At a time when the press is so quick to attach grave conflict-of-interest implications to the activities of others, I suggest the journalism profession take Its an honest look at its own practices. Its responsibilities to the public in terms of honesty and integrity are no less than the responsibilities resting on those who serve that same public as elective and appointed officials.

I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KRAMER DEFENDS JUNKET FOR "MAD"-$250,000 MOVIE PRESS TRIP SAID TO AID PUBLICITY (By Murray Schumach)

HOLLYWOOD, November 6.-Stanley Kramer defended today the economics and ethics of his $250,000 press junket, the most lavish in Hollywood history.

The price of the event was twice the total cost of the film "Never on Sunday," which has already grossed more than $6

million.

Mr. Kramer, by his position, revived arguments in the movie world about the value of such publicity devices. There are film executives and publishers here who think press junkets do not pay off at the box

office.

The producer-director of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" brought about 250 reporters here from 26 countries and 53 cities in the United States. The finale of their 4-day visit was the viewing of the comedy on Sunday night. Five newspapers paid the expenses for their representatives.

MANY STORIES IN PAPERS

"During this junket," Mr. Kramer said, "we received an enormous amount of space in newspapers and there is much more to come in the papers and on television. These stories and interviews will build up audience anticipation so that it hits a peak as our movie opens in major cities."

He said that during their Hollywood visit, the vast majority of the reporters turned in at least one story a day.

"If the stories were all like those that many reporters showed to me, then they were very favorable."

He conceded that it might never be possible to know if the international press safari was justified in terms of money. But the stories, he said, created "an aura that the movie is all-out entertainment."

A favorable climate for the writers was created in a variety of ways. They were brought here on chartered planes. They were put up, without charge, at one of the best hotels in Hollywood. Their food and liquor bills at the hotel were picked up by Mr. Kramer. A press room was set up at the hotel, with a switchboard and 24-hour

service.

ESTIMATES THE COST

Mr. Kramer then tried to estimate, in terms of movie customers, what the junket cost him. To recoup the $250,000 spent on the press would require an additional return of $650,000 at the box office, because

of distribution costs. This would mean an additional 200,000 customers.

He said he could not tell now-perhaps never-if the junket justified itself. But the jump in the advance sales of tickets since the reporters came to Hollywood favored his opinion, he said. In New York City alone, he declared, the advance sale has quadrupled since the junket began. The movie is scheduled to open in New York on November 17.

"By and large," Mr. Kramer said, "I look at this in an emotional way. I feel we have stirred up a great deal of attention for the movie. That is the most you can expect at this time."

SENATE LEADERSHIP

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong the preliminary statements, but I wish to say a word about the remarks which were made on the floor of the Senate last night about the leadership. Those remarks were remarks were completely out of place. Of course, we all know that we are struggling under very great difficulties at the present session. I do not think it is altogether the fault of the leadership. In last night's issue of the Washington Star there appeared an article by one of its most capable, observing, and perceptive reporters, which pointed out that perhaps some of the difficulty was not a result of the rules or the leadership, but the

Senate itself. I submit that it was a I do not very appropriate observation. think that a change of rules, however they might be changed, would at all cure our troubles. But I believe that if we are to make progress, all Senators must have a little more serious approach to some of the issues, particularly those such as foreign aid, which, granted, has always been controversial. The bill must be treated somewhat differently from domestic affairs because it involves our foreign policy. It is an area in which, in the past at least, we have professed to approach the subject in a nonpartisan spirit. I believe generally that has been true.

As I said a moment ago, the Republican opposition party has been extremely responsible in its treatment of the bill. I do not mean that there have not been other bills with respect to which they have not been responsible, but we are referring to this bill. I reiterate that the Republicans on the committee, as well as the Republicans in the Senate, have approached this matter in a very objective manner and have not in any way, to my knowledge, sought to take partisan advantage of the program. So I do not believe that the criticisms directed at the opposition party were in order, and I do not agree with them.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as one of the leaders in opposition to the bill, I commend the nonpartisanship of the Republicans who have opposed the bill. They have extended the same kind of nonpartisan cooperation that Republicans in favor of the bill have extended to supporters of the bill.

OMNIBUS CRIME BILL FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, my work on the foreign aid bill has made it impossible for me to attend any of the hearings on H.R. 7525, known as the omnibus crime bill, before the District of Columbia Committee.

I announced before the hearings started and informed the committee chairman that it would be impossible for me to attend them because of work on the foreign aid bill, but that I would read the transcript carefully and present my point of view in the executive sessions of the committee when the time came to mark up the bill. I shall do that.

