused on that ground, or vice versa, therefusing family shouid not be accorded theopportunity to choose another apartment,If such were available."

Now, we have 17 projects under the New­ark Authority. 5 are over 90% White, 5 areover 90% non-white. In July 1966, at thepublic meeting of the N.J. Advisory Com­mittee to the U.S. Commlslson on CivilRights, reference was made by a Committeemember to the polley described above (page213 et seq.) and this was the answer (page216): "Our polley on integrating the proj­ects from 1950 for a number of years there­after was the polley you have read. Wehaven't that polley of compUlsion any more."

February 15, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3123And, page 217, "If they were to refuse and weexercised the pol1~ by not giving them­that would be, a denial to them of publichousing at all." (transcript of Committeemeeting.) . '

Another excerpt from the HOD report:The Housing Authority has developed five

additional projects In various sections of thecity. These projects show varying propor­tions of Negro occupancy, ranging from 21to 81 percent.

The comment from the Advisory Com­mittee chairman:

This paragraph Is misleading~ Five projectswere not mentioned. It should have read,"There are 9 other projects-5 over 90%white, one 79% and 3 over 60%."

At the time that I inquired as to theAuthority's practices, I also submitted along list of allegations with regard tothe maintenance and administration ofthe buildings. They included seriouscharges of corruption and failure to pro­vide police protection to residents. SinceJuly 1966, I have been in repeated touchwith HOD to ascertain the results of itsinvestigation. Finally, in January 1967,I received this reply:

We have just received from the InspectionDivision, HOO, a closed Report of Investiga­tion regarding activities of the Housing Au­thority of the City of Newark, New Jersey,Which is being reviewed by our New YorkRegional Office. As soon as we receive a finalDISpOsition Report from that office we willbe glad to report to you on the matter.

I have had no word since, despite con­tinuing efforts to secure the report prom­ised. Perhaps now that the Governor'sCommission has recommended a grandjury or other appropriate official investi­gation into similar charges, the Depart­ment can be stirred to interest itself inthe matter.

For their guidance, they could well usethe outline of his testimony presentedto the 1966 hearing of the New JerseyAdvisory Committee by the pastor of anAbyssinian Baptist Church in Newark.It reads:

OUTLINE

I. CLEANLINESS

A. More and better Janitorial Services areneeded.

B. More and better Janitorial equipment.C. More and better personnel.

U. POLICE PROTECTION

A. Population density-demands It.B. senior Citizens and ordinary adults

male and female are afraid to go out at night.m. LAW ENFORCEMENT

A. Because of population density-proJ­ects become cesspool for breeding crime.

B. Curtailment of dope traffic. rapings;mugglngs, robbings, break-Ins, etc.

IV. ACCULTURATION

A. HOUSing vs. herding.B. Landscaping, etc.~"Beautlful City."

Adequate recreation for Children.v: ADEQUATE 'RECREATION FOR CHILDREN

A. To satisfy cravings for adventure, i.e.(Boy on carnival track).

B. To give exercise to muscles and experi­ence to growIng braln cells; i.e., the new willoccupy, time and burn up energy-thus"rock-throwlng\'. will be Ininlmlzed or In­terest ,in or time for SUch acts reduced.

VI, LAWS AND REGULATIONS AU NEEDED

Also :penaltles' to'occupants (and eveneJ~~ons)v(ho.peralst lnvandal1z1ng pUblio~~I?e,~y,~lt,,~o;!1tter.;{ ,.

VII

A. Federal Housing Is too expensive to bepermitted to set any example but the Idealones. Federal housing should demonstratewhat housing should be.

B. Federal Slums are no more desirablethan private Slums.

C. Federal Slums are more easily recog­nized than private slums-they are usuallylarger.

VIII

Children grow up in these conditions whowlll be either our soldiers or our crim­inals, builders or destroyers, scholars ordelinquents, civil servants or wards ofwelfare.

Even the existence of a good openhousing law in the State of New Jerseycannot mend situations like that of New­ark public housing. Our law, most re­cently revised in 1966, prohibits discrimi­nation in all private housing transactionsexcept for the rental of rooms in a single­family dwelling by the occupant thereofand the rental of a portion of an owner­occupied, two-family dwelling. Provisionis made for enforcement through the di­vision of civil rights in the departmentof law and public safety. Further, NewJersey law forbids discriminatory adver­tising and requires that posters mention­ing individual rights under the fair hous­ing law be shown in real estate officesand wherever houses are offered for saleor rent.

The implementation of the law is farfrom perfect, but it is ironic that a chiefoffender against the law should be theFederal Government.

The administration professes deepconcern with resolution of the racialproblems that embroil our cities. It isdifficult to square its expressions of con­cern with its lack of support for anamendment which would give it the au­thority it claims to lack to enlist thefull resources of the U.S. Government ina struggle against prejudice that the Na­tion must win if we are to survive as acivilized democratic society.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the 1'011.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the1'011.

Mr. BYRD of Wp.st Virginia. Mr. Presi­dent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I be­lieve it is essential that all our citizenshave genuine equality of opportunity sothat they may fully participate inAmerica's political, economic, and cul­tural life. This requires the eliminationof artificial barriers to the exercise offree choice by individuals.

One of the major barriers to the ex­ercise of such free choice is in the realmof housing, Thd open-housing amend­ment proposed by the Senator from Min­nesota [Mr. MONDALE], the Senator fromMassachusetts [Mr. BROOKE], and a num­ber of other Senators to H.R. 2516, anact to prescribe penalties for certainacts of violence or intimidation, and forother purposes, seeks to remove thishousing barrier. I am pleased to join as acosponsor of the fair housing amend­ment.

I am proud of the State of Oregon'srecord of progress in intergroup rela­tions, and I believe that out of this ex­perience we can see certain basic evi­dence which could be helpful to us in theconsideration of the legislation now be­fore the Senate, on the Federal level. Inthe great federal system, the States haveoftentimes been able to provide, throughexperimentation, the direction for prog­ress, the models for action that theFederal Government can take, andthereby share with all the other parts ofthe Union.

The modern march of progress in im­pr'ovement of intergroup relations inOregon started with the enactment ofOregon's Fair Employment Practice Act,in 1949. The State bureau of labor be­gan administering this act on July 16,1949.

I believe it is pertinent at this pointto review, in quick succession, the meas­ures which have been recognized as thegreat civil rights legislation in the Stateof Oregon.

First, in 1949, we enacted the FairEmployment Practice Act, which guar­antees to each individual in our stateequal employment opportunities, withoutdistinction as to race, religion, color, ornational origin.

Then, in 1951, we enacted what iscalled the vocational schools law. Thislaw prohibits discrimination in voca­tional, professional, or trade schools inOregon.

In 1951 we progressed further andbuilt upon the record of the past by re­pealing the law prohibiting interracialmarriages.

We repealed the prohibition with re­spect to selling liquor to Indians.

We repealed the statute requiring acensus of sanitation and thrift habits ofJapanese and Chinese residents.

We had a Governor's executive orderdirecting the National Guard to pursuea strict policy of nondiscrimination.

A Governor's executive order was is­sued establishing a state council on In­dian affairs, to further guarantee theirrights as citizens in all the proceduresand laws and also the customs, of ourState.

In the same year, 1951, the state in­surance commissioner issued an order toinsurance companies in Oregon requiringthe elimination of surcharges formerlylevied against nonwhite drivers.

