SENATE - Govinfo.gov

6754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 2

subsection B makes reference to the payment of poll tax, which has been abolished by constitutional amendment.

As I said a while ago the antipoll tax amendment was ratified by the States, but still this language was put in the bill . . I wonder why.

The Supreme Court has uniformly held that the 15th amendment does not confer the right to vote on anyone, but that it invests the citizens of the United States with the right to be exempted from discrimination in the exercise of the vote on account of race, color, and previous condition of servitude. This was specifically held in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 22 U.S. 542. (1876).

Title I also provides: If in any such proceedings literacy is a.

relevant fact there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in a public school, or in a private school accredited by any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension and intelligence to vote in any Federal election.

There is no doubt that this is an attempt to have Congress determine voter registration requirements The question which immediately arises is "Why did the drafters of this provision decide on a sixth-grade education rather than on a 10th or 12th grade education?" The compelling answer is of course that the drafters of this bill are only anxious to have large numbers of unqualified people registered to vote.

There is much talk about the duty of a person to fight for his country in the Armed Forces. I wonder how many members of our Armed Forces have only a sixth-grade education.

There was a case the other day in which Cassius Clay said he went through high school. However, he was unable to qualify for the draft.

In determining competency to vote, the burden of proof is placed on the registrar of voters to prove that a person with a sixth-grade education is not qualified. If the prospective voter fails the literacy test, why should it be incumbent upon the registrar to off er additional proof in court that such person is not qualifled?

In the whole history of American law, the person claiming a right or privilege in court has always had to prove his case. Why should this be any different?

If this part of title I is passed the absurd situation would exist in which a person would "possess sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any Federal election" and not have sufficient literacy qualifications to vote in State and local elections. I cannot agree that it takes less intelligence to elect a Representative, a Senator, or a President than it does to elect a local official.

Mr. President, I have completed that part of my speech for this evening which deals with the right to vote. I do not expect to debate the issue any further this evening.

I am now ready to discuss another phase of the bill.

Under the agreement entered into earlier this afternoon, I shall gladly continue the discussion on Saturday.

TRANSACTION OF ADDITIONAL ROUTINE BUSINESS

By unanimous consent, the fallowing routine business was transacted:

ADDITIONAL BILL INTRODUCED Mr. MOSS, by unanimous consent, in

troduced a bill (S. 2709) for the relief of Marvin R. Waldo, which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ISSUANCE OF GOLD MEDAL TO HENRY J. KAISER-ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF JOINT RESOLUTION Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that at the next printing of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 163) authorizing the expression of appreciation and the issuance of a gold medal to Henry J. Kaiser, that my name may be added as a cosponsor.

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

ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMBATING POVERTY-ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF RESOLUTION

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at its next printing, the name of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YoUNGJ be added as a cosponsor of the resolution (S. Res. 305) establishing the Select Committee on Combating Poverty.


RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M. TOMORROW Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in ac

cordance with the order previously entered, I move that the Senate take a recess until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 7 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess, under the order previously entered, until tomorrow, Thursday, April 2, 1964, at 11 o'clock a.m.

NOMINATIONS

SENATE THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1964

(Legislative day of Monday, March 30. 1964)

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, a Senator from the State of Massachusetts.

Rev. Clarence W. Cranford, minister, Calvary Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:

Again, O Lord, we hear Thy call, "If my people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and tum from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

O God, how we love our country. How we love its freedom. And yet we recognize, our Father, how much we have strayed from Thy will. Forgive us for the times when we have transgressed against Thy precepts. Help us to know that truth, honesty, justice, purity, and consideration for others are not just nice things to think about if we happen to be in the mood for them. Teach us that these are the only bases on which a free world can exist. Help us to know the right, and to strive for it, so that we may be able to live with ourselves and win the love and respect of all men, everywhere.

We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.

DESIGNATION OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D.a., April 2, 1964. To the Senate:

Being temporarily absent from the Senate, I appoint Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, a. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, to perform the duties o! the Chair during my absence.

LEE METCALJ', Acting President pTO tempore.

Mr. KENNEDY thereupon took the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

THE JOURNAL On request by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, April 1, 1964, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Executive nominations received by the

Senate April 1 (legislative day of March Messages in writing from the President 30) 1964 of the United States submitting nomi-

' : nations were communicated to the Sen-FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BoARD ate by Mr. Ratchford, one of his secre-

The following-named persons to be mem- taries. bers of the Federal Farm Credit Board, Farm Credit Administration, for terms expiring March 31, 1970:

Marion A. Clawson, of Indiana, vice Marvin J. Briggs.

David Gordon Gault, of Texas, vice Frank Stubbs.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a

,.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6755 morning hour, with a 3-minute limitation on statements.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, to consider the nominations on the Executive Calendar, beginning with the nomination of John S. Crocker.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no reports of committees, the nominations on the Executive Calendar, beginning with that of John S. Crocker, will be stated. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDEVELOPMENT LAND

AGENCY

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of John S. Crocker to be a member of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency for a term of 5 years, effective on and after March 4, 1964.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Dorothy H. Jacobson, of Minnesota, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.


The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Dorothy H. Jacobson, of Minnesota, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation.


Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, for more than 20 years it has been my privilege to have known Mrs. Jacobson, who is an outstanding economist, and formerly was professor of political science at Macalester College. She is one of the most able and competent persons in public service with whom it has ever been my privilege to be associated or whom I have ever known.

Therefore, Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the President has seen flt to nominate Mrs. Jacobson for these two important positions, and I wish the RECORD to show that we in Minnesota are highly honored by this important recognition of one of our outstanding citizens.

