« ПретходнаНастави »
tions other than the District of Columbia. The reason is twofold: First, only in the District of Columbia do the Federal courts have broad jurisdiction over crimes of violence which characteristically lack eyewitnesses and independent evidence.
“It is quite common in cases of homicide, yoke, robberies, rape, and certain other crimes that there is no third eyewitness, and it is often dimcult for the complaining witness to make an identification. Of course, in homicides there is no complaining witness. Thus, in such cases, confessions assume far greater significance as evidence of guilt, and it becomes important to defendants to have their confessions excluded in the courts of the District of Columbia. Second, by contrast, most Federal criminal cases in other jurisdictions involve frauds, mail thefts, narcotic violations, and the like, where there is substantial evidence apart from a confession; i.e., contraband property, financial records, tax returns, et cetera.
"Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the problems in the District of Columbia as being rather unique with respect to the Mallory rule and deserving of congressional consideration in legislation limited to its application to the District of Columbia.
"In my opinion, the Mallory rule is a good one. Through it, the Supreme Court made clear its intention to prevent law enforcement officers from delaying preliminary hearings for the purpose of eliciting confessions. This is as it should be.
“The problem which gives rise to the legislative proposal before the committee lies not with the Mallory rule but with its application in the District of Columbia.
“In a. number of cases in the District of Columbia ‘unnecessary delay’ has been interpreted and applied to make it virtually impossible, I am informed, for investigating otllcers to speak with arrested persons with any assurance that resultant confessions will be acceptable in the courtroom.”
Action recommended by committee
Title I of HR. 5688, as amended, recognizes the validity of the argument that the Mallory case does have special impact in the District of Columbia by denying to law enforcement oflicers the essential investigative tool of in-custody interrogation, but it further recognizes that any legislation which has as its purpose the preservation of this valuable police tool must provide safeguards and standards which will prevent abuse of the accused.
It protects the rights of the accused by providing that a statement resulting from an in-custody questioning of the accused may be admitted into evidence if—
(1) Immediately prior to any such questioning the defendant was plainly advised by the officers having custody of him, in addition to any previous warning, that he is not required to make any statement at any time and that any statement made by him may be used against him; and
( 2) Prior to such questioning, the arrested person was advised by the ofllcers having custody of him that, upon request, he would be afforded reasonable opportunity to notify a relative or friend and consult with counsel of his choosing, and if such request were made, he was, in fact, afforded such opportunity; and
(3) The aggregate period of questioning, exclusive of interruptions, does not exceed 3 hours between the arrest and the completion of the confession, admission, or statement; and
(4) Such questioning and the warning and advice required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section were whenever reasonably possible, witnessed by a responsible person who was not a law enforcement officer, or transcribed verbatim, or recorded by a wire, tape, or other sound recording, or
conducted subject to other means of verification.
In addition to protecting the rights of the accused, the amendments to title I of H.R. 5688, made by the committee aid the police by making clear exactly what they must do when interrogating a defendant and the maximum aggregate period of time they have within which to conduct such interrogation.
Section 103(3) of title I of the committee's bill places a 3-hour aggregate time period as the limit for questioning an arrested person during an investigation following arrest and before appearance of the accused before a magistrate. The committee's purpose in placing a 3-hour limit on questioning, in title I, is designed to give law enforcement officers and judges a workable rule of thumb by which oppressive practices can be avoided, both as a matter of policy and within proper constitutional limits. The committee does not envision the questioning of an accused, in the practical sense, would be consecutive and continuous. Instead, it would be intermittent as necessitated by the requirements of an investigation being carried out by police officers. Accordingly, a 3-hour time period for questioning has been provided in section 103(3) instead of an inflexible and fixed maximum time period between arrest and appearance before a magistrate.