In 1953, we moved on with a furtherfoundation leading to our own HousingAct, with the public accommodation law.This law in the State of Oregon prohibitsdiscrimination in places of public ac­commodation, resorts, or amusementplaces, and establishes the rights of allpersons to equal facilities.

We also amended the constitution ofthe State of Oregon by deleting the word"white" with respect to a reapportion­ment of population, which was basedpreviously on the white population.

In 1957, we strengthened the Fair Em­ployment Practice Act, the vocationalschools law, and the public accommoda­tions law by amendments.

In 1957, we enacted our first HousingAct. This is similar to the proposalwb,jch we are discussing and debating

3124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

these days in the Senate. But in 1959 wefound, through the experience of ourinitial act, that we should strengthen it,so we enacted the second Housing Act inthat year.

In 1959 we amended the real estatebroker law to make a violation of theHousing Act by a realtor a cause for therevocation or suspension of the realtor'slicense. This was, of course, a very im­portant step in our State's history and inthe development of our civil rights legis­lation.

I wish to point out, Mr. President, thatwith all these laws-of which we aremighty proud in our State-it can beseen that Oregon has been a leaderamong the 50 States in enacting civilrights legislation. In spite of all theselaws, I do not attempt today to portrayOregon as being free from discriminationor as a State which no longer has prob­lems in matters of intergroup relations.What I do say, however, is that, with allthese laws, I believe we have establisheda pattern in our State by indicating tothe citizens of our State that the lawimplies a duty, and that the law can beresponsible for a learning process; thatsome of the old prejudices and old habitscan break down and can bring peopleinto confrontation one with another, in­to an association; and, to the surprise ofmany people, they find that some of theold thoughts, old ideas, and old conceptsof discrimination are truly withoutfoundation.

We use law in our State not as an endin itself but to help people learn tounderstand one another and to help gov­ern their actions. But changing theirminds and their hearts one toward an­other still is a matter at which we mustconstantly work, through governmentand voluntary and nongovernmental as­sociations.

Oregon was the sixth State in theUnion to pass a law which guarantees jobdemocracy. There is nothing intricate orinvolved about Oregon's Fair Employ­ment Practice Act, any more than thereis anything intricate or involved aboutOregon's Open Housing Act. It meanssimply that our State has an act; thatin the act we have made sure that eachinhabitant is guaranteed the fundamen­tal human right to earn a living at a jobcommensurate with his ability and skill;and that he shall not be prevented fromdoing so 'because of his race, religion,color, or national origin, because wehave declared such action to be an un­lawful practice.

We have used this as the foundationfor our Open Housing Act. The objectivein our Fair Employment Practice Act ofgiving every person in the population anequal chance to obtain and maintain em­ployment without discrimination becameaccepted as public policy.

I think it might be well to review thesimplicity of the provisions of the law,its administrative setup, and its practice,because-and permit me to emphasize­I am using this particular Fair Employ­ment Practice Act as the example andthe foundation upon which we built ourOpen Housing Act.

There are those who had led us to be­lieve there is something terribly complex

and something that is to be feared withall of a State's dimculties, difficulties im­possible to overcome.

I think that by relating the experience,at the State level, of one State we canindicate that there are difficulties, butthat they are not beyond the scope ofman to solve. This was our experience,which I think is highly relevant and per­tinent to the pending legislation.

First of all, the statute we enacted atthe State level defines opportunity foremployment without discrimination asa civil right. It is a simple propositionand a simple statement but has great andprofound meaning.

Second, the law assigns the responsi­bility for enforcement to the commis­sioner of the State bureau of labor.Here we focus responsibility on onesingle officeholder.

Third, it spells out the two major ad­ministrative functions: First. to elimi­nate and prevent discrimination in em­ployment by employers, employmentagencies, labor organizations, and otherpersons who aid, abet, incite. compel. orcoerce the doing of any acts forbiddenunder the law; and, second, to developa positive educational program in allfields of human relations.

Fourth, this Fair Employment Prac­tices Act. upon which we based our latercivil rights legislation, establishes specialprivileges for no one. It sets forth jobqualifications such as aptitude, training,skill, character, and job experience as thesole prerequisites to employment.

No system is set up whereby any group,black, white, or any other color or divi­sion of men, has a special privilege, butall people are looked upon with equalrights for job opportunities.

Fifth, it provides for receiving andprOcessing complaints. Any aggrievedindividual may file with the bureau oflabor a verified complaint containingspecific allegations regarding discrimi­nation in hiring, firing, upgrading orpromotion, compensation, conditions andprivileges of work, employment appli­cation forms, membership in laborunions, or practices of employmentagencies.

Sixth, after all pertinent data has beengathered and analyzed, a determinationis made. If an unlawful practice is found,an effort is made to correct the violationthrough conference, conciliation, andpersuasion.

Here again, one of the basic strengthsof our law was that we sought throughthe informal relationship of conferencesand oral persuasions to have correctionmade rather than holding the club ofsome civil or criminal legal action overthe head of the violator.

In our Open Housing Act, which laterfollowed, we Used the same approach,a conciliatory approach, whereby effortis made through persuasion to seek asolution to these problems, with hopefulconference and discussion.

Seventh, if and when conciliation falls,the commissioner of labor is empoweredto hold a hearing and issue an order forthe respondent to cease and desist fromthe unlawful practice. If necessary, thisorder can be enforced by a court.

On the other hand, if it has been deter­mined that the respondent has not

engaged in unlawful employment prac­tices, the complaint shall' be ," cllsm1ssed.

Eighth, in fulfilling the, educationalfunction, the bureau of labor is chargedwith the utilization of all methods ofcommunication available to carry out ef­fective community education programsfor improvement of intergroup relation­ships.

Here we recognize the specific respon­sibility under the law to employ powersof persuasion through the instrumental-ity of education. .

Ninth, the bureau is empowered toorganize and work in, communitiesthroughout the State in fostering goodwill and conciliation among variousgroups and elements in the population.

I wish to return to the issue of com­munity councils because here we foundmuch assistance in the enforcement andunderstanding of our civil rights lawthrough the voluntary association ofleaders at the community level who as­sumed the reSpOnsibility for intergroupactivity and understanding. It was one ofthe groups which added much and con­tributed much to our race relations andintergroup relations.

Tenth, in addition, the law provides forthe' appointm~nt of a citizens advisorycommittee responsible for assisting theBureau in carrying out the intent andpurposes of the act.

Discrimination in job opportunitieshad been experienced in some degree bysegments of the Oregon populationthroughout its history as a state. Euro­pean and Asiatic immigrants, in .,' theirturn, faced resistance to their efforts touse their native skills in economic com­petition with the earlier settlers of theOregon territory. In later years the mi­grating American Negro, inseal"ch of aplace in the growing commerce and in­dustry of the West, met even greater op­pOsition. The native Indian was shut outcompletely.

The law against discrimination in em­ployment provided the legal sanctionneeded to meet a crisis and a special chal­lenge. World War II manpower demandshad ended, but workers, who had ,come inthe period's migration, were remainingto knock at the doors of Oregon em­ployers. It was clearly evident throughoutthe State that the traditional pattern ofhiring, combined with the pinch of a re­cession, was creating a condition des­tined to cause special hardships for mi­nority group wage earners and difficultlaw enforcement problems. Regulatingbehavior that is based on attitUdes, so­cial habits, and traditional practices ac­cumUlated over a long period of time, is amost difficult task. Many sensible andfairminded men and women believed thatthese things could not be changed by law.There existed a substantial body of pub.,lie opinion which held the sincer~ con­viction that no workable law could everbe devised in the emotional field ofhuman relations.