Parts of the testimony that I have read thus far confirm my belief that the bill must be opposed at least so far as its major provisions are concerned.

For example, I have read the prepared statement of Robert Murray, the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia. I am unalterably opposed to most of what he has said. He seeks to do what many police chiefs seek to do: To get broad, discretionary powers that are not in the interests of the people of the District, and can best be characterized as "police state" procedural authority.

tempt by Chief Murray, through a great I am unalterably opposed to the atdeal of misrepresentation, to change the Mallory rule in the District of Columbia.

I believe that the Mallory rule is vital to the protection of the people of the District of Columbia-and particularly to the colored people of the Districtfrom Chief Murray's well-known "police state" procedural methods.

This police chief also pleads to have the power to arrest for investigation. He has been maintaining a procedure in his department whereby a colored perof Columbia at a late hour, or at an son walking the streets of the District early hour of the day, can be stopped by a police squad car and forced to identify himself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oregon has expired.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 3 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a young colored boy from Portland, Oreg., who was on my patronage list for several years-Mr. Ben Walker, a brilliant student now doing graduate work in mathematics at the University of Californiahad a position in the Senate post office that made it necessary for him to come to work during the early morning hours, sometimes 4 a.m. He reported on several occasions that he was stopped by a police squad car and forced to identify himself, when all he was doing was walking the streets of the District of Columbia to the Senate Office Building where he worked.

This police chief testified in support of power to arrest for investigation. Colored person after colored person has

told me that if such power were given to the District of Columbia police department they would tremble as to what would happen to them after they got to the police precinct houses in the

District of Columbia.

Mr. President, before we get through with this omnibus crime bill, I shall document further the evidence of what I consider to be police state methods in the District of Columbia.

The police chief has been making misrepresentations in regard to the crime situation in the District of Columbia.

On October 14, 1963, in the District of Columbia, I was invited to make a speech before the Corrections Conference, Health and Welfare Council. I made that speech on the subject of "Crime and Law Enforcement in the District of Columbia." It contains answer after answer to some of the propaganda of the police chief in the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the speech printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(Statement of Senator WAYNE MORSE, Democrat, of Oregon, before the Corrections Conference, Health and Welfare Council, October 14, 1963)

The crime rates have been steadily increasing in the District of Columbia, and throughout the country, and with that increase, the cries have grown louder and louder of those who, with simple-minded logic, contend there is a simple solution to complex problems. The simple panacea for the rising crime rate they say is for the courts to stop handcuffing the police. They argue it is not the function of the courts to police the police. In general what they are complaining about is the exclusionary ruleunder which confessions obtained during an illegal detention are barred from evidence the so-called McNabb-Mallory rule-or the exclusion of other evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment rights of a defendant. The effect of the exclusionary rule is exactly what is intended-to make law enforcement agencies obey the Constitution.

The objectors, of course, are careful not to use such so-called dirty words as "false imprisonment" or "arrests on suspicion" but instead urge the necessity of such nice substitutes as "arrests for investigation" or better yet "detention for investigation" or still better and safer, simply "questioning" or "interviewing."

What is really desired (and there should be no mistake about it) is the right of the police to pick up people on less than probable cause, the standard set in the fourth amendment and interrogate them secretly within the confines of the police station with no contact with friends or counsel nor any knowledge of their legal rights. I am not suggesting that the police advocate the right to third-degree suspects. But, nevertheless, we all know the so-called "third degree" still exists in this country, although it has undoubtedly diminished since the Wickersham Report in 1930. However, the police say they merely want the opportunity to obtain voluntary confessions from suspects and on that basis they contend that they are being handcuffed by the McNabb-Mallory rule which excludes confessions obtained from persons arrested who are not brought

The difficulty with the police argument is police department no one ever can tell what that once a person is in the confines of the happens. The cases are legion in which

individuals confess and then claim their confessions were beaten or coerced out of them. Then the police solemnly deny any such thing happened. The courts are in a dilemma because they can never really find out what happened. The virtue of the Mcopportunity for coercive interrogation. Nabb-Mallory rule is that it removes the

Recently, the House of Representatives passed a so-called omnibus crime bill for the District of Columbia in response to the plea of the chief of police. One of its provisions will overrule the unanimous decision of the

Supreme Court in the Mallory case, permitthough there is a deliberate delay before an ting the introduction of a confession even arrested person is brought before a magistrate. The chief of police contends that the crime rate has risen since 1957 when the decision came down, and that it is often difficult to show "probable cause" unless and until a confession has been obtained. when the Supreme Court rendered its de

It should be remembered that in 1957

cision, Chief Robert Murray predicted that it would result in a complete breakdown in law enforcement in the District of Columbia, and further stated that "most of the murders, rapes, and robberies would have gone unsolved and unpunished under the Mallory decision."