This subsection purposely does not set forth a specific amount of time for police investigation but leaves that period flexible within the "unnecessary delay" limitation contained in the bill. The committee recognizes that “unnecessary delay," in some cases, has been interpreted by the courts as a period of time so short that, in this committee's judgment, a fair and reasonable investigation by the police and any questioning of an accused are altogether impossible.
It is the intention of this committee to clarify by title I of this bill the meaning of the statutory term, "unnecessary delay,” as contained in rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the subject for widely varying court interpretations that too often preclude reasonable and fair investigations by the police in the public interest. Likewise, safeguards have been set out specifically to rule out improper, oppressive, or abusive police practices against an accused.
Particular explanation must be given section 103(3), title I, providing an aggregate 3-hour period (without including interruptions) between arrest and the completion of a confession, statement, or admission. It cannot be supported that this provision is a back-door method of reinstituting investigative arrest in the District of Columbia. (See explanation under title II, "Investigative Arrest,” of this report.)
Arrests under title I to stand up must be made on probable cause, while investigative or detention arrests are made only with reason to suspect. Thus, detention or investigative arrests, in the judgment of this committee, are clearly unconstitutional; however, arrests on probable cause do meet the constitutional test. The committee recommendations do no violence to this precept.
As has been previously pointed out in this report, the Mallory decision’s interpretation of rule 5(a) has presented special problems to law enforcement in the District of Columbia which are not common to other Federal jurisdictions. Indeed, the Mallory case itself was a District of Columbia criminal prosecution for rape. This committee has therefore attempted to meet this special 10cal situation. In any criminal procedural statute the challenge is to strike a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and protecting the law-abiding citizen from criminal molestation. In the judgment of the committee, title I, as amended, meets that test.
Title I as contained in the instant bill is similar to title I of HR. 7525 which bill this committee reported to the Senate during the 2d session of the 88th Congress. The language of such title as contained in HE. 7525 was proposed to this committee in the 88th Congress by the Department of Justice and the Oflice of the US. Attorney for the District of Columbia as an appropriate legislative measure to effectively modify the Mallory rule in the District of Columbia.
The differences between title I of HR. 7525, as amended, and title I of HR. 5688, as reported by this committee are essentially two and relate (1) to the period of time that police officers can hold a defendant for questioning following arrest; and (2) the insertion in the instant bill of an aifirmative duty on the defendant to ask for the opportunity of consulting with counsel and also of notifying a friend or relative once he has been advised of these rights by police oflicers.
Justice Department’s views
On April 27, 1965, the Honorable Ramsey Clark, Deputy Attorney General of the United States, appeared before this committee and presented the Department of Justice views on title I of both the House and Senate crime bills (HR. 5688, and S. 1526) the latter identical with HR. 7525, as reported to the Senate 1 year ago by this committee.
At the committee hearing the Deputy Attorney General sought additional time for the Justice Department to pursue current work on the Mallory problem as it is affects law enforcement in the District of Columbia before making specific recommendations to the committee.
The Deputy Attorney General in his testimony before the committee stated in pertinent part: 2
“I am convinced that our system of government can devise procedures which will at once permit reasonable police interrogation of suspects while fully protecting their constitutional rights. Moreover, if this committee develops rules which meet the practicalities of modern-day, big city law enforcement, and which are clear and understandable, the police can fairly be expected to assume responsibility for their observance. Where they fail the courts will review.
"For our part, we believe that our own work in this area during the past few months has already provided important additional insights. In addition to our factual inquiry, this has included an analysis of developments in the law since the earlier hearings of this committee, and we would also want to be sure that any proposals that we make reflect what information can be obtained from the recently published results of the American Bar Foundation study and the current work of the American Law Institute whose advisory committee will meet early in June. However, I should make it clear that we are not urging this committee to wait for the final results of the Amerimn Law Institute. Thus, we would like some additional time to press our current work in this area further before making specific recommendations, We believe this will enable us to make a more constructive contribution. In the interim, we will continue to work in close collaboration then with the committee staff."