There were others who demanded aferocious crackdown. Those who had con­fidence in a fair employment practicelaw suppOrted features of education andconciliation as a meang"of directin.g andcontrolling human behavior. It wasagreed that statutes cannot force a per­son or group to like others.' This was not

February 15, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3125the fair employment practice objective.The objective was to set standards of be­havior which might lead to changes ofattitude and, more importantly, to moreequitable treatment with improvementof opportunity for Oregon's disadvan­taged minorities. Accordingly, the over­all policy of the bureau of labor in itsadministration of civil rights laws hasbeen not to build up caseloads of com­plaints but to build up new public atti­tudes and practices.

This initial policy began opening doorsto workers from minority groups. Em­ployers eliminated questions on race, re­ligion, and national origin from theiremployment application forms. News­papers struck discriminatory phrasingout of their help-wanted columns. Theuse of photographs in job applications byteachers agencies or others was for­bidden.

Prior to July 1949, the principal sourcesof employment for the minority groupworker in Oregon were limited to a fewindustries and services. Although consid­erabie improvement had been gainedover the years·· respecting members ofreligious and nationality groups, mauybusinesses and industries had a policy ofcompletely excluding nonwhite workers.Firms which did employ members of thenonwhite minority did so on a tokenbasis, in certain restricted jobs, and oftenwith little or no opportunity for advance­ment.

There were instances where whole in­dustries adopted a change in their for­mer employment practices. Prior to theFair Employment Practices Act, not asingle Negro worker was known to beon the production lines of any laundry.Today this industry hires without dis­crimination, as do a growing number ofother large industries.

The first large department store to hireNegro sales personnel interspersed themthroughout the store. Some were sta­tioned at counters with Caucasians.Some had their own counters. To makeclear what the company policy was, oneNegro salesgirl was placed at a counterjust inside the store's busiest entrance.Other stores, observing the success ofthis practice,quietly began to follow suit.It has become commonplace to see a newnon-Caucasian face on the sales fioor ofthese stores.

Again, let me point out that as peoplebegan to work together we found thatworking side by side in stores, shops, andindustries led to the belief that theycould even live as next door neighborsbecause they found in their working 1'e­lationships that they had forgotten someof the old prejudices that they mightonce have held. Thg.t is why this ex­perience was the beginning of thefoundation of the civil rights action inour State leading to the open housinglaw we have there now.

Among the first fair employment prac­tices complaints filed with the bureau oflabor was that of a Japancce-Americanveteran, who had qualified through civilservice examination for a State govern­ment position but was dwied employ­ment for the reason "as an identifiablemember of a minority group, he was un­suited for dealing with the public." In-

vestigation of the case disclosed no dis­pute concerning the applicant's qualifi­cations for the job; in fact, he topped thelist of eligibles. The commissioner of la­bor, upon examining the facts, insistedthat this applicant be considered for theposition solely on the basis of ability andmerit in accordance with the provisionsand intent of the fair employment prac­tices law. He was hired and soon recog­nized as an efficient and highly accept­able worker.

This action opened the way for em­ployment of qualified minority groupworkers in other State agencies. Today,Oregon's minority citizens are employedin all levels of· civil service, in Federal,State, county, and municipal govern­ment. They are found also teaching inpublic schools, in all kinds of classroomsand communities. This change in teacherhiring practices followed the only orga­nized resistance to any provision of thelaw or administrative ruling promul­gated in connection with it. Strong ob­jections were made by some school ad­ministrators to the ruling that requestfor an applicant·s photograph constitutesan unlawful employment practice.

The pattern of differential treatmentaccorded non-Caucasian persons was aresult of assorted fears, assumptions,stereotyped beliefs, habits, customs andeconomic and social pressures. For in­stance, study of the problem of reluc­tance to hire minority group workers ina previously majority group setting hasfound that, in a significant number ofcases, the reluctance results from theemployer's fear that he cannot dischargethese workers if they prove to be incom­petent. Employers have been assured byevidence that, once an employe has beenhired on the basis of merit and withoutregard to his minority group status, heis not likely to have to be discharged forincompetency. But, if he does fail to liveup to employer expectations, the employ­er's right to discharge such a worker hasbeen fully supported in dispositions ofcomplaints filed.

Other top fears of employers haveproved to be the fear of losing businessthrough customer reaction to beingserved by non-Caucasians and the fearthat employes might leave when non­Caucasians were hired, in spite of theirqualifications to do the job. Some otheremployers simply doubted the efficiencyand job performance of non-Caucasianwage earners.

By 1954, a majority of Oregon em­ployers had the answer to their mostcommon fears. That such legislationwould lead to turmoil and intergroupstrife had been exploded as a hollowmyth. In no case, had any employer in­dicated that he had suffered loss, incon­venience or other disadvantages in com­plying with the law.

Some of these same fears were raisedat the time we were considering ouropen housing act.

I can say that after this period of ex­perience. we found that the same fears,the same thoughts, and charges whichwere made against the enactment of thatact. were exploded by that experience.

Employers gained-not lost-businessas a result of changed policies. Theirright to select qualified workers had been

strengthened, not impaired. No employeehad walked out in protest against thehiring of minority group workers. Dis­gruntled jobseekers had not fiooded thebureau of labor with groundless com­plaints. No new problems came into be­ing although qualified Negroes werefound to be filling satisfactorily a widerange of occupations in which they pre­viously had not had the opportunity towork.

Today's labor practices are a far cryfrom the nine complaints against oneunion, which brought about the firstcivil rights case to reach the public hear­ing stage in Oregon. The respondent or­ganization was charged with barringfrom membership the nine complainantssolely because they were Negroes. In thiscase, a decision was handed down, onAugust 29, 1951, by former State LaborCommissioner William E. Kimsey, find­ing a lodge of the Brotherhood of Rail­way Carmen guilty of race discrimina­tion under the Fair Employment Prac­tices Act. The union was ordered to ceaseand desist from such discrimination.

Once tightly closed memberships oflabor unions generally have been openedto an extent that has drastically alteredemployment practices in a variety offields. A survey of organized labor prac­tices today will show that almost alllocal unions in Oregon extend full mem­bership privileges, including officialleadership opportunities, without restric­tions on race, rel1gion, color or nationalorigin. The State AFL-CIO conventionhas estabUshed by resolution, and an­nually reaffirmed its stand, in support ofthe Oregon fair employment practiceslaw and other civil rights legislation.This support has been furthered by thestate labor council in providing for closecooperation of its labor education officewith the bureau's civil rights division.

The state apprenticeship council hashelped further fair employment prac­tices objectives by developing trainingopportunities for members of minoritygroups. An increasing number of Ne­groes, Orientals, Spanish-Americansand American Indians are entering ap­prenticeable trades. Employment bar­riers against non-Caucasian apprenticeshave begun to be lowered. Apprenticeopenings have been made for minoritygroup applicants even in very technicaltrades, including those of tool and die­maker, optical technician, auto me­chanic, boot and shoe repairman, andinside technician.

