Слике страница
PDF
ePub

SENATE

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1963

(Legislative day of Tuesday, October 22, 1963)

The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., D.D., offered the following prayer:

O God, infinite in mercy, love, and power: We come knowing that apart from Thee, all is vanity, that all other cisterns are empty and broken, and in Thee, alone, is the fountain of life.

At this noontide altar of the Nation's faith, we seek Thy guidance and a sense of Thy nearness. Deliver us, we pray, from the sophistries of the cynical and the inclination of our own wayward hearts to self-deceit.

Grant that our hearts may be shrines of prayer, our personalities centers of contagious good will, our homes nurseries of virtue, and our Nation an inspiring bulwark for the oppressed and a flaming beacon of hope whose beams shall battle the darkness in all the earth.

We ask it in the Redeemer's name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, November 14, 1963, was dispensed with.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed a bill (H.R. 8864) to carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED

The bill (H.R. 8864) to carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Finance.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
BUSINESS

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, it was ordered that

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated:

REPORT ON FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS PROGRAM

EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Federal Contributions Program Equipment and Facilities, for the quarter ended September 30, 1963 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Armed Services.

REPORT ON LIQUIDATION ACTIVITIES OF RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., reporting, pursuant to law, on the liquidations activities of the Reconstruction FiSeptember 30, 1963; to the Committee on nance Corporation, for the quarter ended

Banking and Currency.

REPORT ON PROVISION OF WAR RISK INSURANCE AND CERTAIN MARINE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR AMERICAN PUBLIC

A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the provision of war risk insurance and certain marine and liability insurance for the American public, as of September 30, 1963 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Commerce.

AMENDMENT OF SHIPPING ACT, 1916, TO PROVIDE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN TERMINAL LEASES FROM PENALTIES

A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C., transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the provisions of section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, to provide for the exemption of certain terminal leases from pen

there be a morning hour, with state- ARMY AND AIR FORCE NOMINA- alties (with accompanying papers); to the

ments limited to 3 minutes.

COMMITTEE MEETING DURING
SENATE SESSION

Upon request by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the Subcommit

TIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations in the Army and in the Air Force which had been placed on the Secretary's desk.

Committee on Commerce.

REPORT ON UNNECESSARY COSTS INCURRED BY
LEASING RATHER THAN PURCHASING ELEC-
TRONIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AT
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N. MEX.
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to

law, a report on the unnecessary costs incurred by leasing rather than purchasing electronic data processing equipment at White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex., Department of the Army, dated November 1963 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations. AMENDMENT OF 18 U.S.C. 1114, RELATING TO

ASSAULTS AND HOMICIDES

A letter from the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend 18 U.S.C. 1114, relating to assaults and homicides, and for other purposes (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY STUDY OF METAL AND NONMETAL MINES

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the health and safety study of metal and nonmetal mines (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

reference, a bill to provide for the preparation and printing of compilations of materials relating to annual national high school and college debate topics.

During the past several years there has been an ever-increasing participation by our country's students in the organized high school and college debate contests on subjects of national significance and interest. By agreement among educators the annual high school debate topic is selected by the National University Extension Association, and the annual college debate topic is selected by the American Speech Association.

Petitions, etc., were laid before the Service consistently has done an excelSenate, and referred as indicated:

By the PRESIDENT pro tempore: A resolution adopted by the Commissiondorsing the opening of a port of entry at

Fort Hancock, in the State of Texas, from

6 a.m. to 10 p.m.; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A petition signed by William L. Secrist, and sundry other citizens of the State of Illinois, praying for the enactment of legislation to provide an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting prayer and the reading of the Bible in educational institutions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. TALMADGE:

S. 2308. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Rose Esther Benant, nee Rosenberg; and

S. 2309. A bill for the relief of Mr. Miklos Janos Toth; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MUNDT:

S. 2310. A bill to prohibit any guaranty by

the Export-Import Bank or any other agency of the Government of payment of obligations of Communist countries; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

(See the remarks of Mr. MUNDT when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina: S. 2311. A bill to provide for the preparation and printing of compilations of materials relating to annual national high school and college debate topics; to the Committee

on Rules and Administration.