After the Deputy Attorney General appeared before the committee and presented the Department of J ustlce's recommendation, the committee proceeded to hold in abeyance any immediate further action on title I of the crime bills until the American Law Institute Advisory Committee could meet at Atlantic City in early June of 1965 to discuss rule 5(a) and other related provisions of criininai
1’ P. 34, committee hearings, HR. 5688 (89th Cong.) ,
procedure. It was the committee’s belief that something beneficial to the committee consideration of the matter might be de— veloped at this session.
Staff members of the committee attended the American Law Institute advisory sessions in Atlantic City as observers of the proceedings.
However, following the conclusion of the advisory sessions in Atlantic City, it became readily apparent to the committee that the American Law Institute was in the preliminary stages of devising remedial legislation for rule 5(a), and that nothing definitely affirmative could be expected to evolve from the American Law Institute with regard to the proposed modification of rule 5(a) until June of 1966, the date set for the annual session of the institute in Washington, DC, at which time the full matter is expected to come before its full membership for a conclusion.
On July 15, 1965, and following the conclusion of the advisory sessions in Atlantic City, the committee proceeded to obtain further testimony on title I of the crime bills from the Deputy Attorney General as well as from the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
In his testimony at this proceeding, the Deputy Attorney General proposed as the recommendation of the Justice Department that changes in rule 5(a) be implemented through administrative . procedures rather than through a statute enacted by the Con
gress. In his statement before the committee, the Deputy Attorney General stated: 3
“As for the problems raised by the Mallory rule in the District, our further study since your hearing of April 27 has led us to a plan which affords an immediate opportunity for a fairer and more eflfective police investigation and adequate protection of the rights of the suspects, while permitting the police to develop facts and avoid a premature test of the constitutionality of proposed procedures. The plan has been implemented by a letter of July 14. 1965, from U.S. Attorney Acheson to Chief Layton. Copies of this letter have been provided the committee.
"Under this plan, after an arrest based upon probable cause and prior to the filing of a charge, a suspect may be questioned concerning his knowledge of a crime. As a prerequisite to questioning he must be clearly advised that he need not answer any question; that any statement given may be used against him; that he may consult counsel, a relative, or a friend; and that if he is charged and cannot afford a lawyer the court will appoint one for him. Police oilicers are instructed to keep records of the time, duration, and circumstances of all questioning. Questioning will be sound recorded or otherwise preserved where possible, and steps will be taken to improve technology in this area. Any questioning will be of limited duration and should not exceed 3 hours in total. It will not, of course, be coercive or oppressive in manner, and will be avoided where it does not advance the investigation of crime.
“The arraignment of suspects who are charged after arrest will not be delayed except in unusual circumstances. Committing magistrates have arraigned at 10 a.m. on weekdays in the District for decades. This is typical of most jurisdictions. Any questioning of a suspect will be done, and the decision whether and what to charge willl be made, between the time of arrest and the time next available for arraignment except when the time and circumstances make this unfair or inadequate.
"In no event will questioning cause ‘an unreasonable delay’ in presentment to a committing magistrate.
aCommittee hearings, July 15, 1965, HR. 5688 (89th Cong).
“While we cannot be certain that statements made in compliance with this procedure will be admitted in evidence by every judge in every case, the courts will be given the opportunity to pass upon statements made under such conditions and may well find that Mallory does not require their exclusion. Careful police implementation and sound prosecutorial discretion will assure the development of a solid basis for legislation."
Committee favors statute
The committee concurs completely with the position that the Department of Justice—through the Deputy Attorney General—has taken with regard to the detention of an accused and the appropriate postarrest questioning under adequate safeguards.
However, the committee believes that to meet its proper responsibilities the procedures as proposed by the Department of Justice, and concurred in by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, should be placed in statutory form and enacted into positive law by the Congress. Therefore, the committee in favorably reporting HR. 5688, as amended, to the Senate, has in effect, placed the recommended procedures advanced by the Justice Department and concurred in by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in statutory form for appropriate consideration by the Congress.