The employment agency, which repre­sents an important source of job in­formation, is in a crucial position forpromoting democratic employment prac­tices. Oregon employment agencies arebecoming increasingly essential to theorderly fiow of labor into business andindustry. When the fair employmentpractices law was enacted, the agencydoor to job changes was largely a closedone to minority group persons, except ina few traditional service and nonskilledoccupations.

It was difficult to reach as a job sourcesince violations were hard to detect andcontrol. The agency is in a position toeither serve, if it so chooses, as a bufferor screen for a discriminatory employer,

3126 CONGRESSIONAVRECORD,;;..;;.. SENATE

or as a barrier between the applicant itdoes not want to refer to a particular jobopportWlity and the employer whomight be quite willing to hire the appli~

cant in question.It has been the task of the civil rights

division staff to convince the employ~

ment agency that its role is simply reg­istering and referring qualified appli­cants to employers needing such work~

ers, while the decision to hire is solelythat of the employer. All private employ~

ment agencies, which charge a fee to theapplicant for their service, are licensedby the bureau of labor. This has madepossible a closer control of their activi~

ties and helps to resolve more easilyproblems of a discriminatory nature.

However, no exemption from provi~

sions of the fair employment practiceslaw is made for non-fee-charging em­ployment agencies, as distinguished fromfee-charging employment agencies, nor isany exemption provided for nonprofitemployment agencies as distinguishedfrom commercial agencies operating ona for-profit basis.

The Oregon State employment serviceset an early example in adopting a policyof refusal to accept discriminatory joborders of any kind. The policy was madeclear to all the service's personnel in aninteroffice instructional bulletin, part ofthe employee's manual. It set the tone forcompliance with the provisions and in­tent of the fair employment practiceslaw and for cooperation with the civilrights division program on fair practicesin eIl,lployment.

Today it may be said that there isalmost no expressed opposition, andpositively no organized opposition, to thefair employment practices law.

Let me again emphasize the point thatthe fair employment practices law pro­vided the basic foundation upon whichall of our other civil rights laws werepredicated, culminating in the openhousing act that we have in our State.

Oregon WaS the 19th State in the Na­tion to enact a public accommodationslaw. The Oregon law establishing thecivil rights of all persons to equal accom­modations, advantages, facilities, andprivileges of any place of public accom­modation, resort, or amusement, was en­acted in 1953. It became effective July21, 1953, after opponents of the act failedto secure sufficient signatures on a refer­endum petition. The statute provided fora civil remedy only. The measure wassupported by an ad hoc committee com­prising 59 community organizations andcalled the Oregon Committee for EqualRights.

This traditionallitigative approach to­ward eliminating discrimination in pub­lic accommodations because of race, re­ligion, color, or national origin did notprove as successful as expected.

Many persons refused public accom­modation were loath to Institute courtproceedings. Others were deterred by theexpense and time involved or the antici­pated publicity. Furthermore, some pub­lic officials had shown equal reluctance tobring criminal prosecutions against localcommunity violators.

In talking about that bit of history, Imay say that, as a member of the OregonLegislature in 1953, I recall vividly the

kind of opposition that W'lS raised. Therewere those who said we would no longerhave a good convention trade in thestate, because people would not come toOregon and hold their conventions inhotels and motels that provided equalaccessibility for people of all races. Wewere told all sorts of things about whythe act could not succeed. I remember,too, that as we were pleading for thiscause, as we were fighting for this lawin our State, not only did some peopletry to raise economic problems, but somepeople maintained that by passing sucha law we were doing so without the nec­essary evidence of discrimination in ourState. '

It is very easy for people to point theirfingers at certain geographical locationsof the United States as being locationsof discrimination, but I believe, speakingas a person from a Western State farremoved from the Mason-Dixon line,that discrimination exists in all parts ofthe United States, at least those partswith which I have had contact; andwhen discrimination exists in any part ofour country, it becomes a concern of allof us. I think it ill behooves any of us topoint a finger at anyone area as havingcertain characteristics of discrimination.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.Mr. MONDALE. I would like to under­

score the point the Senator from Oregonjust made, because I think it is centralto the issue we face with the pendingfair housing amendment, which the Sen­ator from Oregon cosponsors. It has beensaid by some opponents of the measureon fair housing that it is different fromother civil rights bills in that it dealswith a northern problem and not just asouthern problem; that, in a sense, manyof the advocates of civil rights from theNorth are hypocrites; that we are per­fectly willing to point a stern finger atthe South, but not a stern finger at our­selves, when in fact we have a similarproblem.

The Senator from Oregon makes animportant contribution to this debatewhen he points out and acknowledges theexistence of discrimination in the North.

I come from a State which is verysimilar to the Senator's, except that ithas a better tourist industry than his. Ihave freely acknowledged for years thediscrimination problem. I am pleased tosay that a few years ago we adopted ameasure to strengthen the public ac­commodations provisions, particularlythe enforcement part. to develop an easymethod of restraining discriminatorypractices. But I think we have to beginthis debate by acknowledging that dis­crimination exists in the North, andpurge ourselves of this complaint whichhas some validity. It is one thing to voteto remove discrimination in the South,say, in voting or transportation, and therest, and it is another thing to vote on ameasure which affects our own constitu­ents.

The Senator from Oregon courage­ously and properly accepts the challengethat has been laid down-the challengethat we have been hypocritical in thepast.

If we fail to enact fair housing legis-

lation, there \V1ll be a necessa.ry impilca­tlonthat we are not quite as courageoUsin dealing with our own problems as weare in dealing with others.

If, on the other hand, those who areraising the argument prohibit us fromhaving the right to vote on the issue, byextended discussions, sometimes calledfilibusters, and we are not able to get tothe issue so that a majority of the Sen­ate can work its will, then I would saywe have answered the issue of hypocrisy.If, because of their strategy, we havebeen Wlable to work our will, that is an-other matter. .

I .highly commend the Senator fromOregon for making what I think is avery, .very important observation, onewhich puts the responsibility not on theback of the South alone, but of the North,as well.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senatorfrom Minnesota for his comments, andwish to Wlderline again the point wWchhe has so eloquently made. Not onlymust we assume responsibility for thatwhich we know to exist in our own areas,and to try to take action that is going toconstructively and positively solve thatproblem; we must also be equally con­cerned about the kind of reSpOnsibilitieswe have on an International level. When­ever we as the United states posture our­selves in a position of world leadership..­whether or not we want to be in that po­sition, that is where we are-I think togive meaning to that which is recognizedas the Amerioon ideal and the Americanphilosophy, it certainly. has to be ful­filled in the practices in Which we engageas between and among our own people.

It is not only a matter of local concernand national concern; it also takes on atruly international dimension as we seekto provide leadership in the world as be­tween those who would deny men theirrights and those who would give menthose rights; as between political autoc­racies and political dictatorships whichwould deny to men the political andother rights that we hold dear, and thosewho support those rights. When we pos­ture ourselves in opposition to that kindof pWlosophy, I think we have to be allthe more careful to make certain thatour own house is in order, and that allthe people within our own borders areenjoying the kind of freedoms and equal­ity before the law that all other citizensenjoy.

So it has great significance, as theSenator indicates, and I am, I repeat,very proud to join with him in the spon­sorship of his amendment.

The history of successful actiVity inStates, which had amended their FEPlaws to give their commissions againstdiscrimination jurisdiction over com­plaints in the field of public accommo­dations gave weight to the suggestionthat this approach had great merit forOregon.