Yet, three years after the Mallory decision, Oliver Gasch, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, reported "Mallory questions, that is to say, confessions or admissions, are of controlling importance in probably less than 5 percent of our criminal prosecutions." The Washington Police Department has testified that since Mallory

(a) The District's solution rate has remained "nearly double" the national average; and

(b) Indeed, the District's overall percentage of major crime solutions has increased.

I suppose it is only natural that some professional police officers oppose the Mallory decision, which restates a field of limitation within which they must work. However, I respectfully point out to them that they should always remember that the primary responsibility of police and law enforcement agencies is not solely to obtain evidence for conviction, but to see that justice is done.

Repealing the Mallory rule won't solve the crime problem. Nor will another provision of the omnibus crime bill-to permit arrests for investigation. In 1961, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia appointed a committee of three distinguished lawyers headed by Charles Horsky, now the President's special adviser on District of Columbia affairs, to make a study of the police practice of arresting people and booking them, not on specific crimes, but merely for investigation or on suspicion. Within recent years the number has been from 5,000 to 8,000 a year. Yet, the committee showed that in 17 out of 18 cases, no charges were ultimately brought against the individuals arrested although most were held more than 4 hours and some as long as 24 hours.

The report showed that, almost without exception, the investigation proceeds without benefit of counsel and indeed, in the great majority of cases without knowledge on the part of anyone that the person arrested is in custody. He is held incommunicado. The police then and now insist that arrests for investigation are absolutely essential to law enforcement, yet in only 5 percent of the cases is a person arrested finally charged with a crime. Interestingly enough, while the study was being conducted, the police

in half themselves.

I think that this demonstrates that the admissibility of illegal confessions are not necessary to convict suspects if careful police work is done. Mr. Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has written as follows:

"Civil rights violations are all the more regrettable because they are so unnecessary. Professional standards in law enforcement provide for fighting crime with intelligence rather than force. In matters of scientific crime detection, the services of our FBI Laboratory are available to every duly constituted law enforcement officer in the Nation. Full use of these and other facilities should make it entirely unnecessary for any officer to feel the need to use dishonorable

methods."

The committee, on the basis of the survey, unanimously recommended the practice be ended because it was clearly unconstitutional and whatever benefits there were to law enforcement were vastly overweighted by the fact that 17 innocent people were deprived of their liberty for every potentially guilty person caught. The Commissioners ended the practice, but the House of Representatives in its omnibus crime bill would specifically authorize this wholly unconstitutional practice.

The chief of police requested this legislation and his voice was heard in the House of Representatives while the voices of the District Commissioners, the U.S. attorney, the Department of Justice, and the corporation counsel's office all who opposed these provisions of the bill were apparently ignored.

Both the police desire to overturn the Mallory rule and to reinstitute arrests for investigation stem in part from their desire to question people who may not know their legal rights. Taking a person without unnecessary delay before a magistrate is in part to inform a person of his rights.

I have proposed in the past that every person accused or suspected of a crime, whether or not in custody, should not be questioned without being informed of the nature of the offense, his right to have counsel present, his right not to make any statement and that any statement could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Yet, Chief Murray opposed this suggestion on the grounds that after such a caution he didn't think a suspect will tell very much.

I would ask are we so desperate in this city that it is necessary to authorize the police to pick up anyone and hold him for 6 hours for so-called investigation? Under the proposed law, this is exactly what the police would be authorized to do.

The bill's claim that this 6-hour detention would not be an arrest is a fallacy. According to Morton v. U.S. "the term 'arrest' may be applied when a person is taken into custody or restrained of his full liberty; or where detention of person in custody is continued for even a short period of time." This proposal is a blatant attempt to circumvent rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring that a person under arrest be taken to a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay.

Questioning people secretly, while holding them incommunicado and without their knowing their legal rights is not only inherently coercive, it also lends itself to coercive and sometime violent measures. The Mallory rule and the barring of arrests for investigation removes this opportunity.

