CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 26, 1968
Page 4062
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
I have such a brief time that I must hurry.
First, it appears to me that these so-called modifications are almost meaningless, because they do not approach the liberality of the Mathias amendment. Senators will note that the Senator from Minnesota failed or refused, one or the other, to answer the very good question of the Senator from North Carolina when he asked him whether his amendment was like unto the Mathias amendment.
Why is the question asked? Because individual homes are still left completely covered by the terms of the Mondale amendment, as modified.
First, as to the original bill, Mr. President, time does not permit talking at length, but I mention this one point: If we wish to make it harder on police officers all over this country, just pass that original bill.
How many times we have heard charges of brutality made. It happens almost every time an officer tries to correct people of the minority race. Sometimes it is justified, yes; brutality does occur. More often, it is not justified.
I say to the Senate, if we want to make all of those charges of brutality Federal applications for prosecution, just pass that original bill.
One second point, and I shall be through: With reference to the Mondale amendment, even as modified, they are asking us to forget entirely the lesson we should have learned at the time of the adoption of the 18th amendment on prohibition. Numerous States adopted similar constitutional provisions. We did in my State.
We found out we had made a mistake, because individuals would not support it. Individuals will not support this matter, because the owner of a house, instead of listing his property for sale, will quietly investigate and find some individual purchaser.
If we wish to drive the real estate people out of business, we may do so by passing this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOLLAND. I ask for 1 more minute. if I may have it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield the Senator from Florida 1 more minute?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOLLAND. All of us will become hypocrites in selling our homes. I would not think of selling my home to a person who would offend the feelings of my neighbors, who have been my neighbors for years, and neither, I am sure, would any other Senator.
Mr. President, I hope that cloture will not be voted, and we will not be put in the intolerable situation where the original Mondale amendment is still pending. We have already seen, in an important vote, how the Senate feels toward that.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I hope that no individual Senator -- not one -- would change his vote or be influenced in any way on this cloture vote because of the last-minute filing of a great number of amendments here. There is an element of surprise involved, when there is not time to read, much less consider or check upon, these many amendments.
Let us not be misled. Let us go right on down the line on the merits of what has already been presented, discussed, and debated here, and what we know is contained in the provisions.
I make the further point that the only real issue here, the main one and the only real one, is the preservation of the rights of all the people. I am talking about personal, individual rights related to their personal freedom and liberty, that are as old and as solid and as substantial as the idea of a home itself.
Once we break the line, go over the dam, breach the dike on that proposition, however mild or innocuous the proposition we pass now might seem, it will be an opening of the door. The courts will construe it most liberally in favor of the language. We know what the administrators of the program would do; they would stretch it and bend it to the very utmost degree. Amendments to any such so-called measure would flood in here, at this session and the next, with all kinds of contingencies.
If we are going to pass a law to stop a riot, we had better not pass a mild law. There would be a riot, then, because the law was not strong enough, and another riot because we would not make an amendment that is more effective. If we are seeking to run from any situation because of threats of that kind, then that is a breaking down of our system of representative government.
My plea is that we go on and pass on this matter, in view of what has been before us all the time, and vote our convictions on the merits of those measures. I do not believe that cloture can be imposed by that standard.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I should like to reply to the distinguished Senator from Florida, my own native State, on one point he raises, in defending the sensitiveness of his and our neighbors.
I had occasion to be a visitor in the living room of a distinguished Negro doctor on the South Side of Chicago and had called to my attention, as I now call to the Senator's attention, the sensitiveness of 20 million people in this country.
This doctor indicated that he was treated well by our American society. He was making $40,000 to $45,000 a year. He lived in a fine apartment, that he himself owned. But he said, "You know, every time I read the Sunday supplement papers, and read all about the houses with expanses of open space and fine lawns I cannot help but think, This is not for me and my people, this is for you white people, and I experience a feeling of bitterness and deep-seated frustration. If you can imagine me, in my income bracket and in an attractive home -- a college graduate, my children college graduates, my wife a community and civil leader, working every day with the white community, feeling frustrated and bitter when I know I cannot live in most of the white communities of the Chicago area just because of my color -- can you imagine how frustrated and bitter and disillusioned the poor must feel when they know the impossibility of escaping from their ghetto slum home even if they succeed in achieving income and status?"