Meanwhile, in line with the Oregondeclaration of discriminatory practicesbeing a matter of State concern, the bu­reau of labor endeavored to educate citi­zens concerning their obligations underthe Public Accommodations Act, insofaras department facilities permitted. Underthis policy, an appre9iable number of un­lawful discriminatory practices in public

February 15, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3127accommodations were resolved throughconference, conciliation, and persuasionin the years 1953 to 1957.

The 1957 legislatw'e showed its con­fidence in effectrveness of the concilia­tion process by amending the Public Ac­commodations'Act to provide for its ad­ministration, by the bureau of labor. Theprovision for:a complainant's recourse tocivil court action was retained. The actalso was 'expanded to cover trailer parksand campgroimds, sources of a numberof complaints of racial discrimination.

Under the amended statute, a personclaiming to be aggrieved by an allegeddiscrimination in public accommodation,resort, or' amusement may file a com­plaint with the bureau of labor in thesame mamier and expect the same typeof' handling 'as the FEP complainant.Charges of discriminatory advertising bya place of public accommodation simi­larly may be handled by the bureau oflabor.

'As we move forward with our regula­tory and educational program, it is ex­pected that the time will come· whenmembers of minority groups will feel nohesitancy in patronizing any place ofpublic accommodation. Under conditionsof a decade .•. ago, even a nonwhite per­son of celebrity status had great difficultyin obtaining hotel or motel accommoda­tions.

Many weak links in the chain of com­pliance have been indicated in filed com­plaints and civil suits in which the re­spondent was found guilty. Some propri­etors of places of public accommodationstill fear that nondiscrimination in serv­ices to the public will result in financialloss despite all visible evidence to thecontrary. Smaller establishments, par­ticularly, hold this fear. Some proprie­tors attribute their reason, for evadingservice to non-Caucasian customerswhenever possible, to intimidations of afew disgruntled patrons or stubborn em­ployes.

In spite of these facts, the record ofcompliance is encouraging. The successof the law has been most notable in ho­tels, motels, and restaurants where freemovement is close to full realization.Other areas made completely or relative­ly free from discrimination are amuse­ment and recreation parks and places,hospital and public health services, pub­11c transportation, and theaters. Theareas chiefly represented in filed com­plaints are taverns and clubs where alco­holic beverages are sold, and barbershops, beauty parlors, and slenderizingstudios. The latter places have not yetbeen included in provisions of the Ore­gon Public AccommOdations Act. In con­trast to some other States, Oregon's mi­nority groups experience little or noproblem of discrimination in publicschools and libraries or in the generalarea of law enforcement.

Violations of the public accommoda­tion law have been promptly investi­gated and quickly corrected. In no in­stance, to date, has a second violation byan offender been recorded.

InOregon, as in other States across theNation, housing is the one commodityon the public market that members ofcertain minority groups cannot purchaseor rent freely. Housing has proved to be

the most resistant of all fields to the de­mands for equal opportunity.

In recent years, there has been anaccelerated flight of white families fromthe central city areas into new suburbansubdivisions-from which minorities aregenerally barred-and an increase ofnonwhite families in the urban areas.The pattern of segregation in housinghas not changed substantially in recentyears. Oregon's minorities can find shel­ter chiefly in the oldest, most unattrac­tive neighborhoods of each city amongthe most substandard· dwellings deteri·orating through age and neglect afterbeing abandoned by previous occupants.The situation is the telltale witness thatwe still are only halfway to democracyin Oregon.

The impact of housing segregationreaches into almost every other aspectof daily living-employment, education,public accommodation, religious worship,and social relations. The visible disparitybetween majority and minority housingconditions, with its attending social prob­lems, aroused considerable public con­cern among Oregon community leaders.Intergroup tensions were rising as mi­nority group families sought shelter out­side the painfully overcrowded, circum­scribed areas of minority concentration.There was growing recognition that a na­tional, statewide fair-housing programwas essential to the public peace and wel­fare. The State legislature, on May 21,1957, enacted the Publicly Assisted Hous­ing Act. Oregon became the sixth Stateto have such a law.

This act confined enforcement powersto violations in housing beneflts frompublic aid. Two years administration ofthe act disclosed that it did not get at theroots of the housing matter. However, itdid establish certain facts related to thebasic problem:

First. In the main, the real estate in­dustry traditionally has stood sentry overresidential properties, translating preju­dice into discriminatory action by nego­tiating the sale or rental of property tominority persons only in certain circum­scribed areas. This was based on the be­lief that to do otherwise would adverselyaffect the industry.

Second. Underlying the exclusion ofnonwhites from white neighborhoods isthe unwillingness of many white peopleto live in proximity to Negroes or otherminorities.

It was apparent then that, althoughthe group prejudices of the white popula­tion provided support for the residentialsegregation of minority groups-withonly occasional exceptions--the realestate industry applied the actual re­strictions and controls.

These facts were helpful in bringingabout a new housing law, effective Au­gust 5, 1959. The act extended coveragebeyond housing with some public charac­ter to the housing field generally and thepractices of the housing industry. It pro­hibits all persons "engaged in the busi­ness of selling, leasing, or renting realproperty" from refusing to sell, lease orrent property solely because of the race,color, religion or national origin of thewould be purchaser or lessee, or anyother person.

Oregon is a pioneer in the administer­ing of such a housing law. Our goal hasbeen twofold:

First. To win the acceptance of pre­viously excluded minorities by neigh­bors-in accordance with the intent andspirit of the law.

Second. To win the confidence andwillingness of· the housing industry toeliminate practices of catering to a re­stricted neighborhood policy (in con­fOl'lnance with provisions of the law).

The Oregon Housing Act, adopted in1959 has resulted in. only 191 formalcomplaints in 8% years; one-half or 86of these complaints resulted in findingsof discrimination; the thorough investi­gation of the 86 cases and the subse­quent conciliation conferences resultedin the satisfactory elimination of thebasis for the complaint in each instanceexcept two. And those two are now inthe courts on appeals from the orders ofthe State Labor Commissioner.

Twenty-four informal complaints wereinvestigated by the Civil Rights Divisionof Oregon Bureau of Labor.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I com­

mend the Senator from Oregon for hismost interesting analysis of the variouscivil rights proposals that are now a partof the law of Oregon. It is reassuring toknow of his personal involvement in thisimportant human progress in his State.

As I listened to the Senator's reviewof measures to protect against discrimi­nation in employment and labor, to hisdiscussion of measures to protect againstdiscrimination in public accommodation,and then to his discussion of discrimina­tion in the sale or rental of housing, Inoted that in each case the State ofOregon acted over objections when itadopted legislation to correct thosewrongs.

I ask the Senator whether in each ofthese instances when the proposals tocorrect these wrongs were presented, theopposition did not conjure up horrorstories and visions of disaster if the Stateof Oregon were to pass a law prohibitingdiscrimination in employment, public ac­commodations, or housing, and if so, didthese dire predictions come true.

Mr. HATFIELD. The opposition didjust that. But I point out to the dis­tinguished Senator from Minnesota thatI am not aware that we had any formalorganizational action or opposition.