I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the confirmation of these nominations.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the President will be notified forthwith.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION On motion by Mr. HUMPHREY, the Sen

ate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 408, TITLE 37, UNITED

STATES CODE, RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN PARKING FEES A letter from the Acting Secretary of the

Navy, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend section 408 of title 37, United States Code, to provide for reimbursement for the expenses of parking fees incurred by a member of a uniformed service in connection with transportation necessary for conducting official business of the United States (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Government Operations. REPORT ON UNNECESSARY COSTS INCURRED IN

PROCUREMENT OF M--405 ROCKET-HANDLING UNIT A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on unnecessary costs incurred in the procurement of the M--405 rocket-handling unit, Department of the Army, dated March 1964 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations. REPORT ON INADEQUATE ADMINISTRATION OJ'

CERTAIN AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING OPERATIONS Am ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS

A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on inadequate administration of automatic data processing operations air route traffic control centers, Boston, Mass., and Washington, D.C., by the Federal Aviation Agency, dated March 1964 (with an accompanying report); to the Cominittee on Government Operations. REPORT ENTITLED "AN ASSESSMENT OJ' LARGE

NUCLEAR POWERED SEA WATER DISTll.LATION PLANTS" A letter from the Director, Office of Science

and Technology, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, for the information of the Senate, a report entitled "An Assessment of Large Nuclear Powered Sea Water Distillation Plants," dated March 1964 (with an accompanying report); to the Cominittee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS

A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders suspending deportation of certain aliens, together with a statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law pertaining to each alien, and the reasons for ordering such suspension (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

VARIATION OF WORKWEEK OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR EDUCATIONAL PuRPOSES

A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to permit variation of the 40-hour workweek of Federal employees for educational purposes (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

BILL INTRODUCED A bill was introduced, read the first

time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and ref erred as follows:

By Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota: S. 2710. A bill to change the name of the

Northern Great Plains Wildlife Research Station in the State of North Dakota to the Dr. I. G. Bue Wildlife Research Station; to the Committee on Commerce.

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

CHANGE OF NAME OF NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS WILDLIFE RESEARCH STATION, NORTH DAKOTA, TO THE DR. I. G. BUE WILDLIFE RESEARCH STATION Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.

President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to name the Northern Great Plains Wildlife Research Station, in North Dakota, in honor of the late Dr. I. G. Bue, formerly head of the North Dakota State Game and Fish Department.

It is most appropriate that this research station, to be operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, be named in honor of "Doc Bue," as he was known to his many friends. Dr. I. G. Bue, more than anyone else, was responsible for securing this research facility. It had been a dream of his for many years; and he often visited with me about it; and, at my request, he appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, to request the initial planning funds for this very important facility. In the fall of 1961, Dr. Bue accepted a position with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and was in charge of the site selection for this research facility, and also of the planning of it.

Dr. Bue had an outstanding record. In World War II, he served with the North Dakota National Guard's famed 164th Infantry Regiment, in the South Pacific. He served overseas with this unit throughout all of World War II, and participated in all its campaigns, from Guadalcanal on. After the war, he secured his doctorate degree from the University of Minnesota, and was first employed by the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Commission. Laterin 1954-he came to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and served first as deputy commissioner, and laterfrom 1957 until September of 1961-as commissioner of the North Dakota State Game and Fish Department.

His contributions to the wildlife program and to wildlife management are far too numerous to mention. I believe equally important was the work he did


in fostering better relationships and understanding between hunters and farmers. Having had a lifelong interest in farming. he recognized and appreciated the farmer's problems, and could see things from the farmer's point of view, as well as from the point of view of the sportsman.

Dr. Bue passed away suddenly on October 25, while hunting geese with a group of friends.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed as a part of my remarks in the RECORD a part of a column written by Cal Olson at the time of Dr. Bue's passing. The article appeared in the Fargo Forum, published at Fargo, N. Dak.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the excerpt will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 2710) to change the name of the Northern Great Plains Wildlife Research Station in the State of North Dakota to the Dr. I. G. Bue Wildlife Research Station, introduced by Mr. YouNG of North Dakota, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The excerpt presented by Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota is as follows:

FRESH Am TRAIL

(By Cal Olson) The biggest blow to the world of wildlife

in this area during the past year came October 25 with the death of Dr. Ingalf 0. Bue.

Here was a quiet-spoken, even-tempered man who had spent most of his life in game management work. With a doctorate 1n game management, he served as North Dakota deputy game and fish commissioner for 3 years until 1957, when he was appointed commissioner.

He served as commissioner 4 years, then joined the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife research biologist. In this capacity, he directed field work to select the site and begin construction of the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center at Jamestown.

His friends called him "Doc" 9r "Ing." And he had a lot of friends. He was no flag waver, but Doc knew his business. The policies and practices he initiated as deputy commissioner and as commissioner will be reflected in our State for many years.

The work he did in setting up the wildlife research center will bear fruit for sportsmen who have not yet been born.

Doc was only 49 when he died. Too young, too soon. Few of us are given to choose the time and place of our death. Doc didn't either. But he died doing the thing he loved best, out 1n the field, hunting.

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964-ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF BILL Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that at the next printing of the bill (S. 2642) to mobilize the human and financial resources of the Nation to combat poverty in the United States, the name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE] be added as a cosponsor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON BUILDUP OF PESTICIDES IN WATER SOURCES

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, a week ago I announced that the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations will begin a series of public hearings on the buildup of pesticides in water sources and the general environment. The hearings will begin on April 7 in room 3302 of the New Senate Office Building. The time of the hearing will be announced on Monday.

The recent announcement of widespread fish kills in Louisiana which have been attributed to pesticides lends a new sense of urgency to these hearings. The dead fish have brought even the Department of Agriculture to life. But it is a tragedy that it took 10 million fish to put some life into the USDA.

The Department yesterday filed a notice of public hearing on the registrations of the pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin. According to the notice--

Recent reports of fish kills on the Mississippi River have raised the questions as to whether the use of the economic poisons aldrin, dieldrin, and endrln may be responsible for such losses.