(See the remarks of Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.) By Mr. McCARTHY:

S. 2312. A bill to clarify the meaning of "section 38 property" in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; to the Committee on

Finance.

[blocks in formation]

This renewed interest in the art of debate has had its impact upon Members of Congress, who have been receiving in increasing numbers requests from their young constituents for pertinent and useful information relating to the debate topics. We in turn have depended upon the Library of Congress to furnish the desired materials to fulfill the requests. The Library's Legislative Reference lent job of compiling the pros and cons of the various controversial issues. During the past several Congresses, however, due to the limited reproduction facilities of the Library, it has found it increasingly difficult to provide the materials in sufficient quantities to satisfy the demands of Congress. During this period committees and individual Members have initiated resolutions resulting in tions as Senate or House documents. the printing of certain of the compila

While these efforts, of course, have been helpful, there has been no consistent or regular approach to the problem. Sometimes Members of one House have been overlooked, sometimes the number of printed copies has been insufficient, and sometimes the compilations have been made available too late for their most effective use. Also, there is no assurance that the necessary printing resolutions will be forthcoming, since committees generally show a natural reluctance to sponsoring publications of pros and cons on subjects upon which sooner or later they may have to express definite and specific views.

Mr. President, the bill which I am introducing today, with the strong endorsement of the Librarian of Congress, would establish the following standard procedure in respect to the compilation and printing of the materials relating to the annual national high school and college debate topics:

First. The Library of Congress would continue the function of compiling the pros and cons, a service it has rendered to Congress for almost two decades;

Second. Each year the compilation on the high school debate topic would be printed as a Senate document and the compilation on the college debate topic would be printed as a House document;

and

Third. The Joint Committee on Print

48, which authorized the printing of 51,330 copies of the high school debate document at an estimated cost of $7,462.34, and House Concurrent Resolution 212, which authorized the printing of 16,125 copies of the college debate document at an estimated cost of $2,748. As is the customary practice, the copies were pro-rated equally to Members, and as is often the customary effect of this arrangement, some Members quickly exhausted their supplies while others were left with excess copies of documents of short-lived value. This bill would permit a reduction in the number of printed copies-and a corresponding reduction in cost-by authorizing the Joint Committee on Printing to obtain copies and supply them to Members solely on the basis of indicated need.

Mr. President, since it has now become an established practice for high school and college students to write to their Representatives in Congress for debate materials, and since the Members themselves are not about to deny these requests from their youthful constituents, it seems to me we should substitute a standard procedure for the random methods we have employed for the purpose over the past several years. This bill would establish such a standard procedure, and I commend it to the sympathetic consideration of my colleagues.

The

bill will be received and appropriately reThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. ferred.

The bill (S. 2311) to provide for the preparation and printing of compilations of materials relating to annual national high school and college debate topics, introduced by Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE ACCELERATED PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Public Works, I wish to announce the formation of an ad hoc subcommittee to consider pending legislation to extend the accelerated public works program.

The subcommittee will be under the able chairmanship of Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH, of West Virginia. Other members of the subcommittee appointed are Senator YOUNG of Ohio; Senator MUSKIE, of Maine; Senator GRUENING, of Alaska; Senator Moss, of Utah; Senator COOPER, of Kentucky; and Senator FONG, of Hawaii.

[blocks in formation]

ANCE ACT OF 1961

ing would be authorized and directed to AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ing would be authorized and directed to
print additional copies of the documents
in such quantities and distribute them
in such manner as would most economi-
cally and equitably fulfill the needs of

Members of Congress.

During the present session Congress agreed to Senate Concurrent Resolution

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the un

finished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as understand the figures as expressed in amended, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] for his amendment No. 305 to the committee amendment, as amended.

The pending amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In Mr. MUNDT'S amendment (No. 305) to the committee amendment, as amended, on page 54, after line 4, it is proposed to strike out, in line 8, after the words "purchase of," the words "grain or", and in the same line to strike out, after the word "product," the word "thereof."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota to his amendment No. 305, on page 54 of the committee amendment, as amended.

DO WE REALLY NEED ALL THIS

URANIUM?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, on Friday, November 8, I placed in the RECORD a colloquy between the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and myself which occurred at a meeting on August 14, 1963, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Since that time we have been forwarded a copy of the fiscal year 1963 financial report of the Atomic Energy Commission.