Most of the opposition came from in­dividuals or groups of individuals, but Irecall very vividly the open housing actwhich we passed in 1959. As the thenGovernor of the State. I was called uponto sign the bill after the State Legislaturehad acted upon it. Not only during thetime in which I was considering thesigning of the bill, but also during thetime when the bill was being considered,my office was besieged by those who, byletter and by personal visitation, in­formed me that we would have chaosin our community.

Those people did conjure up stories tocreate fear in the minds of people. Theyapproached the subject from the eco­nomic viewpoint. They claimed that it

3128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

would depreciate the land values forpeople who owned their own homes,especially those who were retirees andpeople in the middle-income group inour community.

These individuals claimed that be­cause of the passage of such legislation,people would eventually lose theirhomes; that retired and older peoplewould be driven out of their homes andcommunities and would therefore go onpublic welfare, because they would havelost their investments in their homes.

We were told stories that not only re­lated to the economic concern of people,but also that indicated that we wouldhave a large influx of Negroes from otherStates and would find ourselves, as aresult, burdened with additions to ourwelfare rolls. We were told that thesepeople would see in Oregon a State offer­ing great new advantages which theywere not then enjoying in other Statesand would, as a consequenc.e, migratethere en masse and flood the small, mid­dle, and larger communities with peoplewho were without skill or means.

We were told that this in-migration ofpeople would result in additions to ourwelfare rolls. Stories were conjured upto the effect that once a Negro movesinto a community, that constitutes thefirst step toward intermalTiage and abreaking down of the traditional pat­terns that people follow in our State. Al­though we had repealed the prohibitionon interracial marriages in our Stateyears ago, this claim was raised againas a fear that would support their op­position viewpoint.

I am sure that we heard every kind ofstory that could be conjured up, in Min­nesota or any other State. However, Isay to my good friend, the Senator fromMinnesota [Mr. MONDALE], that thosestories were not promoted by any orga­nized groups.

The stories were from individuals inprivate life, individuals who were sin­cere in their beliefs, but who were wrong.They based their beliefs upon mythsand a lack of information. By and large,they based their beliefs on a lack of as­sociation.

I asked a number of these individualsas they visited my office: "What kind ofcontact have you ,had with racial minor­ity groups? Have you ever gone to schoolwith racial minority groups or with in­dividuals from such groups? Have youever belonged to an organization to whichthey belonged?"

Almost without exception, the re­sponses were in the negative. They hadnot had the experience of going to schoolwith people from the Oriental, Negro,Indian, or any other of the non-Cauca­sian groups.

They had, almost to a person, no ex­perience in background or associationwith such people at work or in any kindof an organization. I believe that if someof those people would follow through andbe frank about it, they would find aftersuch association that their fears wouldprobably disappear.

It is true that there was some transi­tion. We had communities on the brinkof deterioration. We had communitiesalready in the process of becoming oldand rundown. Those communities con-

tained the cheaper properties, so to speak.Negroes began to move into such placesbecause that was where they could af­ford to move.

There then seemed to be those whofelt that once the Negroes started tomove into a community, the white peoplewould move out. And they did. Placesthat formerly constituted a white neigh­borhood became almost totally a coloredneighborhood.

Interestingly enough, some of thoseproperties began to cease going down inphysical deterioration. Some of thembegan to be rebuilt and strengthened ineconomic value. Some of them becamewell-kept pieces of property.

We have had problems with others,there is no question. However, some ofthose neighborhoods were already on thedeterioration side. Therefore, any deteri­oration did not depend upon whetherwhite, black, yellow, red, or any othercolor of people were living there.

Mr. MONDALE. The Senator has recit­ed the many fears which opponents ofthe State fair housing law expressed atthe time of its adoption. I understandthat legislation was passed by the Stateof Oregon in 1959.

Mr. HATFIELD. That was the secondpart of the law. The flrst part was en­acted in 1957.

Mr. MONDALE. The State of Oregon,then, has had experience with open hous­ing for 10 years in one form or another.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. MONDALE. What has been theexperience of the State of Oregon withthese measures? Have the fears beenconfirmed, or has the law worked out sat­isfactorily?

Mr. HATFIELD. I point out here, tobe completely factual and as objective asone can be, that we have in our Stateabout 2 mUlion people. Two percent ofthat population is non-Caucasian. Onepercent is Negro. However, 99 percent ofthe Negro population resides in the onecity of Portland. It resides in that citybecause it is the largest metropolitanand industrial center of Oregon. Some­one might say: "Obviously, you do nothave a real understanding of the prob­lem. You have only 1 percent of the com­munity that is Negro. We have 40 per­cent, or 60 percent."

We do not claim to have all of theanswers in our State. We do not claimthat we have the same problems that anyother State has. However. I do feel thatwe can say that there is a microcosmhere. There is a ghetto in the city ofPortland. There is a concentration ofNegroes which represents some of thesame urban, employment, and racialrelations problems that exist in Detroitor in any other city that has a high per­centage of non-Caucasians.

Having said this, I believe I shouldpoint out further that much of our ex­perience in the civU rights area has beensuccessful not only because we have thelaws but also because we have workeddiligently in developing educational pro­grams and educational activities, to helpeducate people to understand these lawsand to support the laws because of theirunderstanding of them.

We also have created the commUnitycouncils, and I believe this Is a funda­mental point of our success. We havecreated in these community councils anorganization which is voluntary, whichis not governmentally sponsored, and isnot governmentally controlled. It is agroup of individual citizens making upthe leadership and the followership ofthe community. They analyze their com­munity problems. their complaints, andthey help to resolve them on the in­formal, nongovernmental basis.

I should like to list in specific termswhat our experience has been un~er ourOpen Housing Act. These figures, by theway, were obtained as of yesterday, sothey are the most up-to-date flgures wecan get on it. Of the 191 formal com­plaints that we have had in the eightand a half years of ,the actual experienceunder the 1959 act, we found, after fullinvestigation, that in only approximatelyone-half of them had there actuallybeen discrimination. In other words,there had been some false complaints orsome evidence in the minds of some per­sons that there bad been discrimination,when the facts did not bear it out.

Then we went further into the 86, theones in which there had been some basisfor the complaints, and found that all86 of them were finally satisfactorilyresolved except two, and they are nowin the courts.

We have had 24 informal complaints.which were investigated by the CivilRights Division of the Oregon Bureau ofLabor. Only seven of them were foundto involve discrimination, and the prac­tices were corrected.

To answer the Senator's question, Ibelieve we have had. in this type of ex­perience, ample evidence and ample timeto prove that when people are sincereand with concern expressing themselvesin many different ways, seeking to solvea problem of intergroup relations, theYcan do so. They can do so with voluntaryaction and with the kind of coercion thatcomes with law. It takes both. It cannotbe done only with the one. I do not be­lieve that all the civil'rights laws withwhich we could load the statute bookswould eliminate or solve the problem,unless we coupled those laws with veryaggressive citizen action and administra­tion of those laws with fairness and withequity by the persons charged with theadministration of the laws. The merepresence of such laws on the statue books.unaided. by these other efforts, would notbe terribly meaningful.

Oregon civil rights legislation over themany years since 1949-almost 20 yearsof experience, as I have recited thi,s af­ternoon-and the administrative prac­tices in carrying out these statutes haveevoked the interest of other States, judg­ing by the number of inquiries receivedby the office of the Governor and bythe bureau of labor.

There has been no attempt in Oregonto repeal any of these laws. nor has therebeen any court challenge of the COnsti­tutionality of such laws.