Mr. President, a year ago the President's Science Advisory Committee in a formal report called attention to the dangers of the persistent pesticides such as aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin.

The Senate Subcommittee on Reorganization has been constantly calling attention to these problems throughout the year since publication of the Wiesner report. Yet only now has the Department of Agriculture scheduled a hearing to see whether changes should be made in the registration of these products.

It seems the Department as well as other Federal agencies have been satisfied to shift the responsibility to a science advisory committee of the National Academy of Sciences which has been studying these products for almost a year now but as yet without any decision. In the meantime, use of the products continues under existing regulations.

It is a sad reflection on the bureaucratic process that the Department's priorities put the promotion of new products in high speed but place protection of the public in slow motion. Testimony before our subcommittee revealed that new registrations have been approved in as short a time as 16 days. Now it has taken 1 year just to call a hearing to consider changing an existing registration.

The warning signals on persistent pesticides have been up for some time now. Rachel Carson raised them. The President's Science Advisory Committee called for their elimination. Last October 9, I raised the point that the basic premise on which persistent pesticides are registered in the first place appears to be false. That basic premise is that chemicals used for the control of pests remain where they are applied. I said then that-

An increasing volume of evidence demonstrates * * • that not all of the chemicals reach and remain on the areas where they are intended to be placed. Rather we find evidence of chemical pesticides far from the point of application and still retaining their toxicity.

These warnings have been ignored until now. We are faced squarely with the problem of learning to control the movement of persistent toxic compounds beyond the restricted locations to which they are applied or discontinuing their use. That is the policy question confronting this Nation today. We have heard enough of the benefits of pesticides-we have heard enough how research is the answer to all our problemswe have heard enough about pesticides being stored "harmlessly" in our body fat. It is time to take action.

On Tuesday we will hear testimony from officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. On Wednesday, officials of the Interior Department, and the Food and Drug Administration will testify. Subsequent sessions will hear testimony from Department of Agriculture officials, Federal Aviation Agency, State officials and others.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a number of editorials bearing on this subject.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 1964)

MORE SILENT SPRING

There are still robins to be seen during these pleasant spring days, but many householders are greeting the return of the birds with more than usual apprehension. When Rachel Carson first propounded her fears that large-scale use of pesticides were jeopardizing wildlife, her arguments were dismissed in some quarters as overwrought and overstated. Alas, new findings continue to bear her out.

Last week, the Public Health Service issued its findings on a 4-month inquiry into fish kills in the Mississippi River. Some 10 million fish have been reportedly killed in Louisiana since 1960, and dead fish have been found as far north as St. Louis with the same toxic symptoms. The Public Health Service investigation found that wide-scale use of endrin-a pesticide sprayed from planes on cotton and sugarcane-was· the probable culprit.

Endrin is closely related to aldrin and dieldrin, which the British Government has now placed · on a restricted-use basis. An advisory committee to the British Ministry of Agriculture expressed the "firm opinion that accumulative contamination of the environment by persistent organochlorine pesticides should be curtailed."

In light of these findings , Senator Rm1coFF has announced that he will hold a new round of hearings on the dangers of pesticides. The Senator is surely right in deploring past complacency about use of poisons that could alter the very environment of life around us. His subcommittee ought to make a realistic appraisal of the safeguards necessary to end robin counting as an unpleasant new rite of spring.

[From the Washington Evening Star, Mar. 31, 1964]

PESTICIDE PERIL

Miss Rachel Carson is looking better at a time when the outlook for everything elseanimals, birds, fish, and humans includedis dim. The mounting evidence supporting her indictment of chemical pesticides has reached a new, and perhaps most critical, turn of events.

Even the most skeptical have conceded in the past that birds and fish have been k1lled by heavy spraying or perhaps accidental spil-

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 6757 lage in streams. The prolnsectlclde forces have argued, however, that controlled usage would reduce hazards to a minimum. To an indeterminate extent, at least, this had been given the benefit of the doubt.

Now that doubt has grown to ominous dimensions. From the Mississippi River, where 10 million fish have died in the past 4 years, comes evidence that the average use of toxic chemical compounds has somehow polluted the river-not in overpowering quantities but in tiny amounts discernible only by advanced scientific methods.

These minute doses of such chemicals as endrin and dieldrin-as little as a teaspoonful to a billion gallons of water-are stored up cumulatively in bodies of fish until they die. This alarming discovery by the Public Health Service raises many questions which should be answered as quickly as possible.

There is the obvious implication that farm insecticides, used in moderate amounts, find their way to the river and deposit their death-dealing poisons. But does it go beyond that? What of the similar chemicals used in industries and homes, which may be flushed into the rivers? Are lethal potions building up in other rivers of the Nation? What wm be the effects on man in his consumption of food fish and drinking water?

Senator RmrcoFF, of Connecticut, who has been in the forefront of the antlpesticide fight, is calling a special hearing to see whether new legislation is necessary. Meanwhile, there is need for intensified, coordinated studies in the search for substitutes, methods of control, and the determination of long-range effects on man.

The Public Health Service is pushing hard with several new programs for which Congress should supply whatever funds are required. One will examine in six communities the levels of toxic matter found in the air, food, and water from all causes. Another ls tracing the life of pesticides from start to finish. No one can now doubt the urgency for finding ways to curb or replace the use of pesticides before irreparable harm 1s inflicted on man and nature.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 29, 1964] THE PESTICIDE DANGER

The 4-year-old search for the factor that has made the lower Mississippi a river of death for millions of fish has brought a finding that the residues of several agricultural pesticides are the probable cause. If this conclusion ls confirmed, it raises the question whether similar residues create health dangers to humans who drink Mississippi water or eat fish or shrimp taken from that river or the Gulf of Mexico.