I commend the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] for his efforts to work out a compromise bill on civil rights that will open up the opportunities and promise of America to more of our American citizens.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, last week I voted against cloture. Today I shall vote for it.
This does not represent a change in my attitude. Sometime ago I stated in the Senate, as well as publicly in my own State, that I would in due time vote to permit the Senate to exercise its will on this measure.
Last week the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois, pleaded for more time to try to effect a compromise and secure a more reasonable provision for public occupancy than that contained in the Mondale-Brooke amendment. He would have had no opportunity to do this had cloture been voted last week because after cloture, no new amendment or substitute can even be offered without unanimous consent, and obviously a member of the so-called southern bloc would object to any provision for public occupancy, however it might be restricted.
Therefore, I voted against cloture, knowing that there would be another opportunity to invoke it this week. However, no agreement has been reached, and unless cloture is voted today, there might not be another opportunity to do so.
Mr. President, I still think that if the ardent supporters of the pending measure were really anxious for a law and not for an issue, they would be willing to accept the bill passed by the House, including the Mathias amendment on public occupancy. To me, this would be a
sane and sensible compromise. Furthermore, there would be no committee of conference, and an adequate civil rights law of 1968 would immediately become a fact. If the Senate insists on a different version, a conference with the House will take place, and when an agreement between the two bodies is reported to the Senate, there will be another opportunity for prolonged, delaying debate. If this comes at a later time in the session when we may be recessing for the conventions or striving for adjournment, it is quite likely that there will be no bill passed at all.
Mr. President, it seems evident that the majority of the Senate is adamant in demanding a drastic open occupancy provision. It seems equally evident that neither the minority leader or anyone else can effect a satisfactory compromise. Therefore, I shall vote for cloture in the hope that the Senate will work its will and after 7 weeks the Senate can stop talking and go to work. The times demand it.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall vote for cloture again today, as I am satisfied that no matter what housing bill we have pending before the Senate, we will have a filibuster on that measure.
Therefore, the adoption of cloture today gives us the best parliamentary assurance of being able to work out a housing bill.
We have to get the matter before us, and if we vote against cloture today, we will have to vote on cloture at some time in the future, in my judgment, because I do not think the opposition group in the Senate will let any form of open housing amendment go through without prolonged debate. I think we should have cloture now and then do the best we can to work out a housing bill that is acceptable.
I am willing to follow the leadership of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] and other Senators regarding working out a bill that will get a majority vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one of the traditional arguments against Federal open housing legislation is the contention that this is a matter for the cities to resolve for themselves.
This argument overlooks the jurisdictional problem, which the mayors recognize themselves. In a letter to the able floor manager of this bill, Senator HART, Mayor Joseph M. Barr of Pittsburgh, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has written:
Federal action is particularly needed to solve the problems of housing discrimination in our metropolitan areas. Individual cities are unable to meet the challenge alone because of their limited geographic jurisdiction.
Mayor Barr's letter reflects the concern expressed by the mayors at their 1967 annual meeting, in which they adopted a strong resolution of support for equal opportunity, particularly in housing. I commend that resolution to the attention of my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AT THEIR ANNUAL MEETING, HONOLULU, JUNE 21, 1967
Whereas, the U.S. Conference of Mayors is committed to the broad principles of equal opportunity laid down in the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, full implementation of all rights of citizenship is a direct and primary obligation of officials who serve at the local levels of government; and
Whereas, the Conference has worked hard to implement its commitments to advance equal opportunities by its support of federal, state and local legislation, through programs of education and technical assistance and through support of governmental policies that will contribute to stable community relations; and
Whereas, the continued existence in our society of racial discrimination, especially in housing, emphasizes the need for all segments of the nation to support every constructive effort to protect equal rights of citizenship for all,
Now therefore be it resolved that the U.S. Conference of Mayors: (1) Continues to support programs that advance and extend equal opportunities to all citizens. (2) Pledges its full support in creating a broad climate of compliance with law, cooperation among all groups and mutual confidence between citizens. (3) Urges the swift passage by Congress of legislation designed to promote equal opportunity in housing.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, while I have generally followed the policy of voting against cloture, as a matter of principle, and will do so again today, I do not believe it can be gainsaid that had the proponents of the "forced housing" amendment been willing to drop the amendment, they would have a far better chance of invoking cloture today. That amendment would constitute a gross governmental invasion of property rights. I do not know what the outcome on the cloture vote at 1 p.m. will be. If cloture is invoked, I shall vote for the civil rights bill, but only if the forced housing amendment is dropped.
I voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and the 1962 resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in Federal elections. Although there are other undesirable features in the 1968 civil rights bill, as it was reported to the Senate, perhaps those provisions can be deleted from the bill by amendments, and I reiterate that, in any event, if cloture is invoked, I shall vote for the bill, conditioned, however, upon the scrapping of the forced housing amendment, an amendment which would set in motion an additional Federal incursion into the private and personal affairs of individuals who prefer to exercise then own good judgment in the management and use and disposition of their own property.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes, the remaining time, to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I object strenuously to the offering of an amendment at this stage of the debate without any knowledge of what is contained in the amendment. I do not know whether the amendment provides for the settlement of controversies in the courts or whether the amendment continues to attempt to prostitute the judicial process by uniting in one person, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the functions of complaining witness, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury.
I want to have the enforcement of law in the hands of an impartial court, where due process can be had, instead of having a bill or an amendment which makes a hypocritical pretense of judicial process by taking controversies from all 50 States of this Union and putting their solutions in the hands of one bureaucrat, a member of the Cabinet sitting on the banks of the Potomac River, thousands of miles in many cases from where the property in controversy lies.
It would be a terrible thing for Congress to rob people of such basic rights. In reply to the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY], I would say that if the pending housing amendment is adopted, it will rob all property owners among the 200 million Americans of the right to determine to whom they shall sell or lease their property and confer the power to determine questions arising in such matters upon one bureaucrat sitting on the banks of the Potomac, and the sensitivities of all Americans who love liberty will be hurt. To paraphrase the words of Learned Hand, the day such an amendment becomes law will make it plain that love of liberty has died in the hearts of Senators and Representatives, and the American people will be converted into helpless puppets on a bureaucratic string.
I therefore object to the waiving of the reading of the proposed amendment.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
AMENDMENT NOS. 539 THROUGH 544
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I submit various amendments and ask that they be printed and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as having been read for the purpose of complying with rule XXII.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the Senator to give us a word or two of explanation. Have the amendments been printed, and are they available to Senators?
Mr. ALLOTT. Not at this point. The amendments that I have submitted are all amendments to the pending Mondale amendment, and they try to strengthen it in various aspects relating to the protection of the individuals and the so-called judicial process involved in the pending amendment in a way that would make it far more acceptable to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, does the Senator not think that submitting amendments here under these circumstances, amendments of any far-reaching significance, is downright wrong legislativewise under our rules?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me another minute?
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am under some obligation to yield time to the able Senator from West Virginia, and I do now yield 1 minute to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I object to the waiving of the reading of the amendments submitted by the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the printing of the amendments?
Mr. ERVIN. I have no objection to the printing of the amendments, but I do have an objection to the waiving of the reading of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be printed and lie on the table.
Objection is heard to the waiver of the reading of the amendments.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the disposition of the pending cloture motion, the Sergeant at Arms be directed to clear the floor and the Senate lobby of all personnel except the personnel attached to the staffs of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, the secretary for the majority, the secretary for the minority, and the two policy committees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The Sergeant at Arms is so directed.
Who yields time?
Mr. HART. Mr, President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
In all sincerity, I submit to every Senator that we would be going too far now if we were to bring in far-reaching amendments at the last minute, amendments that are not even printed, amendments that we have not had a chance to read, and permit the amendments to be submitted under the rule. We would be thereby sweeping out the substance of all our debate.
To force cloture on top of such conditions would be an intolerable situation and would set an impossible precedent.
I yield to no Member of the Senate in being willing to debate or go into any matter. However, if we act this way, we will live to regret it. I believe that it would be very irresponsible of us if we were to take such a step.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi, I know, feels very deeply the point he made. I feel with equal conviction that a majority of the Senate is equipped and competent to give its judgment when the opportunity is present to vote yes or no. And after 6 weeks' time, I think that we have reached the point where we can insist that a majority be permitted to act. I hope the Senate votes in favor of cloture.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. The proposed new amendment has not been pending for 6 weeks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending motion, which the clerk will state.