So I believe that in making this reportto the Senate today, lam indicating notthat Oregon has reached the ultimate orthat we have a model, but that this is

February 15, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3129only one state's experience. I believe it ispertinent to our discussion in the Senate,and I believe it should be encouraging tothe Senate to fuJfi1l its duties and re­sponsibilities by enacting such a law onthe national level.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.Mr. ELLENDER. Do I correctly under­

stand that of the 2 million people inOregon, only 1 percent are Negroes?

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator's under­standing is correct.

Mr. ELLENDER. Do I correctly un­derstand that of this 1 percent, or 20,000people, most live in Portland?

Mr. HATFIELD. Approximately 18,500of them.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator referredto a ghetto. Do the 18,000 live togetherin Portland in one area?

Mr. HATFIELD. Predominantly so, yes.As I indicated, they live in what mightbe referred to in the language of todayas a ghetto.

Mr. ELLENDER. How does the Sen­ator from Oregon think the law, as itwas described by him, could be admin­istered in a State where, let us say, theNegro papulation is approximately 35 to38 percent, as is the situation in manySouthern States? I can well understandthat with only 1 percent, or 20,000 Ne­groes,located in Portland, most of themin a ghetto, it could be handled easily.Judging from what the Senator has said,I do not suppase there are many Negroesin Seattle or in any of, the other largercities in Oregon. But suppose that insteadof 1 percent, Oregon had, let us say, 38percent. Would the Senator evaluatewhat would happen then?

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy todo so.

Mr. ELLENDER. I wish the Senatorwould.

Mr. HATFIELD. The experience of ourState, the record of our State, as I haveindicated today, was carefully predicatedon the fact that we had been pioneeringin this legislation, that we had enactedoriginal bills which we found, after ex­perience, had to be modified, had to bechanged, had to be improved. Therefore,I would say that it would. be the same,whether it is 1 percent or 38 percent.

We are sharing with you today whathas been our experience; and when wetalk about discrimination, I believe thatwhether it exists in a quantitative orqualitative measure is not important.

The point is that where discriminationexists at all, where apy man in any partof this country, whether he constitutes1 percent or 38 percent of the popula­tion, is denied the right to buy a homewithin a community according to hiseconomic ability, wherever he mightplease, merely because his skin is of adifferent color, there is a denial of aright that belongs to all Americans, andtherefore this should be corrected. Weshould not merely try to excuse ourselvesby doing nothing, whether it is 1 percentor 38 percent; and if it is 1 percent, thenperhaps we do have an easier way to doa little experimentation. That is why Ipresented this evidence today. We had,no doubt, aneasier situation in our State,with only 1 percent. But the fact re-

mains that we took action. We undertookto try to remove the discrimination whichexisted de facto, and we have had acertain experience which I believe isworthy of consideration. If it can be doneon a smaller scale, it can be done withimprovements and modifications on alarger scale; because, I point out thatwhere diSCrimination exists, it makes lit­tle difference whether those discrimi­nated against represent 1 percent or 38percent of the population.

We have a higher percentage of In­dians in our State than perhaps thereare in other States. But if discriminationexists against the Indians of our State­as it has-then it certainly behooves usall the more to take action to removethat discrimination because we have alarger percentage of Indians than otherStates.

Mr. ELLENDER. Did the Senator saythat the ghetto in Portland containsthe 18,000 or 20,000 Negroes in Oregon?

Mr. HATFIELD. I said that 18,000 ofthem live in the city of Portland, anda goodly portion of them live in a ghetto.But Negroes live in all parts of our cityof Portland, according to their economicability.

Mr. ELLENDER. Will the Senato,r tellus how many live in the ghetto? To befrank, I am surprised that there is aghetto in Portland or in Oregon, with sofew Negroes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.Mr. ELLENDER. I am disappointed.Mr. HATFIELD. We are disappointed,

too. That is why we are taking actionto try to eliminate it.

A ghetto, in my opinion, cannot beeliminated by merely passing an openhousing act. We must have educationalfacilities that are adequate to meet theirneeds. We must have job opportUnitiesthat can give them employment. Wemust have all these various things inorder to attack the problem of theghetto.

As I said a while ago I am not point­ing my finger to any part of the coun­try other than my State because wehave enough problems and conditionsthere that exist that need correcting.I feel I am only indicating what hasbeen our experience.

However, the ghetto that does existis gradually being eliminated by educa­tional programs sUfficient to meet theneeds of those people, and job oppor­tunities for all of the people in the Port­land area whereby they can raise theirstandards and abilities. We have urbanrenewal programs and improved housingprograms which are available to theNegro in other parts of the city. All ofthese things are being used to attack theproblem of the ghetto. The Negro liv­ing in the ghetto today is not restrictedto the ghetto if he has the economicability to remove himself from theghetto because he can buy in any partof the city, if he has the means. He hasthe right, the freedom, and the legalprotection to buy a home in any partof that city within his economic incomeor capability.

Mr. ELLENDER. Will the Senatordescribe conditions in other parts of Ore­gon? Are there any Negroes in Tacoma?

Mr. HATFIELD. Salem has Negroes,

Eugene has Negroes, Medford has Ne­groes, and one can find them scatteredthroughout the community. There areabout 200 Negroes living in Salem, whichis the capital, and there are Negroes inall parts of the city and not in one sec­tion.

Mr. ELLENDER. What is the popula­tion of Salem?

Mr. HATFIELD. The population thereis about 60,000.

Mr. ELLENDER. There are only 200Negroes among the population of 60,000there?

Mr. HATFIELD. With the right tolive in any part of that city.

Mr. ELLENDER. I can weH under­stand that the problem there would benil with so few Negroes out of a totalpopulation of 60,000.

How many Negroes are there in Ta­coma?

Mr. HATFIELD. Tacoma is in theState of Washington. I am not familiarwith that.

Mr. ELLENDER. I have confused thecities of Washington with those of Ore­gon. I am sorry. I had mentioned Seattlea whUe ago, which, of course, is in theState of Washington also.

Mr. HATFIELD. It all belonged tothe Oregon Territory at one time. I dowish to say to the Senator that when hestates the problem is nil in a city likeSalem, I can remember when MarianAnderson was denied a room in a hotel inthat city because she was a Negro; whenPaul Robeson, when he was on the con­cert stage before he was on the politicalstage, was denied a room in a hotelin our city of Salem; and when a minis­ter of the Gospel was denied a room ina hotel.

The point is that we have a problem.We always have a problem, in my opin­ion, wherever there is discrimination,when it is directed against one man orone group and, I, therefore, feel eventhough we have few Negroes in number.we have tried to solve this problem ona scale commensurate with our problem.

I think it is applicable and pertinent tothe matter here under discussion.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield futher?

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator stated

that there are two cases pending in Port­land.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. ELLENDER. Does the act underwhich these proceedings are pendingprovide that the court shall have juris­diction or a cammission that is createdunder the law?

Mr. HATFIELD. The Commissionerhas jurisdiction and his decision can beappealed to the courts. He has originaljurisdiction.

Mr. ELLENDER. But he has originaljurisdiction, and whatever he decides canbe immediately appealed.

Mr. HATFIELD. The senator is cor­rect.