Almost a year ago a report by the President's Science Advisory Committee warned of the dangerous potential of pesticide poisoning of man and wildlife. It pointed out that there is much we do not know of the long-term impact of these chemicals on biological organisms. Some of the report's recommendations for tighter controls have been carried out; but in the light of the mass slaughter of Mississippi fish it seems clear that the remedial measures are still most inadequate.

It now appears likely that the fish were killed by almost infinitesimal amounts of contaminants entering the river as the byproducts not of special concentrated spraying operations but of normal farm use. Such contaminants presumably also are to be found in other major waterways, including those that have not had mass fish deaths. The hazardous potentials of this sort of contamination in food have recently led British authorities to place severe restrictions on the use of three pesticides of precisely the sort that have poisoned fish and shrimp in the United States.

The questions posed are of such magnitude that they deserve investigation and resolution with maximum dispatch. The Federal

Pest Control Review Board-composed of high-ranking representatives of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfar~is an existing central agency with the resources needed for the comprehensive inquiry that is urgently required. Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, most reluctant of all Federal agencies to move vigorously against potentially dangerous pesticides, owes it to the public to put into full effect the recommendations of the Science Advisory Committee's report of last year.

[From the Hartford Courant, Mar. 30, 1964] NEW PESTICIDE PERll.S

It's going to make a lot of people snappish, but the Federal health agencies seem in a fair way to chalk one up for Rachel Carson and her prophetic warnings against the ignorant use of pesticides. During the last 4 years fish have been dying by untold millions in the Mississippi River. Now it appears that two common pesticides, of the kind used inland against weeds and insects, have been draining into the big river and causing a major part of the trouble.

Up to lately, the Government was not convinced that the so-called normal use of these pesticides could kill fish. Examination of the victims falled to indicate the presence of the chemicals, in the first place. Unhappily, the failure was not due to the chemicals not being in the fish flesh, or the water, or the mud of the river. It came about because science had not yet perfected ways of discovering extremely minute amounts of the pesticides. But methods of measuring chemical presences have recently been refined anew, and with them has come the discovery of the poisons in the fish.

At first the Government could not believe that such small amounts of chemicals could be injurious. But the substances were introduced into test pools, and the fish in these pools also died. The new discovery is bound to stir up the ranks of conservationists all over again. There won't be any smug I-told-you-so's, however-just all the more fear for wildlife in areas were pesticides are used. If chemicals in such infinitely small doses, and diluted as they must be by the process of being washed down into the Mississippi, can klll, how much greater ls the danger to wildlife right on the sites where insecticides are first employed-in full strength and quantity application? It ls not a matter of indicting the users of pesticides out of hand. In general they acted only on existing knowledge of the harm and nonharm of chemicals. But it appears that somebody was wrong somewhere, as the evidence of billions of dead fl.sh testifies. Nevertheless, it ls plain the whole matter of pesticides must be restudied as a result of what the Government has found out in the Mississtppl area.

NEED FOR REVIEW OF DECISION ON ROME, N.Y., AIR MATERIEL AREA Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, my col

league [Mr. KEATING] and I wish to make brief statements about the Rome Air Materiel Area. At this time, I wish to yield to him, if I may, and thereafter to speak in my own behalf.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McNAMARA in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, a shocking situation has just come to light, uncovered by the perseverance and determination of the Utica Observer Dispatch, in Utica, N.Y., but I must say not unsuspected by those of us who have been familiar with the facts of the situation.

A member of the Air Force investigating board with responsibility for determining the best method of reducing costs in the Air Force Logistics Command has admitted that after the making of the studies which preceded the recommendation of the closing of Rome Air Materiel Area, in Rome, N.Y., the factual, objective recommendations of the board were overruled-not once, but three timeson political considerations. Only then came the final conclusion that the Rome facility was expendable-not from the point of view of national defense or from the point of view of economy, but only from the point of view of politics.

The report reveals that the 12-man investigating board which studied all the air materiel commands first recommended the closing of San Bernardino Air Materiel Area, at Norton Air Force Base, in California. From higher up, they were told, "Oh, no; you cannot do that. That Congressman is on the Appropriations Committee. He is too important." So they took a second look and then recommended the closing of th~ facility at Mobile, Ala. Again they were told, "Oh, no; that is no good. That Congressman has been in Congress for nearly 30 years." So then they took a third look, and recommended the closing of a facility in Pennsylvania; but again the board was overruled-this time on the ground that the installation was in a depressed area and that much new construction had been undertaken. Finally the board was instructed to find a good reason for closing the Rome installation because that was the one the higher-up~ had wanted all the time to have closed even though it, too, is in a depressed area:

These are serious charges. The board's report was the basis for the decision announced last December, to close on~ of the largest defense facilities in New York State. But now we are told that the board's report was doctored up three different times in order to reflect not national defense needs, not econo~y needs but purely political ones. '

In this connection, these remarks and the action which my colleague [Mr. JAVITS] and I propose to take have been cleared with the distinguished Member of the House of Representatives for this district, Mr. ALEXANDER PIRNIE.

I am transmitting this information to the Armed Services Committee with the request that a full investigation be made into the report to determine its accuracy or otherwise. Together with my colleague [Mr. JAVITs] I am also asking the Comptroller General to look into the charges. They constitute a challenge to the integrity of decisionmaking in the Air Force. They should be thoroughly reviewed. If they are not factual, we should be so told. Those of us who are familiar with the Rome facility and the fine work that it has done over the years have had serious doubts about the efforts to transfer jobs from Rome elsewhere.

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

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President-Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have

the floor, and I have yielded to my colleague.


Mr. KEA TING. Mr. President, I thought I had been recognized.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of both Senators from New York has expired.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 1 additional minute, and that my colleague be permitted to proceed for 3 additional minutes.