This report is quite interesting. It would appear to show that even though construction costs dropped from $1,215 million in 1954, to $411 million in 1963, the number of operating contractor employees has increased from 73,000 to 115,000; and administrative expenses have nearly doubled, from $34,671,000 in 1954, to $67,068,000 in 1963.

During these 10 years-1954 through 1963-the total cost of Atomic Energy Commission operations was $21.3 billion. More interesting, however, is the fact that procurement of raw materials has more than tripled since 1954. The cost of said raw materials has increased from $142,793,000 in 1954 to $477,873,000 in 1963.

It is my understanding that the Department of Defense gives its requirements to the Atomic Energy Commission; but, surely, with all the discussions incident to overkill, and so forth, and with the many billions-$4.68 billion-previously spent on raw materials in the past 10 years, along with the many additional billions-$6.76 billion-spent in the 10 years previous for the production of nuclear materials, and the many billions-$4.48 billion-on top of that spent for weapons development and fabrication of nuclear weapons, along with the many billions $3.08 billion-additional on top of all those previous billions that have been spent for development of nuclear reactors, there should be some place, at some time, where we could reduce this gigantic and most expensive program without affecting the security of the United States.

Although I have had some experience with balance sheets, it is difficult to

this report of the Atomic Energy Commission. Even though these billions and many billions more for construction and equipment have been spent since 1953, the assets of the Atomic Energy Commission apparently have increased very little.

I am sure there are adequate and proper explanations for most, if not all, of these questions; and I would hope there could be some public hearings, so as to present as much of this information as possible before the American people, especially with respect to these continuing purchases of raw materials, running into billions and billions of dollars.

There would appear no more reason for classifying much of this information than there was for classification of the information on various other stockpiles.

CRITICISM OF SENATE OPPONENTS OF FOREIGN AID PROGRAM OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in this morning's Washington Post, an alleged newspaperman by the name of Joseph Alsop has published a scathing criticism of the Senate opponents of the wasteful, inefficient, and corruptionproducing foreign aid program of the administration and the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the Alsop who is the wellknown lackey of the Pentagon Building and the State Department. His warmongering columns for a long time past have demonstrated his disregard for, and presumably his ignorance of, the checks and balances system provided by our constitutional fathers and indelibly written into the Constitution itself.

His writings give the impression that he would be happier if the President of the United States were given dictatorial powers similar to those of many of the Fascist leaders of the world whose regimes Alsop seems to admire so much.

He gives the impression that he would like to be an intellectual snob, but lacks the intellect to be snobbish about.

I am very proud of my enemies, particularly the members of the yellow press; and I am highly complimented to have this gutter journalist confess his enmity to me in his irrational, White House bootlicking column of this morning.

I ask unanimous consent that his column entitled, entitled, "The New KnowNothings," be printed in the RECORD, inasmuch as it is such devastating proof of his own know-nothingism.

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

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 1963] THE NEW KNOW-NOTHINGS

(By Joseph Alsop)

In the tedious but crucial struggle over the foreign aid bill, the old tradition of naing President Kennedy's bacon. tional-minded bipartisanship has been sav

In the preliminary wrestling with the bill in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the senior members of the majority and the minority, Senators WILLIAM FUL

BRIGHT, of Arkansas, and BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, of Iowa, acted together as partners.

Senator HICKENLOOPER is not widely known for his reluctance to take a good, hard, parti

san whack at the Democrats whenever he sees a chance to do so. He thought that the foreign aid authorization that Senator FULBRIGHT wanted the committee to approve $4.2 billion-was a bit on the high side. But when FULBRIGHT argued that "we've got to give them something to cut," HICKENLOOPER loyally went along.

Again, when the leadership belatedly discovered the power of the new surge of know-nothingsm in the Senate, a hasty strategy meeting to discuss the best blocking tactics was strictly bipartisan, and was even held in the Republican cloakroom. The majority and minority leaders, Senators MIKE MANSFIELD, of Montana, and EVERETT DIRKSEN, of Illinois, joined with FULBRIGHT and HICKENLOOPER in the decision to make a voluntary preliminary cut of $385 million in the committee total, in order to forestall worse cuts by the new know-nothings.