The committee's belief is that its legislative responsibility can only be properly discharged by recommending a positive statutory law rather than concur in lieu thereof with administrative orders from the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to the Metropolitan Police Department on the methods to deal with arrest and investigation.
The committee's recommendations as contained in title I of the instant bill represents a legislative eiiort to retain for persons charged with crime those essential individual rights that the Mallory rule and its subsequent case law refinements have made. At the same time the recommendation strikes a balance point in permitting police to carry on proper and necessary questioning under clearly defined limitations. It is the committee's judgment that the Mallory rule and subsequent court decisions, which have tightened the noose around efl'ective law enforcement, must be changed.
This recommendation is limited to apply only to the District of Columbia where violent crimes fall within the trial and appeal jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary and limitations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since the District is unique in many ways, the committee believes law enforcement must be dealt with uniquely in providing the District courts and the police with clear-cut procedural guidelines so as not to do harm to persons accused of crimes and at the same time provide protection not now being given to the law-abiding general public.
What Congress approved by the language of rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Congress can now disapprove by statutory enactment for the District where the court interpretations of Mallory are felt more keenly than in any other Federal jurisdiction.
It is not contended that legislative enactment to alter the severe application of the Mallory rule alone will curb the crime rate which has risen steadily since that Supreme Court decision in 1957. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney, police officials, a respected member of the U.S. district court, the District of Columbia Council on Law Enforcement, and members of the bar have testified at various times before this committee that a change in the Mallory doctrine should provide assistance in combating crime.
Certainly, proper interrogation free of abuse and with the guidelines this title
contains, would provide a valuable law enf orcement investigative tool.
In a statement filed with the committee at hearings on May 13, 1965, the Honorable SAM J. Eavnv, senior U.S. Senator from North Carolina and chairman of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, stated:
"The Mallory rule and rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are subjects which have long been of great concern to me. It is my feeling that the crime rate in the District will continue to mushroom and effective law enforcement here will continue to be frustrated until legislation such as that contained in title I is enacted. For this reason, I have in previous Congresses introduced legislation to clarify rule 5. The Mallory rule certainly is a factor influencing the crime rate for due to it. self-confessed criminals are let free by the courts, and the police are hampered in their crime detection."
Further, when Senator Eavm testified before this committee on October 23, 1963. he said: i
i i t O i
“Although I realize this is not the only factor influencing the crime rate, the Mallory rule certainly is a major factor, for due to it self-confessed criminals are let free by the courts and the police are hampered in their crime detection ‘ ' *.
$ t i l i
"I submit that when Congress approved the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it did not intend to throw on the scrapheap the time-honored test of voluntariness concerning the admissibility of a confession. I submit that Congress had no intention of making convictions impossible simply because a police of— ficer failed to take a prisoner before a committing magistrate until 7% hours had elapsed.
“As chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, I am, of course, not unmindful of the many protections which the Constitution of the United States hestows upon the persons accused of crimes within our society. But, in the words of Judge Alexander Holtzofl’, U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, who testified at subcommittee hearings on the subject of confessions and police detention, in 1958:
" ‘We must bear in mind that the purpose of the criminal law is to protect the public. On the one hand, it is essential that no innocent person be convicted of a crime and that oppressive methods be not used against the guilty. On the other hand, it is equally indispensable that victims of a crime and potential victims of possible future crimes receive protection. The victim must not become a forgotten man. As was said by Justice Cardozo in Snyder v. Massachusetts (291 U.S. 97, 122), "Justice, though due the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true"! " 5
Section-by-section analysis of title 1
Section 101 is a brief restatement of existing law with respect to the admissibility of incriminating statements made by an accused. The committee wishes to make clear that nothing in this title is intended to prevent the trial courts of the District of Columbia from determining the voluntariness of any incriminating statement made by an accused in accordance with established principles of law.