Mr. ELLENDER. His decision can beappealed by any aggrieved person.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. ELLENDER. What is the basis of

:3130 CONGRESSIONAL ~RECORD 'T,SENAl'~

-the two "case.sabout which.the S!'lnatorspoke? Does the Senator know? •

Mr. HATFIELD. In connection withthose two cases I cannot give the exactdetails. One arose in Eugene and _theother in Portland. I believe they involvedattempts to purchase or rent housing.The property was on the market and itwas on the market in the generalknowl­edge of the public. That is to say it waseither advertised or listed by a realtor.Negroes attempted to purchase or rent,who had the financial capacity to do so.They were denied or the terms werechanged so that they were denied theopportunity to occupy the properties.

Mr. ELLENDER. I presume these twosuits are to test the validity of the law.

Mr. HATFIELD. The constitutionalityof the law is not in question. It is a mat­ter of factfinding relating to the Com­missioner's first decision. We have nocase now pending, or any case previouslybrought, before the courts on the matterof constitutionality.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator spoke ofthe law enacted in 1957 and another lawenacted in 1959. What gave rise to thoselaws? How did they come about? Didthey arise because of complaints of Ne­groes?

Mr. HATFIELD. No. The act passed in1949, the FEP Act, the Public Accommo­dations Act of 1953, the first housing actof 1957, and the housing act of 1959, alloriginated within the community coun­cils, supported by individuals and by in­terested citizens groups. They arose be­cause of the efforts of the people of Ore­gon trying to solve existing problems andprevent them from becoming biggerproblems.

Mr. ELLENDER. Did the law enactedin 1959, deal only with housing, or wereother discriminatory practices involved?

Mr. HATFIELD. No; the law of 1959was called Oregon Housing Act, and ithad to do with rentals and sales of apart­ments and such. The 1953 act had to dowith public accommodations, hotels,motels, amusements and recreation.

Mr. ELLENDER. The 1959 act dealtonly with housing?

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOR­DAN of North Carolina in the chair). Theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

S. 2976-INTRODUCTION OF BILLRELATING TO THE REORGANIZA­TION OF PLANNING IN THE DIS­TRICT OF COLUMBIAMr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, our

cities today enjoy a great potential forshaping their future character and de­velopment. They can make themselvesbetter places for their inhabitants to liveand work in. By providing sufficient rec­reational facilities and open spaces, they

can make their. environment "a p~ace

where human beings can liveandwlllwant to live. They can provide neighbor­hoods which are human in tone and wlthwhicn the individual will want to iden­tify. In such a neighborhood,j;he indi­vidual resident could enjoy either privacyor neighbors of similar interests or di­versified backgrounds whatever his indi­vidual choice; and whatever his incomecould enjoy, housing which is livable,desirable, and inexpensive.

The potential for achieving these ob­jects comes from the rational and effec­tive use of planning and developmenttools by the local jurisdiction. Planningas a govemmental function brings aboutthe rational use of available social, eco­nomic, and demographic information onconditions and needs to develop futurepatterns and objectives for the city'sgrowth. Development as a governmentalfunction makes possible the channelingof all available resources into theachievement of these future objectives.

Some cities have been able to tap thefull potential of these functions to radi­cally transform their character. NewHaven, Conn., is probably the most na­tionally acclaimed city in this regard.Under the leadership of Mayor RichardC. Lee and as a result of the highly cen­tralized operation of the city governmentwhich included both the planning anddevelopment functions, the mayor wasable to direct and fully hamess thethrust of all of the city's resources to­ward the goal of a better city.

Unfortunately, the government of theDistrict of Columbia stands at the oppo­site pole from that of New Haven in itsa:bility to rationally and effectively utilizeavailable resources in the planning anddevelopment areas. Where the organiza­tion of Mayor Lee's govemment alloweda total commitment and followthroughon development and execution of plan­ning and development programs, the na­ture of planning and development func­tions· in the District of Columbia is sohighly fragmented as to make virtuallyimpossible the establishment, let alonethe execution, of a cohesive and consist­ent policy. The overriding characteristicof the District of Columbia is the pro­fusion of independent agencies, each ofwhich enjoys some authority for plan­ning, or some development function.

Among these many separate jurisdic­tions there exists little or no coordina­tion in program execution or even inthe establishment of policy objectives.The National Capital Housing Authority,the Redevelopment Land Agency andthe District government, for example,allpossess authority to initiate redevelop­ment projects. The National CapitalHousing Authority has primary responsi­bility for the construction and main­tenance of public housing, which duringland acquisition and construction in­volves it in urban renewal. But NeHAhas little coordination with the agencyprimarily responsible for urban renewalin the District, the Redevelopment LandAgency. Neither of these two agencies inturn has close coordination with theDistrict of Columbia government, whichitself has an office of urban renewal, a

.. CODllp.unity redey~I()PP'len~illl,'O~~.~p.da~odelcitiE!S ()fII~"3th 'f~l(J cis-cc! ".iiLt'o"

As early liS Aprfl. 196Lthe,need ,tobring about a coordinatedapproacn waspointed out by Chairman- JOHN. McMIL­LAN of the House Committee on' the Dis­trict ,of Columbia... At that ,time,Chairman MCMILLAN mtrOduced a billand held initial hearings on a proposalto centralize all District redevelopmentfunctions in an' office in the Districtgovernment. Last August, following thepassage of Reorganization Plan No.3,the ranking Republican member of thatsame committee, Representative ANCHERNELSEN, of Minnesota, called for thecen­tralization of planning and developmentfunctions in the District government.The reorganization plan, he declared,did not go far enough to meet the realproblems of the District government.The reorganization plan did not go farenough to meet the real problems of theDistrict government which the fragmen­tation of authority created. Finally, inearly January the mayor's -task forcecalled for centralization of authority forthese areas in the District government.

In addition to the profusion of separ8ltejurisdictions responsible for initiating re­development proposals the complicatedreview. procedure found in the Districtfurther acts to fragment and decentralizeplanning and development. A single ini­tiating body like the RedevelopmentLand Agency must secure the approval ofother independent agencies before it canbegin to execute its proposal. RLA mustget the approval of the National CapitalPlanning Commission and the Districtgovernment. While NCPC has no powerto initiate urban renewal proposals it caneffectively block them through its reviewprocedure of proposals developed by theRedevelopment Land Agency. The resultis not only a total absence of· cohesiveor consistent policy among the separateauthorities, but a hamstringing of eachindividually in its own operations.

In addition to the other two problems.the National Capital Planning Commis­sion, which is theoretically the centralplanning unit for the District of Colum­bia, lacks any positive power to iniple­ment its plans. It lacks authority to ini­tiate plans of its own. The only power theNCPC has to effect its plans is the nega­tive power to reject proposals or forcemodification in those submitted to it forits review by other agencies and jurisdic­tions. But even here, this rejection canand is frequently ignored. The net effectis that planning in the District of Colum­bia which is supposed to act to r8ltionallzedevelopment for the future is unable tohave any realinfiuence on the shaping ofthe city. .

In an attempt to remedy some of theseproblems, I am today introducing legis­lationto establish an agency within theDistrict of Columbia govemment re­sponsible for ,exercising all local planningand development functionsm the Dis­trict. The powers and functions· of theNational Capital Housing Authority, theRedevelopment Land Agency, and theDistrict planning functions ,. of -the ,Na­tional. Capital·' Planning, Commissionwould be transferred to this agency.

I understand that the President is con-</'-