Mr. KEATING. The report brings out information which has been the subject of a great deal of suspicion in the past. It calls for a complete reexamination, in my judgment, of the decision to phase out the Rome Air Materiel Command.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD excerpts from the story by Mr. Bill Lucey which appeared in the Utica Observer-Dispatch of yesterday.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCERPTS FROM NEWS STORY, UTICA OBSERVER•

DISPATCH, APRIL 1, 1964 (By Bill Lucey)

What part did political pressures play in the 1961 decisions by the Air Force to phase out the Rome Air Materiel area. A key member of the task force that drew up the 1961 recommendation, told the ObserverDispatch today that they were paramount at that time. He said he agreed with the opinion of many in this area that the 1961 plans for eliminating ROAMA was the basis for the 1963 decision.

He revealed that the task force had first selected the AMA at San Bernardino, Calif., then Mobile, Ala., and then Middletown, Pa., for elimination on the grounds that they were expendable. This reasoning was rejected and the task force was then directed to do a study on how to move ROAMA elsewhere.

"So far as I know there were no further plans developed for phasing out ROAMA after the ones we did in 1961. Someone else may have. But so far as I can tell, the current phaseout is based on the studies we made." The former task force official said that in the case of the AMA at San Bernardino and Mobile, the recommendations for eliminating them were rejected by General William F. McKee, now Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, because he feared the power of local Democratic Congressmen. He said McKee told the task force to "forget about Middletown" because the Air Force had just spent a lot of money on an airstrip there. In addition, he said, McKee noted that if the logistics part of the base was moved out, there would be little left and the base would have to be closed and it was a depressed area. Here, too, he said, McKee noted that the opposition of the local Congressmen had to be considered. It was after that, he said, the task force was ordered to do a study on how to eliminate ROAMA.

The task force official who asked that bis name be withheld sharply disagreed with the Air Force contention that elimination of ROAMA would reduce jobs or result in economy. • • • The 12-man task force was established by headquarters of the Air Force Logistics Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, to recommend which of the nine Air Force AMA's should be eliminated.

In arriving at a decision on what to recommend, the task force was to consider such factors as these: The condition and use of existing facilities, availability of skilled labor, estimates of current and future workloads, warehouse requirements and amount of ware-

housing space, maintenance requirements as related to the maintenance faclllties available. At the beginning the task force thought that politics also was supposed to be a factor and they should be concerned with what problems an area would have if an AMA were eliminated. However, its memb~rs were informed not to be concerned with politics, "it would be handled by higherups."

AB a result of this study of the nine AMA's almost all members of the task force agreed that the San Bernardino AMA should be eliminated. This was a big aircraft AMA, but most of its planes were obsolete and its maintenance workload down. General McKee, then deputy to the Chief of the Air Force Logistics Command, reportedly acknowledged that it was a good study. But he threw it out. He was quoted as saying, "There is no chance of eliminating San Bernardino or any other southern California base as long as Congressman HARRY R. SHEPPARD, Democrat, of the 27th District, was influential in that area.

The task force then "reevaluated" the first study and recommended that the Mobile, Ala., AMA be eliminated. At the time much of the Mobile workload was about to be taken over by the Defense Supply Agency which would supply all of the services with some items they used in common. The task force proposed that most of the Mobile base be given to this agency. However, General McKee, according to the Observer-Dispatch's task force informer, threw out that recommendation because he was concerned over the reaction of Democratic Congressman Frank M. Boykin.

Next, the task force evaluated the logistics structure a third time and a Middletown, Pa., AMA was chosen for elimination, but the task force was told to forget it for reasons stated earlier.

There followed the order to do a study on how ROAMA could be eliminated. "There is no doubt whatsoever," the former task force official said, "that final decisions such as these often are politically motivated. They have nothing to do with military logic."

Mr. RUSSELL and Mr. JAVITS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. JAVITS. Did not my colleague [Mr. KEATING] have granted to him unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute and that I might proceed for 3 minutes? Unless that procedure interferes with other Senators, I should like to use the time available.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that the time of both Senators has expired.

The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. RUSSELL. Is the Senate still in the morning hour?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

THE ODDS AGAINST THE OPPONENTS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in addition to the time which is available to me during the morning hour, I may have 2 additional minutes to discuss a subject.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I have frequently referred to the odds against those of us who are opposing the socalled civil rights bill. Those odds become more manifest as the debate progresses. Each speaker for the affirmative side of the question on the passage of the bill comes well armed with memorandums and statistics that have been gathered and supplied by tax-supported agencies of the Federal Government. We have no means of counterexamining the sources of that material in order to insure its accuracy and to reply.

Yesterday the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] in his speech referred to a number of counties in which he claimed the Negro was deprived of the right to vote. There has been a great deal of scoffing at the contention that some of us have made that a great deal of the lack of voting has been due to apathy on the part of members of the colored race in respect to voting. We cannot employ an army of agents, attorneys, inspectors, and investigators and have local committees in every State and in every community of the land-as the Civil Rights Commission has, to supply information to us.

I do not contend that there have not been irregularities in registration and voting. But the cases presented are few and isolated when considered against the background of the whole picture. The South has about 10 million colored citizens and the vast majority are free to register and vote as they may desire.

The right to have one's vote fairly counted is as vital as the right to register and vote. I am convinced that if the Civil Rights Commission and the Department of Justice would devote the same amount of time and tax money to a study of election irregularities in the boss-controlled centers of population they would find as much infringement on the right of franchise of American citizens as those detailed in isolated southern communities yesterday.

Some of their statistics are false. Much of the material is misleading. But we do not have the personnel and facilities to pinpoint and prove that, though we know of our own knowledge of instances in which that is the case.

One example arose yesterday with respect to a county in North Carolina in which no Negroes reside, and in which the Civil Rights Commission has claimed discrimination exists.