Section 102 restates existing law and excludes statements made by an accused after a period of unnecessary delay and prior to an appearance before a U.S. commissioner.
‘P, 353, hearings, HR. 5688 (89th 00118.). ‘P, 355, hearings, HR. 7525 (88th Cong). Section 103 provides that under section 102 of this title delay alone shall not cause the exclusion of any statement obtained by interrogation of the accused if (1) the accused was warned that he need not make a statement and was told that any statement made could be used against him; and (2) prior to any questioning, the arrested person was advised by the oflicers having custody of him that upon request he would be afiorded reasonable opportunity to notify a relative or friend and consult with counsel of his choosing and if such request were made, he was, in fact, afforded such opportunity; and (3) the aggregate period of questioning, exclusive of interruptions, does not exceed 3 hours, between the arrest and the completion of the confession, admission, or statement; and (4) all of these warnings and any questioning of the accused were witnessed by a third party or transcribed or recorded verbatim.
The aggregate 3-hour time limitation in this bill, rather than a fixed time period, was included in the bill in order to provide police oflicers flexibility in their questioning during the course of the investigation.
Section 103(1) is intended to require a warning at the station house even though a warning had been initially given on the scene of arrest. It should be clear that this provision does not make it necessary for the police to reassert this warning after every interruption of their course of investigation at the station house.
The intention of section 103(2) is to require the police to advise the accused that he may request of them the opportunity to advise a friend or relative of his arrest and that he may request the opportunity to consult with counsel. However, this section shall not be constructed as a requirement that this advice be given the accused at the place of arrest or en route to the station house.
Section 103 (4) is not meant to require that good investigative practice be changed to conform to the present technology of sound recording. The intention of the committee is rather to encourage experimentation with reliable means of verification and to require use of verification means during investigations where present technology and the circumstances of the case permit.
Section 104 requires the trial judge who admits any statement in evidence pursuant to section 103 of this title to make findings of fact concerning the existence of the conditions set out in section 103. This will establish the necessary record for any subsequent appeal taken by the accused from the decision of the judge to admit any statement under this section.
Section 105 authorizes and directs the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to promulgate regulations including necessary disciplinary measures to assure that police oflicers comply with requirements of law set out in this title and with the regulations made pursuant to it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, increasing attention has been directed to the problem of the rise in the crime rate across our Nation and in the District of Columbia—this city over which we in the Congress have a very direct and primary responsibility. It is toward a solution of this problem that the very important legislation just passed by this body—the District of Columbia crime and criminal procedure bill-is directed. I congratulate the Senate for its thor— ough treatment of this measure and its aflirmative action.
Special thanks and commendations must be extended to the very able manager of the bill, the senior Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], who is the hardworking chairman of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.
The real issue in the bill was contained in title I, the portion dealing with the so-called Mallory rule. A number of Senators directed apt and incisive remarks toward this problem. The distinguished junior Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGs] and the distinguished junior Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY] forcefully presented and argued for their amendment to title I, and the ever-able senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRsE], the junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MCINTYRE], the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY], and the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], all members of the District of Columbia Committee, ably and articulately expressed their views on the issue.
All of the participants in the debate on this piece of legislation deserve hearty thanks and congratulations for the skillful treatment which this body has given this significant measure.
REPORT ON RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CoaPoRA'rIoN LIQUIDATIoN FUND
A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, Washington, DC. transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Liquidation Fund, as of June 30, 1965 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
IMPROVEMENT AND CLARIPIcATIoN or CERTAIN LAWS OF THE CoAsT GUARD
A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to improve and clarify certain laws of the Coast Guard (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Commerce.
REGULATION 0P DEPREcIATIoN AccoUNTING or AIR CARRIERS
A letter from the Vice Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so as to authorize the Civil Aeronautics Board to regulate the depreciation accounting of air carriers (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Commerce.