There is little time for me to discuss the Durham rule here today, except to say that it seems certain that whatever formulation of words are used, the decision as to responsibility will be that of the jury. This is clearly what a most recent court of appeals

decision held in the McDonald v. United States. The decision stated:

"Our purpose now is to make it very clear that neither the court nor the jury is bound by ad hoc definitions of conclusions as to what experts state is a disease or defect. We emphasize that, since the question of whether the defendant has a disease or defect is ultimately for the triers of fact, obviously its resolution cannot be controlled by expert opinion. The jury must determine for itself, from all the testimony, lay and expert, whether the nature and degree of the disability are sufficient to establish a mental disease or defect as we have not defined those terms."

It is my conviction that to attempt to change the rule by statute is perhaps unnecessary and would tend to confuse and obscure the present situation.

These two matters have not crippled law enforcement-in spite of the cries by some of doom. The cure for crime in the District of Columbia is surely not to be found in giving congressional sanction to official lawlessness. Crime begets crime. Criminal actions of the police-the violation of constitutional rights of citizens-are still crimes no matter how well motivated the perpetrators.

Justice Brandeis in his famous dissent in the Olmstead case in 1927 eloquently argued against such a concept:

"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If a government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal— would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face."

On Tuesday of last week at the first of a series of hearings to be conducted by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia on the omnibus crime bill, it was alleged that criminals have the impression that the judiciary in the District of Columbia is soft or lenient with regard to the sentencing of criminals. I believe that if criminals have such an impression, they are badly mistaken. I also think that it is unfortunate that such an impression is being given to the public, including the criminal element, because such is not the case and believe it fair to say that the sources of this information know it is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that for fiscal year 1962, the District of Columbia's District Court's average sentence of 50.6 months for all types of crimes is exceeded only by the Districts of Utah (51.5 months), Kansas (51.3 months), and Alaska (147 months-total of four commitments, three for murder). From calendar year 1960 statistics, District of Columbia offenders actually serve, on the average, the following terms for the following offenses:

Rape: 62.8 months compared to national average of 44.8 months.

Drugs: 46.7 months compared to national average of 31.3 months.

Burglary: 41.1 months compared to national average of 24.6 months.

Theft: 25.5 months compared to national average of 19.8 months.

Auto theft: 26.7 months compared to national average of 21.3 months.

Embezzlement and fraud: 17.1 months compared to national average of 16.7 months. Forgery: 26.4 months compared to national average of 20.3 months.

Aggravated assault: 34.8 months compared to national average of 25.0 months.

Robbery: 50.8 months compared to national average of 42.4 months.

Manslaughter: 63.7 months compared to national average of 37.4 months.

Murder: 167.7 months compared to national average of 121.4 months.

All offenses: 40.4 months compared to national average of 28.4 months.

As one who has worked for years in surveying of law-enforcement practices in the United States, I warn the citizens of this community that the police department here and in other cities must always be subjected to constant vigilance. We have learned the hard way over and over again in the history of this country and the world that unchecked practices exercised by a police department result in the loss of personal, individual freedom.

As a Member of the Senate and a member of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, I shall continue to support legislation strengthening the Metropolitan Police Department and other such agencies consistent with what I consider sound public policy.

I believe that everyone here this afternoon knows that the security of the people of the District of Columbia, their protection, their right to walk the streets of the District of Columbia in safety, that an adequate police department can guarantee to them is must legislation as far as I am concerned. I shall continue to support an increase in police personnel to whatever number can be justified.

According to reports that I have seen, first time offenses known to police in this country passed the 2 million mark. I am further informed that the crime rate nationally is 9 percent higher this year than in 1962. According to newspaper accounts, crime is also on the increase in Great Britain and some other European countries.

In my judgment, we must maintain a very strong and adequate police department in this city and at the same time do more to alleviate many of the causes of crime.

What is the common denominator of those unfortunate citizens who appear before our

courts and populate our jail and prisons? I believe that common denominator would be deprivation-financial, recreation, motivation, education, mentality, decent housing, job opportunities, and decent family life. Unless this community is willing and able to reduce and curtail this deprivation, I predict that crime will continue to increase here.

Hearings which I held on amendments to the District of Columbia minimum wage law reveal that an estimated 39,000 families in the District of Columbia, or 222 percent, of the families living in the District are receiving wages less than $3,600 per year. The testimony also revealed that nearly one-fifth, or 17.3 percent, of the families in the District of Columbia earn incomes that are less than $3,000 annually. This is a shocking revelation. The hearings which I recently held on minimum wage and hours conditions in the District of Columbia pointed up the urgent need for action on the part of Congress to insure that a wage of health and decency is paid employees.

