gress must move swiftly to specifically designate the mode of deseg regation. Words and phraseology without thrust will be fine sheaf cast to the wind.

In conclusion, it must be clear that my concern, as an official of the city of New York, is not limited by the boundaries of that great metropolis. No American can remain still when he views grave inequities occurring in other sections of a country he believes nurtured by that conspicuous motto, "Equal Justice Under Law," emblazoned in the facade of the Supreme Court Building,

Yes; we do have many problems, racial and otherwise, in New York. Better housing is needed, better schools are needed, but we do maintain a constant vigil in seeking to remove these infringements of equality. And a vigil is still needed here in Washington. A vigil which will terminate, forever, the need for civil rights legislation. Civil rights means no more than citizenship. I pray you will confirm and strengthen that right to every American, be he white or black. I recall a brief quote of Abraham Lincoln, spoken more than 100 years ago, which states that, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present." To that, I add, "Without shelter, the stormy present may be the tempestuous eventuality."

Thank you very much.

Senator ERVIN. Senator Javits, I believe you have a question.

Senator JAVITS. Commissioner Booth, first let me thank you for appearing and state for the record my pride in your chairmanship of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, which is a splendid organization and in which you are doing such an outstanding job of leadership. I have this one question for you.

It has been said here that as New York has an antidiscrimination in housing law, an excellent law, why do we still have riots? How is it that our situation has not been perfected?

And secondly, what can we expect from antidiscrimination in housing laws when the overwhelming majority of Negroes cannot afford to take advantage of these opportunities in the suburbs?

Now, I have answered that dignity and the opportunity for fulfilling his aspiration ars as important as money and rights to the Negro. But would you give us a word on both questions?

Mr. BOOTH. Yes, sir.

Certainly I have a particular close knowledge with what is happening in New York City concerning the disturbances. I have lived in New York City all of my life. But in 1966, we have had disturbances in East New York. I think I can take that as an example in answer to the first question. In spite of the fact that we have these laws, some of the laws are not enforced as well. Some of the enforcement work of some of our agencies has not been good in the past. But I might say that the experience of East New York and how Mayor Lindsay and other departments handled the situation there indicates that there has been advancement in New York City toward better relations between the races and particularly between police and community. I think that the East New York distrubances might have been much bigger, much larger, if there had not been this kind of attitude and the kind of laws that we have in New York City. I think that the Harlem situation in 1964 could have been much worse and

should have been considered as the result of some of the work that has been done in the past few years in New York City.

I think that in spite of the fact that we have the laws, we do have some laxity in enforcement and I think we are pulling up on that now. As we pull up on the enforcement of the laws we have, I am sure we are going to see much better race relations in New York City. I think we are seeing that as an example in the East New York situation and the fact that we have not erupted into any further disturbances since that time.

As to the question of Negroes not being able to afford to move out into the suburbs, certainly this is true. But also is it true that in New York City, we are building job opportunities for Negroes so that they will be in a position to use these laws, they will be in a position to move out into the suburbs, they will be in a position to get into the better schools. And I think my position has always been in the city commission and also in other work that I have done in civil rights that these things must proceed along together. You cannot say that job opportunities are the most important thing, you cannot say that education is the most important thing, you cannot say that housing is the most important. All of them are intertwined. When we get better job opportunities, we will get better education and we will be able to use the better housing.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Mr. BOOTH. I might say that Mayor Lindsay has shown some bold new approaches since he has been mayor of New York.

Senator ERVIN. Counsel will call the next witness.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the next witnesses are Mr. Patrick C. Clary, chairman of the National Legislative Affairs Committee, and Mr. Lonnie C. King, president of the Young Democratic Clubs of the District of Columbia, who are appearing on behalf of the Young Democratic Clubs of America.

STATEMENTS OF PATRICK C. CLARY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS OF AMERICA, AND NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN, YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF NEVADA, AND LONNIE C. KING, JR., PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. CLARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Young Democratic Clubs of America, through its National Legislative Affairs Committee, is honored to have the opportunity today to present the position of the official youth organization of the Democratic Party on the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. Representing some 1 million members, the national Young Democratic organization is deeply committed to the fulfillment of all Americans' exercise of their civil rights under our constitutional democracy.

As chairman of the National Legislative Affairs Committee of the Young Democratic Clubs of America, I should like to set forth to you the applicable policy and position of the Young Democratic Clubs of America on the issues raised by the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966.

With me is another Young Democratic leader, Mr. Lonnie C. King, Jr., president of the Young Democratic Clubs of the District of Columbia. We had hoped that two other Young Democratic leaders would also be here. They are Mr. Eugene Konstant, who is chairman of the National Membership Committee of the Young Democratic Clubs of America and immediate past president of the Young Democrats of Michigan, and Mr. Jesse Epps, first vice chairman of the Young Democratic Clubs of Mississippi. The airline strike has prevented their attendance. We would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to submit their statements for the record.

Senator ERVIN. Let the record show that their statements will be printed in the body of the record immediately after the statements of the representatives of the Young Democratic Clubs of America who are present.

Mr. CLARY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the platform of the Young Democratic Clubs of America, adopted at its 15th biennial national convention, assembled in New York City on October 16, 1965, clearly establishes the policy of the organization in support of the principles for which the civil rights bill stands:

First, the platform states that all Young Democrats across the Nation "are encouraged to devise, implement, and support programs which secure to all groups the right to share fully and equally, with dignity, in American society."

Second, the platform specifically calls for a "concerted effort on the part of public officials and laymen to upgrade the jury system in this country."

Third, specific action is advocated toward the goal of eliminating discrimination in housing.