CLARIPIcATIoN 0P PowERs OF CIVIL AERoNAUTIcs BoARD
A letter from the Vice Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., transmitting a. draft of proposed legislation to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so as to clarify the powers of the Civil Aeronautics Board in respect of consolidation of certain proceedings (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Commerce.
AMENDMENT OF DIsTRIcT OF COLUMBIA TEAcI-IERs' SALARY ACT or‘ 1955
A letter from the President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the District of Columbia Teachers’ Salary Act of 1955, as amended (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
PAYMENT 01-‘ AN ALLowANcE To CERTAIN EM— PLoYErs AssIGNED To DUTY AT THE NEVADA TPsT SrrE OF THE AToMIc ENERGY CoMMIssIoN
A letter from the Chairman, US. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to authorize the payment of an allowance of not to exceed $10 per day to employees assigned to duty at the Nevada Test Site of the US. Atomic Energy Commission (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Government Operations.
REPORT 0E ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL
A letter from the Acting Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on procurement of aircraft engine cylinder assemblies without consideration of actual usage experience, Department of the Navy, dated August 1965 (with an accompanying report) ; to the Committee on Government Operations.
DIsPosITIoN oP FUNDS APPRoPRIATED To PAY A JUDGMENT IN FAvoR OF THE NOOKSACK TRIBE 0P INDIANs
A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Nooksack Tribe of Indians, and for other purposes (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ CoMPENsATIoN AcT AMENDMENTS or‘ 1965
A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act to improve its benefits, and for other purposes (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.crease the share of Federal financial assist— ance for construction of municipal sewage treatment works and to authorize increased appropriations for the purpose of making such grants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works.
"Whereas a survey of the vanishing Great Lakes shoreline was made by the US. Department of Interior during 1957 and 1958; and
“Whereas this survey revealed three outstanding areas, all of them in Michigan, worthy of incorporation in the national park system; and
“Whereas one of these areas and the one nearest our population centers is at Sleeping Bear Dunes in Leelanau and Benzie Counties; and
“Whereas this beautiful area is deserving of national recognition and preservation; and
“Whereas legislation to this effect, modified to safeguard the property rights of homeowners, has been introduced in the Congress by the Senators from the State of Michigan; and
“Whereas early action to save this area for enjoyment of future generations has been recognized as desirable by the President of the United States, the Michigan Conservation Commission, the Michigan Tourist Council, and numerous nongovernmental organizations and individuals; and
“Whereas such action would clearly be in the interest of the State of Michigan, its citizens, and its economy: Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the house of representatives (the senate concurring), That the Congress is hereby respectfully urged to authorize the establishment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area in Michigan; and be it further
"Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each member of the Michigan delegation to the Congress.
“Adopted by the house June 16, 1965.
"NORMAN E. PHILLEO, "Clerk of the House of Representatives. “Adopted by the senate July 29, 1965. “BERYL I. KENYON, "Secretary of the Senate.”
A resolution adopted by the legislators’ section of the National Legislative Conference, at Portland, Oreg., relating to reciprocal intergovernmental tax exemption; to the Committee on Finance.
A resolution adopted by the legislators’ section of the National Legislative Conference, held at Portland, Oreg., pledging the support of that organization to the President and
the Congress in opposing the threat of communism; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
A resolution adopted by the legislators’ section of the National Legislative Conference, at Portland, 0reg., favoring the enactment by the House of Representatives of Senate bill 561, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965; to the Committee on Government Operations.