Though more attention has been given to the unemployment situation in the District of Columbia in the past year, we have only scratched the surface. We must teach our young men and women skills in our schools so that they can find work. This cannot be done unless Congress provides the District of Columbia school system the money it needs to construct adequate facilities and hire the necessary personnel to staff the schools. It doesn't do much good if we appeal to school dropouts and potential school dropouts to continue or return to school if we do not have the facilities available for them.

In my judgment, recreational facilities and parks are becoming increasingly inadequate to meet the needs of our citizens. Yet we still have officials in the District government advocating using recreational areas and park

areas for the construction of highways and freeways. I have always taken the position that we should be constantly enlarging our park and recreational facilities rather than decrease their size. This city must provide its citizens with more playgrounds, swimming pools, baseball fields, tennis courts, and other facilities.

This city must provide juveniles who need psychiatric help that service.

The public school system must be able to detect potential troublemakers early and have the staff to counsel these troubled students before serious behavioral problems develop. Much, much more needs to be done in this area.

Those are just a few of the many problems that we in the District of Columbia must come to grips with promptly if we are to avert a continued increase in the crime rate. What we must do is dedicate ourselves to the proposition that we will do all that we can to see that as many people as possible will be kept from entering a life of crime. I know that if we will accept that challenge, the price we pay will be much less than the price we will pay if we continue the course of action we are now following. The price is high, I submit, but our community and Nation will be rewarded in the end.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if the so-called omnibus crime bill comes to the Senate, I intend to discuss it at length and in depth. I devoted well over 20 years of my life to work in the field of research in connection with criminal law enforcement in this country, and I taught the subject for some 15 years. I was also editor in chief, for the Attorney General of the United States, of five volumes dealing with law enforcement in this country.

I do not intend to let the precious civil

rights of the colored people as well as those of the white people-of the District of Columbia be jeopardized under a police chief who is seeking, through this omnibus bill, to garner for himself the kind of power that no police department should ever be given.

There are two articles published in the New York Times today, which is a good example of what I am discussing. They are included under the headline, "Britons Act on Police Brutality; New York Curbs "Third Degree"."

I ask unanimous consent to have these articles printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BRITONS ACT ON POLICE BRUTALITY; NEW YORK CURBS THIRD Degree-SHEFFIELD SUSPENDS Two

(By James Feron)

LONDON, November 6.-Sheffield's two top police officers were suspended today as a result of a Government inquiry into brutality in the force they headed.

The report indicated that they had condoned the beating of prisoners by detectives armed with truncheons and a rhino tail whip. Two detectives were dismissed for the beatings earlier.

Issued as a Government white paper, the report is expected to have wide repercussions. It follows other reports of police brutality.

It is likely to prompt a critical look at crime prevention and detection methods in Britain and, according to one report, is expected to lead Parliament to increase the Home Secretary's control over the nation's diversified police forces.

Disciplinary control over local police forces now rests in watch committees made up of

elected public officials. The Sheffield Watch Committee suspended the police officials a few hours after the Home Secretary, Henry Brooke, asked it to report on "what action it proposed to take" on the report.

The report was issued by a tribunal of inquiry composed of Graham Swanwick a lawyer and Comdr. William Willis, a police inspector.

Their task was to hear appeals against the dismissal of two former Sheffield detectives, Derek Streets and Derek Millicheap, who were found guilty last May of having inflicted "grievous bodily harm on prisoners." The

men were also fined.

The tribunal agreed that the detectives had beaten the prisoners and added that they would not have done so "without either the prior authority or the presence and consent of their superior officers."

The investigators criticized the chief constable, Eric Staines, one of the men suspended today, for having lied in an "ivory tower, barely able to accept that men under his command could be guilty of truly infamous conduct."

The other man suspended was Detective Chief Superintendent George Carnill, head of Sheffield's criminal investigation department.

Members of the force were accused by the tribunal of giving prisoners regular beatings. The rhino whip, which was later burned when the detectives' actions became public knowledge, was described as 8 inches long and made of gutlike material the thickness of a finger, with a loop at one end.

CITY USING PSYCHOLOGY

(By Jack Roth)

The chief attorney for the criminal division of the legal aid society reported yesterday that it had been 3 years since he had complained to the district attorney about police brutality in New York County.

The lawyer, Anthony F. Marra, attributed this to the "administration of the police department, its higher morality and tone of leadership," and also to the fact that "the patrolmen and detectives of today are more intelligent and of a higher caliber than those of years ago."