Since then, through the long, squalid, and still unfinished struggle on the Senate floor, DIRKSEN, HICKENLOOPER, and a good many other Republicans have continued to stand four-square for national-mindedness and bipartisanship.

Meanwhile, the President's bill has been

under bitter, persistent partisan attack by Democratic Senators, with a group of liberal Democrats, headed by the ineffable Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, leading the attackers. Even that famous Republican conservative, Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona, had been kinder to the foreign aid program than the new Democratic knownothings, for he has at least been absent

for almost every key vote.

The most dramatic vote, though not the closest, was on MORSE's motion to gut the bill for good and all, by recommitting it to the Foreign Relations Committee. Twentyeight other Senators voted with the Oregon paragon, and 20 of them were Democrats.

Another Morse amendment, to cut the Development Loan Fund by $25 million, carried by a vote of 42 to 40, and 24 of the MORSE adherents were Democrats. Embittered southerners, like RICHARD RUSSELL, of Georgia, and HARRY F. BYRD, of Virginia, have of course followed MORSE, gladly yielding him the leadership on this occasion.

MORSE's deputy commander in the attack has been the old New Dealer from Alaska, Senator ERNEST GRUENING. So-called liberals who have joined MORSE are FRANK CHURCH, of Idaho, ALBERT GORE of Tennessee, the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Kennedy cabinet, ABE RIBICOFF, of Connecticut, STUART SYMINGTON, of Missouri, and STEPHEN YOUNG, of Ohio, plus HENRY JACKSON, of Washington and WILLIAM PROXMIRE, of Wisconsin, on the fund cut.

Besides trying to gut the foreign aid bill in every other way, the new know-nothings have put forward an astonishing number of backseat driving amendments. "Some people," Senator HICKENLOOPER has said grimly, "want to turn the U.S. Senate into another committee on the conduct of the war, which helped the South more than Robert E. Lee."

The result, beyond much doubt, would be a half-crippled foreign aid program. The Alliance for Progress, for instance, will be lucky to get $525 million-apparently because Senator MORSE and his friends are reluctant to allow the United States to spend as much on the prevention of communism in Latin America as the Communist bloc is now spending for the sole purpose of propping up Fidel Castro in Cuba.

If the effort in Vietnam is not weakened, all other military aid programs will have to be cut drastically. Thus old and tried allies which cannot otherwise afford their present

levels of defense, like Turkey, Greece, Nationalist China, and South Korea will be hit where it hurts most-apparently because Senators SYMINGTON and RIBICOFF think it is a bad bargain to add this strength to our side at one-tenth the cost of an equal number of American troops.

Finally, development loans, which offer the best hope of future progress and are also to be repaid in the end, will be cut to the point of grave damage to American foreign policy. In short, the national interest is under heavy attack. It would be more comprehensible if the attack had a partisan motive; but peevishness, alas, is the only motive now identifiable.

INVESTIGATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, downtown there is a District of Columbia Policemen's Association. The president of the association is Pvt. George W. Whaler. Private Whaler, acting in behalf of the policemen's association, has issued a news release which is highly

critical of the senior Senator from Ore

gon because he does not belong to their mutual admiration society in relation to the Chief of Police of Washington, D.C., Mr. Robert Murray.

I made a speech on the floor of the Senate on November 7 in which I commented upon the testimony of the chief of police before the Senate District of Columbia Committee on the so-called omnibus crime bill that is pending before the committee. In my judgment, the bill contains several sections which would contravene basic constitutional guarantees of freedom of the people that live in this city under the Washington, D.C., Police Department.

I ask unanimous consent that the news release of the Washington, D.C., Police Association be printed at this point in my remarks.

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

WE DISAGREE WITH SENATOR MORSE We are not always in agreement with Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, but we have admired him and considered him a good friend and stanch supporter of our police force and of all law enforcement officers. It is not pleasant when a person you have admired and relied upon lets you down. We of course knew that the Senator approved the Mallory rule, disapproved of arrests for investigation, and opposed any change in the criminal laws which would give the police here more leeway in the fight against crime.

to the morale to have a friend say that you must be watched, but we rationalized the Senator's statements by conceding that he could hardly exempt our force if he was saying that all citizens should be aware of the manner in which their police departments are being operated. For our part we would rather have constant vigilance than continuous apathy. In this talk we had not been accused of wrongdoing or misconduct, so, although some concern was expressed at our monthly meeting on October 15, it was generally believed that we could still count upon Senator MORSE as a friend and supporter.