The opponents of the proposed legislation must use whatever information we can obtain. I have in my hand a long article published in the New York Times on March 22 dealing with the drive to have the Negro citizens of New York registered. The headline states, "Apathy Slowing Negro Vote Drive.''

Of course, as in the case of everything considered wrong, the article blames the situation on the South though the campaign is being waged in 34 Northern States. It claims that the Negroes have no interest in voting in these States because they had not voted in the South. But the article shows that it is absolutely true that there is great apathy on the

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6759 part of members of th.J colored race even when living in the land of claimed equalities.

I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I have referred, published in the New York Times, which is in direct contradiction of the speech made by the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] yesterday, be printed in the RECORD.

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

[From New York Times, Mar. 22, 1964) APATHY SLOWING NEGRO VOTE DRIVPr-UP

ROOTING OF FAMILIES ALso CITED IN NORTH

ERN CITIES

(By Theodore Jones} Apathy and a constant uprooting of Negro

f.am.llies were described yesterday as the major problem encountered in a drive to increase the number of Negro voters in 34 Northern States.

The campaign, which involves communities from Maine to Hawaii, is being conducted by 300 local branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Its goal is to add 1 million northern Negroes to the Nation's voting rolls this year.

Calvin D. Banks, NAACP coordinator of the campaign described it yesterday as "a coldly calculated move to strengthen the political voice of the Negro in the North."

Our branches, he explained, "are approaching this challenge with great seriousness. They realize this is the key way of demonstrating real muscle in the civil rights struggle."

The execution of the campaign, Mr. Banks said, 1s being left to the local branches. Early reports, he indicated, are showing progress and pinpointing common problems.

"There is a tremendous mobility among the northern Negro," Mr. Banks said. "A search for economic stability may take the Negro family from one community to another. This makes it difficult for them to meet the residence requirements in many communities."

APATHY CALLED OBSTACLE

Apathy among many Negroes, particularly those who have migrated from the South, was also cited as an obstacle in many northern communities.

Many of these Negroes, Mr. Banks said, come from southern areas where they were threatened with violence and economic destruction if "they even thought about registering to vote."

In the North, Mr. Banks continued, "registration 1s sometimes the last thing they think about."

"Some become indifferent when they see no improvement in their economic status and take the attitude that their vote won't help things," he said. "It's these people we want to get."

Mr. Banks said that 800 Negroes had been registered in Compton, Calif., as the result of a recent weekend door-to-door canvass by the local branch there and by 125 students from the University of California.

The NAACP official said the northern drive was part of a nationwide voter registration campaign. Its efforts are being matched 1n an expanded registration drive 1n southern communities, he said.

The nationwide effort is also being coupled with the NAACP's voter education program which, according to Roy Wilkins, executive director, is laying the groundwork "for what we may have to do after the votes for and against the civil rights bill are recorded."

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, further to point out the difficulties, yesterday the news ticker showed that-

Leaders from more than 80 national organizations cooperating in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights met with Senate floor leaders at 2 p .m. to discuss the civil rights bill in S. 207, Senate Conference Room, Capitol.

That bears out the contention I have made with respect to the enormous lobby that has been assembled in an effort not only to force the bill through the Congress, but in the process to withhold from the American people every material information as to what the bill would actually do if it should be enacted.

I point out further that speaker after speaker, and all the captains of the various teams that have been assembled by the Senator from Minnesota, have been furnished with a great deal of memorandums and speech material by the De(Partment of Justice, a tax-supported agency, and nearly every one of the speakers has ref erred to a memorandum which he has that was supplied by the Department. They also have available to them the enormous resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I do not mean to imply that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would make erroneous reports, but I do say that the Attorney General can withhold such reports as may be injurious to the purposes of the supporters of the bill. I have no doubt that in many instances only information which would cast a reflection upon the southern part of the United States has been submitted.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield if he has any time remaining?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

time of the Senator from Georgia has expired. The Chair recognizes the Sen· ator from Maine.

MISS PEARL R. FISHER NAMED PRESIDENT OF NEW ENGLAND HOSPITAL ASSEMBLY Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, as a

woman, I always have a great feeling of pride in the success of another woman. I particularly feel such pride in the success of Miss Pearl R. Fisher, a registered nurse, who is the administrator of the Thayer Hospital in Waterville, Maine.

Miss Fisher became president of the New England Hospital Assembly. She has brought great pride to Maine and to women in her singular and outstanding accomplishments. She is a woman of great and distinguished achievements. I am most fortunate to count her as a personal friend.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD at this point an editorial in the March 25, 1964, issue of the Waterville, Maine, Sentinel, and two newspaper reports on Miss Fisher.

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

Wn.L BE INSTALLED TONIGHT

(Miss Pearl R. Fisher, administrator of Thayer Hospital, will be installed as president o! the New England Hospital Assembly at the group's 43d annual meeting in Boston. Some 6,JOO hospital personnel are attending the session.)

MISS FISHER HEADS HOSPITAL ASSEMBLY

In the resplendent Georgian Room of the Statler-Hilton Hotel in Boston this evening, hundreds of skilled hospital personnel from throughout New England will give their warm applause to a modest, soft-spoken woman from Maine.

It will be a big moment in the eventful career of Miss Pearl R. Fisher, administrator of Thayer Hospital in Waterville. And the tribute will be richly deserved.

For Miss Fisher tonight will be formally installed president of the New England Hospital Assembly, the largest and oldest regional hospital organization in the United States.

Some 6,000 representatives of New England hospitals will attend this 43d annual meeting, including hospital executives, physicians, nurses, trustees, technicians, auxiliaries, and many other specialists.

The presidency of such a noted organization is an honor that could well make a lesser head spin.