"They use more psychology in questioning today and get as many admissions of guilt from criminals as through brutality," Mr. Marra said. "The days of the so-called third degree, where a man was beaten severely, appear to be gone-and it is a wonderful thing."

Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy said that the beating of a confession out of a prisoner was as "passe as the nickel subway ride."

"For the last decade candidates for a detective's post undergo an intensive 6-week course that stresses the interrogation of prisoners," he said. "Most detectives, and especially the detective commanders, have a built-in psychology based on instinct and experience in which a man's weak points are exploited. They can get prisoners to talk as a result of this.

"There have been tremendous improvements in the method of interrogation in the modern police department, and the police are certainly much better educated than they were years ago."

A lawyer interviewed yesterday, who resigned from the police force 14 years ago but who still retains friends on the force and has criminals for clients, agreed with Commissioner Murphy and Mr. Marra.

BRUTALITY RECALLED

"When I was on the job," he said, "brass knuckles covered with leather strips were used more than once as well as blackjacks in newspapers.

"As a matter of fact, I even knocked two women cold in my day and then told my commanding officer they had fainted. Both

women scratched me, and I never hesitated to hit a woman as well as a man if I was annoyed.

"I recall one prisoner we arrested holding up a bar. We didn't bother questioning him much. There were seven of us in the squad room, and we took turns cracking him. They don't do that today."

FEAR-FACTOR EMPLOYED

Other detectives interviewed explained that one carryover of the past was still used today, but to a much greater extent. It is called "good guy-bad guy."

Under this system a tough detective begins questioning an uncooperative prisoner. Should the prisoner continue to be uncooperative after a number of threats, he is either tied to a pipe with a light shining in his face or strapped to a chair.

The threats may include immediate electrocution (one detective put small light bulbs in a prisoner's ears) and the tossing of his body out a window.

As the tough, or bad guy, appears about to strike the prisoner, the good guy comes into the picture. He demonstrates with the bad guy and says he will take over the case.

He offers the prisoner a shot of whisky, cigarettes, food, and proceeds to curse out the bad guy. Quite often he wins the confidence of the prisoner and gets the whole store of the crime on a friendly basis.

VARIATION ON A THEME

The variation on this is that the good guy starts the questioning first while the bad guy sits quietly staring at the prisoner from the other side of the room. If the prisoner refuses to cooperate with the good guy, he points to the man on the other side of

the room and warns:

"If I turn you over to that guy, he'll kill you. He's just waiting to prove to me that the only way to get a man to talk is to half beat him to death."

By this time so much fear has been instilled in the prisoner that he is on many occasions extremely anxious to tell the police detective everything he knows.

In other cases, prisoners are tricked by being told that the victim he shot is still alive and he is lucky. The prisoner is delighted that he faces a felonious assault charge rather than a murder count, and he cooperates.

sitting handcuffed in a police cruiser was suspended yesterday pending outcome of a police investigation.

County Police Chief William L. Durrer identified the officer as Sgt. Julius G. Hollowell, 50, a veteran of 19 years in the patrol division.

Meanwhile, the youth, who was arrested by Hollowell Monday afternoon in Centreville on three traffic charges, was sentenced to 10

days in jail and was fined $210, of which all but $25 was suspended.

Durrer declined to comment on witnesses' allegations of police brutality but said:

"When we have grounds to suspect an officer has done something wrong, then we suspend him from duty until an investigation is completed. And we have grounds here from the statements of the witnesses."

Durrer said he thought his investigation would be concluded today. At least three other witnesses, including two policemen, remain to be questioned, he said.

The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of about a dozen policemen and citizens on a vacant lot behind a gas station on Route 29-211.

One witness, Thomas E. Hatcher of Centreville, told reporters Hollowell came up to the cruiser, opened the back door and started slapping the youth whose hands were manacled behind him. His account in general detail was supported by John M. Ramey, local justice of the peace, and another person.

Hatcher also quoted another officer as saying, "Sometimes this does more good than anything else."

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if we have not learned by now, we had better learn that unless we keep police departments from unbridled use of police authority, our freedoms will be endangered.

I wish to continue to provide our police department whatever assistance it needs to enforce the law within the

spirit and intent of the Constitution of the United States; but I do not intend to vote for procedures that will give to the police department authority that will permit it to practice third degree methods upon the underprivileged-or the privileged-of the District of Columbia.

Actually, when a felony suspect is brought into a precinct for questioning, it is his right under the law to stand mute, to tell the police nothing.