On

It seems that we were overoptimistic. Thursday, November 7, in a speech from the Senate floor, Senator MORSE demonstrated that he had really turned against us. This was no general criticism of all law enforcement but a tirade directed against us, our

Chief, and the manner in which he had and wished again to operate our Department. After admitting that he had not attended even one hearing of the Senate District Committee on the House-passed crime bill, H.R. 7525, the Senator accused Chief Murray of seeking "police state" powers. He said that the Chief was trying to effect a change in the restrictive Mallory rule, "through a great deal of misrepresentation." We are not expert wordsmiths like the Senator but to us this seems tantamount to charging Chief Murray with making false statements in trying to gain excessive and sinister power.

It can hardly be disputed that all Chief Murray is trying to accomplish in supporting this crime bill is to regain and restore some of the effectiveness our Department had in

fighting crime before the restrictive Mallory rule and before we lost the right to make investigative arrests. Is Senator MORSE therefore saying that prior to the Mallory decision, and prior to the banning of arrests for investigation, we were operating with "police state" methods? This is a trite and a Senator who claims to be an authority on law and law enforcement it is an insult to our Chief and to every man on the force. Is the Senator saying that we are somewhat akin to a gestapo now prevented from terrorizing and abusing the people of the community by certain rules? He leaves little doubt that this is exactly what is implied when he says, "I believe that the Mallory rule is vital to the protection of the people of the District of Columbia-particularly to the colored people of the District." Specifivestigation that Senator says, "Colored percally referring to the power to arrest for inson 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."

tired cliche at best. When it is uttered by

No other interpretation can be placed upon when we did have such power we were this statement by the Senator except that guilty of abuse, brutality, and third-degree

methods. Indeed, he emphasized this with a few more low blows in his Senate speech when he included in the RECORD a London

With his liberal philosophy it was to be expected that he feel the way he does. Although we believe that he and all others, who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than the rights of law abiding newspaper article about alleged police bru

citizens to be safe and secure, are making a terrible mistake, we knew that he was sincere and we did not think we had lost him as a friend.

We were disturbed, however, when on October 14, speaking before the Corrections Conference of the Health and Welfare Council, Senator MORSE said, "I warn the citizens of this community that the Police Department here and in other cities must always be subjected to constant vigilance. * Unchecked practices exercised by a police department results in a loss of personal, individual freedom." It is not exactly uplifting

* *

tality in Sheffield, England, along with another article about the third-degree methods of the New York City police many years ago. The Senator is really hard pressed to make make his point when he has to cross the sea to England and go back a quarter century in New York City for material.

In April 1960, Senator MORSE was a guestan honored guest-at the regular monthly meeting of our association. The Mallory rule was then in effect, in fact, after 3 years of freedom Mallory had just been arrested for rape in Philadelphia. In 1960 we still had the right to hold suspects for investigation and to question them before we made

hasty decisions as to their guilt or innocence. This is the power that Senator MORSE says would make "colored persons *** tremble about what would happen to them" if it were renewed. If Senator MORSE was worried about our "police state" methods and the "unbridled use of police authority" it certainly was not evident on the evening of April 19, 1960. He lauded the individual members, he praised the force as a whole, and in particular he complimented Chief Murray.

What kind of man is this? Does he think that we men of the force and our Chief have changed so much in 3 short years? Does he really believe that if a portion of the authority we had when he praised us so lavishly were restored that we would turn into some sort of a gestapo? The Senator goes too far. He has a perfect right to support the Mallory rule and to resist any attempt to modify it but not with methods and words that are an insult to a fine Chief and to a force he called a short 3 years ago "one of the finest in the world.”

The current opinions of the Senator might be more readily understood if we had some assurance that he is as much concerned

about the citizens of his own State of Oregon as he is about the "people of the District of Columbia-particularly the colored people." Do the State courts of Oregon or the municipal courts of that State invoke the Mallory rule, the McNabb decision or the Durham rule? Is it not true that the police in both the large and small cities of that State use the same power of investigative detention-by whatever name it is calledthat the Senator is so concerned about here

in the District? If so, does the Senator ex

pect to do something about that situation or is he only concerned with the problem here?