Petitions signed by Lilianna Vitols, and sundry other citizens of the State of Connecticut, favoring the liberation of the Baltic States; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The petition of W. B. Robinson, of Oklahoma City, Okla, relating to the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:
S. 803. A bill for the relief of Ching Zai Yen and his wife, Faung Hwa Yen (Rept. No. 656) ;
8.1168. A bill for the relief of Timothy William O’Kane (Rept. No. 657) :
HR. 1402. An act for the relief of Dr. Jorge Rosendo Barahona (Rept. 658);
HR. 1443. An act for the relief of Mrs. Olga Bernice Bramson Gilfillan (Rept. No. 659);
HR. 1627. An act for the relief of Esterina Ricupero (Rept. No. 660);
HR. 1820. An act for the relief of Winsome Elaine Gordon (Rept. No. 661 );
HR. 2678. An act for the relief of Joo Yul Kim (Rept. No. 662);
HR. 2871. An act for the relief of Dorota Zytka (Rept. No. 663);
HR. 3292. An act for the relief of Consuelo Alvarado de Corpus (Rept. No. 664);
HR. 6719. An act for the relief of Mrs. Kazuyo Watanabe Ridgely (Rept. No. 665); and
HR. 9570. An act to amend the Federal Firearms Act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to relieve applicants from certain provisions of the act if he determines that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest, and that the applicant would not be likely to conduct his operations in an unlawful manner (Rept. No. 666).
By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment:
S. 481. A bill for the relief of Winnifred Evadne Newman (Rept. No. 667);
S. 779. A bill for the relief of Henryka Lyska (Rept. No. 668); and
H.R.3128. An act for the relief of Angelo Iannuzzi (Rept. No. 669).
By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with amendments:
H.J . Res. 504. Joint resolution to facilitate the admission into the United States of certain aliens (Rept. No. 670).
By Mr. ERVIN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:
HR. 5024. An act to amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, and the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees’ Claims Act of 1964, with respect to the settlement of claims against the United States by members of the uniformed services and civilian officers and employees of the United States for damage to, or loss of, personal property incident to their service, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 655); and
HR. 8027. An act to provide assistance in training State and local law enforcement officers and other personnel, and in improving capabilities, techniques, and practices in State and local law enforcement and prevention and control of crime, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 672) .
By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
Edward M. McEntee, of Rhode Island, to be US. circuit judge, first circuit.
By Mr. SMATHIERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
William O. Mehrtens, of Florida, to be US. district Judge for the southern district of Florida.
By Mr. BAYH, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
Richard P. Stein, of Indiana, to be US. attorney for the southern district of Indiana.
By Mr. HART, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
Orville H. Trotter, of Michigan, to be US. marshal for the eastern district of Michigan.
By Mr. FULBRIGHT, from the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Raymond A. Hare, of West Virginia, a Foreign Service ofiicer of the class of career ambassador, to be an Assistant Secretary of State;
Dr. James Watt, of the District of Columbia, to be the representative of the United States of America on the Executive Board of the World Health Organization;
Bernard Zagorin, of Virginia, to be US. Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
Dr. Gustav Ranis, of Connecticut, to be Assistant Administrator for Program Coordination, Agency for International Development;
Charles Frankel, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of State;
Charles W. Yost, of New York, to be the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and a Deputy Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations:
JAMES ROOSEVELT, of California, to be the representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations; and
Mrs. Eugenie Anderson, of Minnesota, to be the representative of the United States of America on the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.
(See the remarks of Mr. RIBICOFF when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)
By Mr. LAUSCHE:
S. 2482. A bill to prohibit obstruction of the performance of duty by the Armed Forces by obstruction of the transportation of personnel or property thereof ; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
(See the remarks of Mr. LAUSCHE when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)
Mr. MAGNUSON submitted the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 54) authorizing the printing as a Senate document of a compilation of the speeches, remarks, press conferences, and related papers, during the 1964 presidential campaign entitled “Campaign '64"; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed with illustrations as a Senate document a compilation, prepared by the Senate Committee on Commerce, entitled “Campaign '64" to consist of five parts, as follows:
Volumes I, II, III, and IV, the speeches, remarks, press conferences and related papers of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Senator HUBr-m'r H. HUMPHREY, Senator Barry M. Goldwater, and Congressman William E. Miller, respectively, during the 1964 presidential campaign; and
Volume V, the radio and television network newscasts for the period September 1 through November 3, 1964.