A deputy police commissioner who asked not to be identified had this to say yesterday:

"There is no requirement in law that we tell a prisoner what his rights are, and we don't.

"If we did, we would be throwing an impediment into law enforcement that might well become insurmountable. If we did this, no one would tell us anything."

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point an article which appeared in today's Washington Post entitled "Policeman Suspended To Face Probe of Slapping Handcuffed Youth in Car."

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

POLICEMAN SUSPENDED TO FACE PROBE OF SLAPPING HANDCUFFED YOUTH IN CAR (By Helen Dewar)

A Fairfax County Police sergeant accused of repeatedly slapping a 17-year-old youth

AUTOBAHN

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, American troop convoys in Germany have in the last month been delayed twice by the Russians while en route on the autobahn to West Germany. On October 12, our men were detained for 15 hours at one point, followed by a second holdup of 33 hours. Just yesterday, the second of our convoys was only permitted to move on after having been stopped for 41 hours.

These indignities, Mr. President, are a gross violation of the four-power agreement which allows us free access to Berlin, and the violations must not be permitted to continue. However, there is no doubt that they will continue and will become progressively worse unless we take positive steps now to end this Russian harassment. There can be no misunderstanding our adversaries. It is obvious that they are still trying to whittle away at the salami, a slice at a time. If we submit here, they will only time. ask for more.

Exactly what started the Russians off on this new course of action is not easily determined. Some say Mr. Khrushchev

wants a prestige-building prelude to the Red revolution anniversary celebration, and others say it is to cure psychological malaise in East Germany. Other reasons Khrushchev might have include testing our determination, attempting to force us into negotiations on Berlin, proving to the Chinese Communists that he is not soft on capitalism, or to take some of the wind out of our sails which was generated through Operation Big Lift. It should not be necessary for us to search our souls to find the answer, however. Whatever the reason for the moment might have been, the grand design of the Communist world conquest remains the same and we must never forget it. His statements to American businessmen in Moscow yesterday make this absolutely clear.

Rather than fret over why they did it, I think we should be more concerned at this point with maintaining our rights of access and, in the process, dispelling any notion on Russia's part that we will acquiesce to undignified and illegal procedures they may order on the autobahn.

The thought of a handful of smirking Russian officers requiring our men to dismount from their vehicles, line up and be counted like so many ducks is disgusting and appalling. This has not yet happened, but the delay alone is enough to incense even the most timorous of our friends.

It seems to me that our challenge is clear. There is no indication that there will be no more unnecessary delays on the autobahn and, in fact, Mr. Khrushchev has indicated that more Berlin holdups are likely. On the other hand, our rights of free access to Berlin are unmistakable and we have the might of our country and of other NATO countries to guarantee those rights.

To meet this challenge, I would suggest:

First. That the President inform Mr. Khrushchev by direct communication that we intend to maintain our rights to free access to Berlin and will not submit to further delays.

Second. That NATO military authorities, from now on, provide each allied convoy to and from Berlin with air and ground cover of sufficient magnitude to discourage any Russian attempt to interfere with our access rights.

I am as eager as anyone to reduce tensions and I join with people everywhere who cherish the dream of a peaceful world free of strife and friction. Likewise, I will heartily endorse any honest effort the Russians make in this direction.

But until those happy days arrive, we must be resigned to meet the challenge whenever our rights are threatened, not only in Berlin, but throughout the world.

DENNIS BINNING, OF UNIVERSITY

OF IOWA, EXPLAINS GREAT NEED FOR GI BILL

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, many newspapers and magazine articles have been written concerning the cold war GI bill. One of the best of these studies recently appeared in the Daily Iowan-October 23 through October 29,

1963-of the State University of Iowa in a series of five illuminating articles written by Dennis Binning, a staff writer for the Daily Iowan, and also managing editor of the Iowa Alumni Review.

Anyone who is interested in a concise and clear explanation of S. 5, the cold war GI bill, and the arguments of those in favor as well as those who are opposed to S. 5, should read these articles. They are an analysis on both sides of the question.

Mr. Binning has done a fine and detailed research job in preparing the series of articles. This is the finest writing on the GI bill that I have seen in any paper or magazine. Small wonder that Mr. Binning is the managing editor of the Iowa Alumni Review.

He has given a great deal of time and effort in research and ascertaining the facts.

I should like to read the conclusion of the fifth and final article in the series:

The provisions of Senate bill 5 are far more restrictive than previous GI bill provisions, yet they are ample enough to provide a valuable impetus to some 5 million cold war veterans to either continue their education or to purchase homes or farms.