GEORGE W. WHALER, President, Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORSE. I wish to speak a moment as chairman of the Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety Subcommittee of the Senate District of Columbia Committee that has jurisdiction over the Metropolitan Police Department. The news release states that in April 1960, I spoke to the Policemen's Association, and that I was high in my praise of the chief of police and the police department. That was 3 years ago. It mer high District of Columbia official occurred at about the time that a forcalled upon me in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction, so far as the Senate District of Columbia Committee is concerned, over the Police Department. He said that some serious attacks, sub rosa, were being made on the chief of police, and he was satisfied that there was a move on foot to try to have the chief of police removed. I knew nothing about them. He said, "Well, will you talk with him.” I said I would be delighted to talk with

him.

The chief of police came up and spent an hour with me. He went over the criticisms which he alleged were being circulated in this community which I had not heard about. He told me what his position was on those criticisms. He assured me that there was no basis in fact for any of them. He made a very favorable impression on me. That was 3 years ago.

I told him if the facts were as he pointed out, he could be sure that as far

as I was concerned-speaking only for myself I would have no truck with that kind of "smear" campaign. I have been too accustomed to being the victim of such campaigns myself.

I have studied the operations of the Metropolitan Police Department during the past 3 years. I have criticized the Department on various occasions. Come the first of the year-I cannot see how we can possibly proceed with it until after the first of the year-I intend to deal with the problems of the Metropolitan Police Department in depth-in great depth-and between now and then I shall submit to Commissioner Tobriner, who I understand is the commissioner who has charge of the police department, a series of questions from time to time for him to answer preparatory to my proposal to investigate the police department in depth, including the chief of police.

I am not so sure that a preliminary investigation on the basis of what I already know about the police department does not call for the appointment of a special crime commission to proceed with an investigation similar to crime commissions that have been appointed from time to time in other parts of the country to investigate police departments.

I

Mr. President, except for one additional comment, that is all I shall say on the subject today. I should like to have Mr. Tobriner advise me as to how much time, if any, Mr. Whaler has been spending on duty hours lobbying for the District of Columbia Policemen's Association and the Police Department. should like to have Mr. Tobriner also find out a few more facts about Mr. Whaler's conduct. I shall submit to him within a few days, by way of a formal request in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia that has jurisdiction over the police department, a list of the facts that I desire.

I wish Mr. Tobriner, Mr. Murray, the Police Department, and the executive board of the District of Columbia Policemen's Association to know that I intend to see to it that the people of the District of Columbia are served by a police department that is free from a good many of the abuses that I shall not now proceed to disclose for public information. What is needed is a thorough investigation of the Police Department of the District of Columbia. I shall urge such an investigation, and do everything I can in my capacity as chairman of the Public Health, Education, Welfare and Safety Subcommittee to bring it about.

I ask unanimous consent that the articles on the subject published in last evening's Washington Star and this morning's Washington Post be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

[From the Washington Evening Star, Nov. 14, 1963]

POLICE GROUP CALLS MORSE TALK AN INSULT

The Policemen's Association today accused Senator MORSE, Democrat of Oregon, of "an

insult to our Chief and to every man on the
force."

In a two-page press release, the associa-
tion criticized the Senator for a Senate
speech he had made on "police state powers."
He accused Chief Murray of seeking police
state powers. The association said he also
accused the Chief of "a great deal of mis-
representation" in championing the repeal of
the Mallory rule, which police feel restricts
their powers of interrogation.

The association represents some 2,700 members of the 2,900-man Metropolitan Police Department. The statement was signed by the association president, Pvt. George W. Whaler, of the 14th precinct.

Noting that in April 1960, Senator MORSE was a guest at an association meeting and praised both Chief Murray and the force

as a whole, the association release asked:

"What kind of man is this? Does he think that we men of the force and our Chief have changed so much in 3 short years? Does he really believe that if a portion of the authority we had when he praised us so lavishly were restored, that we would turn into some sort of a gestapo?"