"Actually," says Miss Fisher, "Thayer's uniqueness 1s a combination o! many individuals and their skills and talents; an interested and informed boarcl of trustees; and outstanding, well-qualified medical staff; the Mansfield Clinic Advisory Board; and the women's auxiliary volunteers who share our interests and ideals .and give generously and unselfishly of their time and talents; and that very important group, our hospital personnel who work together as a hospital team."

"We have had a vitality that has stimulated us and kept us growing all the time," she said, citing the many programs that were pioneered at Thayer.

"When I first went to Thayer, the hospital employed only 25 people. We had nothing. We had no money. But we had a belief and faith in people. It is because of the work of many individuals that we have what we have today."

Miss Fisher's duties are principally administrative now since the hospital has grown to its present 100-bed capacity as a result of building programs in 1950 and 1957. A $3 million program now underway will enlarge tho institution by 60 beds and make possible the consolidation and expansion of laboratory facilities.

Although her schedule is an extremely busy one, the Thayer administrator admits that she has "never known what it is not to want to come to work."

Miss Fisher was only 16 when she entered nurses training at Sisters Hospital School of Nursing here.

"I wanted to be a nurse so badly it didn't seem I could get there quickly enough," she said.

A hard worker, she went to Boston following her graduation and furthered her knowledge of pediatrics and obstetrics at three hospitals there.

She came to the thriving young Thayer Hospital in 1934 and 2 years later was named its administrator, Pearl Fisher hasn't stopped working since.

Among her achievements: Recipient of honorary master's degree at

Colby College; past president of Maine Hospital Association; treasurer, program chairman, and president-elect of the New England Hospital Assembly; a fellow of the American College of Hospital Administrators and regent from New England.

Secretary of the Sisters-Thayer Hospital Council; member of executive committee of Maine Cancer Society; perceptor for Columbia University Program of Continuation Education, Hospital Administration; visiting lecturer in public health and administrative medicine at Columbia; member of Zonta International, Waterville Chapter; member of the board of directors, Maine Children's Home for Little Wanderers.

Miss Fisher is especially fond of a quotation from John Ruskin: "Quality is never an


accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. There must be a will to produce a superior thing."

It is with such a spirit that Miss Pearl H. Fisher, of Waterville, becomes president of the New England Hospital Assembly tonight.

THE LADY IN WHITE

The lady in white whose soft voice and warm smile have cheered thousands of patients at Thayer Hospital is today president of the New England Hospital Assembly.

Recognition by her colleagues in this manner is an honor well deserved by Miss Pearl Fisher, whose life has been devoted to healing.

Miss Fisher earned her cap in nursing at Sisters Hospital and since 1936 she has been administrator of Thayer Hospital helping to guide its growth from a converted wooden dwelling on Main Street to its present status as one of the outstanding small hospitals in the country.

Through that time she has done about every chore a nurse can perform, always adding to her duties that extra something that comes from within a person dedicated to a chosen field.

We join with her colleagues in Thayer and her friends at Sisters and Osteopathic Hospitals in applauding the choice of the assembly to lead the 6 ,000 hospital people who attend their deliberations.

MISS PEARL FISHER ASSUMES OFFICE AS HOS• PITAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT

BosroN.-Miss Pearl R. Fisher, administrator of the Thayer Hospital in Waterville, Maine, assumed office Tuesday as the president of the New England Hospital Assembly.

Miss Abbie E. Dunks, administrator of the Boston Dispensary was named president-elect, to take over the office next year.

Richard T. Viguers, speaking on a panel, said that patients today are demanding high standards of medical care, luxury personal services, and at the same time low costs.

He said the basic fact remains that more and better service costs more, even after making full allowances for efficiency, economy of operation, and maximum use of facilities.

Waterville Hospital officials had these comments on Miss Fisher's election:

Ralph H. Cutting, chairman of Thayer board of trustees: "Every one of us connected with Thayer Hospital is very proud of this honor that has been conferred upon Miss Fisher. We feel, too, that it is a distinction well deserved by virtue of her lifelong dedication to hospital service. Her courage and imagination in this field have gained for her national recognition as a leader in progressive hospital administration. The primary function of NEHA ls the continuing development and improvement of standards in patient care. We feel that Miss Fisher is a most appropriate choice to further these ideals."

Dr. John H. Reynolds, Thayer medical director: "We are proud and pleased that Miss Fisher has been accorded this high honor. It reflects credit, not only upon her, but upon all who are associated with her at Thayer and the community the hospital represents. We believe that her background of experience and ability will make her year as president of NEHA a fruitful one for the entire memben:hlp."

Sister Evelyn, administrator of Sisters Hospital: "The New England Hospital Assembly is indeed fortunate to have such an outstanding person as Miss Fisher as its president. Her efficiency, experience, and devotion to her chosen profession will serve her in good stead in this important position. The elevation of Miss Fisher to the presidency of such a noted hospital organization brings honor to her and to the State of Maine."

Howard N. Gray, chairman of the advisory board at Sisters Hospital: "The fine work Miss Fisher has done as administrator of Thayer Hospital is well known to us in the Greater Waterville area. We at Sisters, who are proud to have Miss Fisher as a graduate, feel equally honored with our friends at Thayer by her selection to lead the New England Assembly. Her quiet efficiency and her dedication to the art of healing will contribute much to the work of the assembly."

George R. Petty, administrator of the Waterville Osteopathic Hospital: "We, of the Waterville Osteopathic Hospital family, join with Miss Fisher's colleagues and friends in congratulating her on her election as president of the New England Hospital Assembly. It is no surprise to any of us who are aware of Miss Fisher's tremendous abilities to learn that she has been selected for this high honor."