Certainly the cold war veteran needs an assistance program as much as this Nation sorely needed him in the Armed Forces. Unemployment figures for the cold war veterans group is just about the highest in the Nation. As this Nation's global military commitments grow, the protracted and uncertain nature of the cold war makes it a certainty that "hot" conflagrations will also increase.

Is there not a reciprocal responsibility needed between Government and serviceman? Is it a one-way street for the servicemen only? This Nation never thought of it as a one-way street before.

Mr. President, I have never seen Mr. Binning. I do not know him. I take my hat off to him for doing one of the finest pieces of writing I have seen since coming to the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dennis Binning's articles on the cold war GI bill be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Iowa City (Iowa) Daily Iowan, Oct. 23, 1963]

MONEY, MUSKETS, EDUCATION
(By Dennis Binning)

"I hope we will not need new muskets, but we should, as a national defense, keep abreast of possible change, and those who have borne arms should, when they return to homelife, be encouraged to study, to prepare for life in the new world * *to which they have been returned."-Thomas Jeffer

son.

*

America's $48 billion defense budget is buying a great many new muskets--atomic submarines, ICBM missiles with multimegaton payloads, a mach 2 Air Force and an Army capable of deploying in pentomic or guerrilla patterns-but this country, since January 31, 1955, has not actively encouraged the soldier "to prepare for life in the New World” upon his return to civilian role.

By Presidential proclamation, January 31, 1955, was set as the termination date of the Korean bill. This bill provided wide GI-scale readjustment benefits to servicemen on active duty during the Korean emergency and was patterned after the rather revolutionary

World War II GI bill.

Since the termination date of the Korean GI bill, however, over 2.5 million men have

been discharged from active military duty who qualify for no readjustment benefits. These men are the cold war veterans; their ranks increase by about 600,000 men each year. According to Veterans' Administration estimates, we can expect about 5 million cold war veterans by 1973.

These men for all practical purposes are a forgotten generation. And it is unfortunate, but true, that their service to their country approaches the point of being a penalty instead of a proud privilege.

They have lost competitive standing with their peer groups because of their 2 to 4 years of active military service. The inequity here is that only 45 percent of the draft-eligible men (ages 18 to 26) currently see active duty. The remaining 55 percent are allowed to continue their education or receive uninterrupted experience on the job.

For the most part those who see active duty are unable to rise to the positions of leadership that their physical and mental abilities would otherwise allow them. A top heavy and archaic seniority rank system prevalent in our Armed Forces keeps most noncommissioned officers' ranks from first term enlistees or draftees.

Only 40 to 50 percent of the career fields (jobs) in the military give training applicable to a counterpart civilian job. Upon discharge the majority of veterans are ill equipped to compete in the civilian labor market. In an age when automation is causing the unemployment of hundreds of thousands, this is indeed a serious handicap. Labor Department statistics show that an expected weekly average of 49,000 peacetime (cold war) veterans will file unemployment claims. The Kennedy administration earlier this year requested $81.2 million for unemployment payments to cold war veterans for fiscal year 1963. In 1962 a total of $94.2 million was expended for this purpose.

Upon discharge, the cold war veteran still has a 2- to 4-year Reserve obligation and is subject to recall to active duty by order of the President. The crises in Berlin and Vietnam made it necessary to recall almost 250,000 reservists within the past 2 years.

Galling to a cold war veteran is that too often he is not considered a "veteran." Many States do not list them as veterans on their employment office lists and the American Legion organization does not consider them veterans for purposes of membership.

The plight of the cold war veteran is not a widely told story. It is a story widely shared, however, by the cold war veterans and their families.

The cold war veteran has an able champion in Congress, Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, Democrat, of Texas, has since the 86th Congress, been waging a persistent battle to provide readjustment assistance along the lines of the Korean GI bill to cold war veterans.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senator YARBOROUGH has become an authority on the problems of the cold war veteran group.

This year Senator YARBOROUGH introduced S. 5, a Senate bill which would provide education and loan readjustment assistance to veterans who will serve in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955 (termination of the Korean GI bill), and July 1, 1967 (termination date of the Universal Military Training and Service Act). S. 5 has the short title of "The Cold War GI Bill."

(In 1959, Senator YARBOROUGH introduced a similar bill which passed the Senate 57 to 31. The House, however, was unable to act on that bill before adjournment. Another cold war GI bill was successfully reported out of committee during the 87th Congress (1960) but was not called for floor action.) Senator YARBOROUGH introduced the cold war GI bill to the Senate early this year