The statement concluded by noting that police departments in the Senator's home tion denied to District police, and wonderState have the power of investigative detening if the Senator planned to do something about conditions in Oregon. The Senator has answered similar criticism in the past by pointing out that he is a Federal, not a State, legislator.

An aid to Senator MORSE said he would try to get a copy of the association's statement for the Senator, who might have some comment after he had read it.

viewed as duplicating laws already existing and tending toward a broad system of censorship.

LEADERSHIP AWARD TO SENATOR
LISTER HILL OF ALABAMA BY THE
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, JR., FOUN-
DATION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, an article in this morning's Washington Post notes that one of our colleagues, Senator LISTER HILL, of Alabama, has been selected by the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation for a leadership award in pioneering the fight against mental

retardation. The article mentions that President Kennedy will present the award to the winners at a dinner in New York City on December 4. Senator HILL was chosen, the article goes on to state, by the foundation in recognition of his leadership and advocacy of legislation to benefit the mentally retarded. It was his sponsorship and hard work that in lishment of the National Institute of great measure led finally to the estabNeurological Diseases and Blindness.

I would like to offer congratulations for myself and on behalf of the entire Senate to our friend and colleague for this fine acknowledgment of his work. It represents one more recognition of his outstanding qualities as a legislator and humanitarian.

I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I have referred be printed

[From the Washington Post Nov. 15, 1963] at this point in the RECORD.

POLICE ASSOCIATION CRITICIZES MORSE TALK
SCORING FORCE

The Policemen's Association of Washington
sharply criticized Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Democrat, of Oregon, yesterday for a con-
gressional speech he made November 7 scor-
ing the force and its chief.

MORSE'S Speech touched on Chief Robert
Murray's support of the omnibus crime bill,
a measure that already has passed the House.

bill, an argument that MORSE used, is that
One of the main arguments against the
it would weaken the Mallory rule. The rule
comes from a Supreme Court decision and
forbids use in Federal prosecutions of con-
fessions obtained during an unnecessary de-
lay before arraignment of a suspect.

In a two-page statement, the association
said:

even one hearing of the Senate District Com-
"After admitting that he had not attended
mittee on the bill, the Senator accused
Chief Murray of seeking police state powers.
He said that the chief was trying to effect
a change in the restrictive Mallory rule
through a great deal of misrepresentation
and this seems tantamount to charging Chief
Murray with making false statements in try-
ing to gain excessive and sinister power."

far and had no right to insult a chief and
The association said MORSE had gone too
a force he called a short 3 years ago one of
the finest in the world.

In other statements yesterday dealing with
the crime bill, the National Capital Area
Civil Liberties Union defended the Mallory
rule and the National Association of Broad-
obscenity sections of the measure.
casters expressed fear about certain anti-

The Civil Liberties Union called the bill a
"barefaced repudiation of the Federal rules
of criminal procedure."

The Broadcasters expressed complete sympathy for the objectives of the bill's antiobscenity sections, but the proposals were

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

SIX ARE PRESENTED KENNEDY AWARD FOR WORK
ON MENTAL RETARDATION

Six men who, in different ways, have pioneered in helping the mentally retarded yesterday won $225,000 in awards from the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation.

President John F. Kennedy will present the awards to the winners-two of them Members of Congress and two foreigners-at a dinner in New York City on December 4 in behalf of the foundation named for his older brother, who died in World War II.

Sargent Shriver, the foundation's executive director, said the amounts of individual awards would be announced on that date.

Winners of leadership awards were Senator Lister Hill, Democrat, of Alabama; Representative John E. Fogarty, Democrat, of Rhode Island; and Gov. Bert T. Combs, of Kentucky.

Cited for scientific research was Dr. Lional

S. Penrose, professor of eugenics at University College, London.

An American and a Frenchman shared the service award. They are Dr. Grover Francis Powers, professor emeritus of pediatrics at Yale University and Dr. Robert P. L. Lafon, professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of Montpelier.

Senator HILL, 68, was named for his leadership and advocacy of legislation to benefit the mentally retarded. He was a sponsor of the legislation that led finally to the establishment of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness.

Representative FOGARTY, 40, the youngest winner, was hailed as an ardent spokesman for programs to aid mental retardation and for his leadership in the House.

Combs was cited for his key role in organizing programs in his State. He convinced

« ПретходнаНастави »