Fourth, the Young Democratic Clubs of America, deploring denial of equal protection of the law, "urges that crimes of violence against any citizen denied the equal protection of the law be made Federal offenses, to be tried in a Federal court after indictment by a Federal grand jury, in the hope that cases in the courts may be tried free of racial bias which, in State courts, denies to civil rights workers the equal protection of the law."

Thus, Mr. Chairman, the Young Democratic Clubs of America supports this proposal of the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson and Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey to eliminate discrimination in the selection and service of Federal and State juries; to authorize the initiation of suits by the Federal Government to assure nondiscrimination in public education and other public facilities; to prohibit, and enforce the prohibition of, discrimination in housing; and to provide appropriately increased penalties adequate to protect persons who are exercising their civil rights.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me these introductory remarks.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you, Mr. Clary.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, the Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia would like to address itself to titles III and V of the Civil Rights Act of 1966.

My remarks will relate, however, to the House bill which probably will be the legislation which will reach the Senate floor debate. Henry L. Stimson said in 1947:

No private program and no public policy, in any section of our national life, can escape the compelling fact that if it is not framed with reference to the world, it is framed with perfect futility.

There is no period in history when this statement has had more significance or real meaning than it has today. The Civil Rights Act, as we all know, has a crucial role to play in the lives of members of minority groups all over the world and in no small numbers. Its implications will be rumored also around the world.

Speaking specifically to title III, the power of the United States and the individual to initiate proceedings to obtain injunctive relief and bypass the local and State courts is most important. The original version of this title did not provide for the individual to utilize its provisions. We believe that it is important for both the Attorney General and individuals to have this tool. The number of persons in this country who do not know their rights or how to obtain them or who have given up trying to secure them is an appallingly large one. The Attorney General can do much to bridge this gap and give these persons assistance they have never had. It is imperative that the individual also be included in this title because he needs a means of circumventing the intricate maze of legal technicalities and regulations that are on the books in cities and States for the express purpose of denying or delaying or hindering the excercise of rights secured under the Constitution of the United States. To be able to go directly to the Federal courts without exhausting all other remedies will be of untold help in the fight to achieve full freedom.

It is our belief that more consideration should be given to the phrase "reasonable grounds" as it applies to this title. Neither the original nor the amended version of title III is explicit on this point. This tool can quickly be rendered practically useless if the only occasions when relief can be obtained are those of very extenuating circumstances, such as, bodily harm, bombings, destruction of private property by fire, et cetera. I believe that it would be extremely beneficial if the Congress would give the Federal courts the benefit of their thinking on this phrase.

Nothing is as futile as a movement without goals, or a crusade without ideals or a battle without ammunition. Title V is undoubtedly the most important section of the entire act. It can also have the greatest impact. Its strength has been sapped away because there is no minimum penalty imposed under this statute.

For harassment and intimidation the penalty can be 50 cents or 2 hours in jail; or if you cause someone to suffer bodily harm, break an arm or leg, suffer a concussion, lose an eye, the penalty could be that same 50 cents or 2 hours in jail or both; if you kill someone, 1 year and a day in jail with time off for good behavior or a suspended sentence. If the example is ridiculous, please compare it with the history of verdicts and sentences in racial incidents throughout the country. It is my belief that unless this title is strengthened by adding minimum penalties the latitude of discretion provided under this title will change none of the inequities that presently occur.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you very much for allowing me to appear.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you.

Let the record show that the statement of Mr. Jesse Epps and Mr. Eugene Konstant will be printed at this point in the body of the

record.

(The prepared statements of Mr. Epps and Mr. Konstant follow :) STATEMENT OF JESSE EPPS, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable debate, and indeed the most debate, on Title IV of the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. With all the statements and opinions which have been made and expressed on these provisions which make up, perhaps, the heart of this bill, I can add little to any one's knowledge.

While there may be some misconception among some of the members of the general public as to what Title IV would do, I am sure that there is no confusion to the members of this Subcommittee. However, there is considerable disagreement on the merits of the proposal.

The primary question involved in Title IV is usually expressed as involving "individual rights." The individual right which Title IV seeks to enforce is the right of the individual to buy or rent an available home where he is economically able and personally desires to do so. The other alleged right is often explained as the right of an owner or landlord to sell or rent his property to whom he wishes even if his reason is based on discrimination. Thus, these two "rights" come into conflict.

However, I should like to suggest that this latter right is really no right at all. Mr. Chairman, when a person offers his property for sale or for rent on the market, in reality he gives up the right which he has to the property. If the property is merely passed on to a member of the owner's family, within the family, then clearly the right remains. However, this is not the situation which this bill would cover.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation takes away no individual right: that right is given up when the owner of property offers that property on the market. Rather, the bill enforces an important individual right, the right to a decent place to live, when one has the ability to live there, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin.

There is nothing unfair about this bill and particularly this part of the bill. The bill would establish a national policy and a national standard by which everyone would have to abide. There would no longer be the excuse for discrimination by one person who says that he discriminates out of necessity because another discriminates. This is the kind of national policy which is consistent to that of a democracy which seeks equality of opportunity-now, the opportunity to be housed where one desires and is economically able to be housed.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE R. KONSTANT, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS OF AMERICA, AND IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to express the support of the Young Democratic Clubs of America to the values represented in the Civil Rights Bill of 1966 and specifically with regard to Titles 1 and II.

Because of the complicated and technical language of the proposal, I wish to focus the attention of my remarks upon the basic principle involved instead of the technical legalisms which may or may not exist in the bill's language.

We support the goal of totally equal opportunities for all citizens to enjoy all the rights and obligations of their American citizenship.

The language of the Constitution is, we think, a clear overriding mandate to assure that "all men are created equal" but it seems that specific statements are required in each area of human endeavor, so we are here to lend our support in this area of jury selection, just as we have been here and will return again for