Sac. 2. There shall be printed eleven thousand four hundred and fifty additional copies of such document, of which four thousand three hundred and ninety copies shall be for the use of the House of Representatives, two thousand and sixty copies shall be for the use of the Senate, and five thousand copies shall be for the use of the Senate Committee on Commerce.
PROHIBITION OF SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age. At the present time, hard liquor may not be sold to anyone under 21, although beer and light wines may be purchased by those over 18 years of age.
The drinking age in the District of Columbia is lower than in the surrounding areas of Virginia and Maryland. This leads to a large influx of minors who do their drinking in Washington and creates both a nuisance on our streets, especially in the Georgetown area, and to a serious danger on the highways. The Police Department feels that this is a crucial problem; in the last year alone there were 576 arrests of minors for drunkenness.
There is no justification for this situation to continue, and I sincerely hope that my corrective proposal will be given favorable consideration. I intend to press for action next January, if no action is taken by the relevant committees in the current session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey in the chair). The bill will be received and appropriately referred.
The bill (S. 2480) to amend the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act to prohibit the sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age, introduced by Mr. ScoTT, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, there is an old saying “you never miss the water until the well runs dry.” The drought in the Northeast now reminds us of that truth. We miss the water. And unless We take certain positive steps—we are going to miss it much more.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are 15 years away from a water crisis that will make today's shortage seem insignificant. Our Nation’s water supply remains constant. So the 200 million Americans using water today are drawing from the same supply—from the same amount of water—that was here when the Pilgrims landed in 1620. We have learned to hold water in one place—we have learned to move it around—but we have not yet significantly increased the absolute amount of fresh water we need.
In 15 years—by 1980—the consumption of water can be expected to rise to 600 billion gallons a day. Our projected dependable fresh water supply will be 515 billion gallons. That, Mr. President, spells crisis.
It is time we recognized that despite the promise of desalinization—and despite the possibilities of improved impoundments—our only salvation lies in Water reuse. This means we will have to begin treating our waste water by removing the maximum amount of pollutants through advanced waste treatment techniques. In short, Mr. President, we must face up to reality and recognize that water pollution control is not mere esthetics—it is a matter of life and death.
Only through intelligent action now will we insure our future water supplies. Only by recognizing the size of the task and committing our resources now, will we avoid the crisis and turn away catastrophe.
Pollution control is a national concern—concern of every living man and woman and child—and of generations yet unborn.
For pollution reduces the supply of available water just as surely as a drought. We have not yet found a way to break a drought—but we can fight pollution. We can fight it—we have the techniques and the tools—but we have not yet put them to work. We are not doing enough.
The Conference of State Sanitary Engineers reported in its January 1, 1965, survey of municipal waste treatment needs that there exists today a backlog of 5,277 communities with sewage treatment needs that alone will cost $1.86 billion to fill. The survey further states:
In order to eliminate the existing backlog, provide for the continuing obsolescence of existing plants, and the population growth, it will require an average annual expenditure through 1970 of $800 million.
In other words, we must embark now on a $4-billion cleanup of our Nation’s waterways. This is an investment in our future. We cannot live without fresh water. We will need greater efforts on every level of government-local, State, and Federal. Every community should be concerned—as a matter of civic pride—about what it dumps on its downstream neighbor. Every State should adopt and promote vigorous pollution control programs. And the Federal Government should help both communities and States with technical assistance, research, and financial assistance.
The need for an expanded program of Federal aid has already been recognized. Practical businessmen—like Frazar B. Wilde, chairman of the board of the Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.— told the Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce last May that “large grantsin-aid by the Federal and State Governments are needed.” Such statements are greatly encouraging. Past industry opposition to Federal pollution control laws is fading in the dawning light of realization that the pollution problem is critical and getting worse.
I have long been concerned with water pollution problems. As Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, I proposed that the Federal law be amended