NEED FOR REVIEW OF DECISION ON ROME, N.Y., AIR MATERIEL AREA

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Preisdent, I join my colleague [Mr. KEATING] in his protest with respect to the Rome Air Materiel Area and in the demand that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force explain to us what, according to the newspaper report in the Utica Observer Dispatch of April 1, 1964, appears to have been a political decision to move a critically important military installation from an area which is having very grave economic difficulties to another location for no reason that we have been able to discover before this small chink of light was cast upon this decision. I asked my colleague to speak first because he has taken a very keen interest in the situation, which urgently deserves it, together with Representative PIRNIE, the Congressman from the Rome, N.Y., area. We join in a solid determination to get to the bottom of what caused the critically important Rome, N.Y., installation to be moved. We do not like what we see about it now, and we shall continue to insist on an explanation of how and why this decision came about. We shall insist on an explanation which is reasonable and satisfactory, and does not have the character which seems to be intimated by the newspaper story.

The Defense Department owes us a complete explanation of what this story is all about.

PAYMENT TO SENECA INDIAN BILLH.R. 1794

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if I may have a few extra m ~nutes on one other matter, the Seneca Indian bill which was passed the other day on a call of the calendar by unanimous consent. Several Senators stated at the time that because of the absence of the chairman of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee. the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], we would not press our demands with respect to that legislation. The reason we favored the bill's passage by consent was that we thought it was in the highest interest of the Seneca Indian Nation.

As my colleagues know, on February 5 the House Interior Committee unanimously reported H R. 1794 which provided for $20,150,000 in compensation and rehabilitation funds for the Seneca

Nation. On February 7, 1964, this bill passed the House by voice vote. The House-approved bill included rehabilitation funds in the amount of $16.9 million to improve the economic, social, and educational conditions of the 4,132 enrolled members of the Seneca Nation. These funds were to be expended for the following purposes: $8 million for agricultural, commercial, and recreational development; $4,438,000 for industrial development; $1,029,000 for relocation and resettlement; $970,000 for community buildings and facilities; $2,300,-000 for an educational fund; and $194,000 for a resurvey of the congressional villages on the reservation.

The Senate Interior Committee reduced the rehabilitation funds from $16,931,000 to $6,116,550, constituting a reduction of $10,814,450. In doing so, it struck out, among other things, $2,300,-000 for an educational fund to finance a 20-year program of higher education, vocational training, and scholarship assistance to Seneca children. It also substantially reduced the funds available for industrial and recreational development, construction of community buildings, houses, roads, utilities, and sanitation facilities. The funds which were eliminated in the Senate-passed bill would most effectively be utilized by the Seneca Nation. Consequently, it is my firm belief that the substantial reduction of funds in the rehabilitation program of the Senate-passed bill is not in the best interest of the Seneca Nation of Indians.

It should be remembered that the $16.9 million rehabilitation program figure approved by the House represents a considerable reduction from the amount of $33 million which was estimated by the Brill Engineering Co., a concern retained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to study the recreational and industrial potential of the area. While the House and Senate Interior Committees did not support the proposal for the construction of a Williamsburg-type Indian village recreation area to attract tourists to the Seneca area in order to improve the economic capacity of the nation, it is clear that economic development of the reservation is vitally necessary to the nation and the surrounding communities. The longstanding need for more and better job opportunities for the Senecas will be dramatically accentuated when families move into their new communities.

I believe the House figure for rehabilitation program funds is a reasonable one and am hopeful that the conference will adopt it. The Senate committee has not even allowed $2,250 per enrolled Indian, an amount suggested by the Bureau of the Budget in its report on the bill dated February 28, 1964, and utilized by the 87th Congress in arriving at its legislative settlement for the Crow, Creek, and Lower Brule Sioux Indians, for the total enrolled membership of the Seneca Nation. The Senate committee approved the $2,250 figure for 1,103 Indians living on the Allegany Reservation directly affected by the Allegheny River flooding and $1,200 per capita to be paid to the 3,000 Senecas living off the Allegany Reservation. A formula to permit payment of $2,250 to the entire enrolled Seneca Nation presently about

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6761 4,200 members, would alone have increased funds for the rehabilitation program by approximately $3.2 million.

The Senate-passed bill also included an amendment to the House bill which would require the tribal council of the Seneca Nation to submit to the Secretary of the Interior within 2 years from the date of enactment of this legislation for the Secretary's transmittal to the Congress within 90 days, proposed legislation providing for the termination of Federal supervision over the property and affairs of the tribe and its members within a reasonable time after the submission of such proposed legislation. I have been advised by the president of the Seneca Nation, George Heron, that the nation is unalterably opposed to this amendment. The nation feels that the amendment requiring preparation of a tribal plan for termination of the special relationship between the Seneca Nation and the Federal Government, a relationship which is of great importance to the nation, was not sufficiently considered in that this matter was not previously taken up by the House or the Senate subcommittee nor considered by the full committee with the benefit of the executive agencies' positions.

Second, it is well recognized that H.R. 1794 is directed toward providing for the relocation, rehabilitation, social and economic development of the members of the Seneca Nation as compensation for the infringement by the United States of the rights of free enjoyment of the Seneca Nation's land guaranteed under article III of the 1794 Picking Treaty between the United States and the Seneca Nation. The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, it must be remembered, expressly held that the U.S. Government infringed the Nation's rights under the 1794 treaty-262 F. 2d 27 0958), cert. den., 360 U.S. 909 0959). Under these circumstances, to convert this compensation bill by a termination amendment into a vehicle for doing away with the obligation of the United States to the Seneca Nation is literally to add insult to injury. Although the Senate committee report states that the tribe's plan and proposed legislation will be the subject of committee hearings before a final program is enacted, the committee report also states that the intent of the amendment was "that the Federal Government may withdraw from supervision of the tribe altogether at some time in the near future."

The Seneca Nation fears that the termination of the Federal Government's special relationship with it will mean that the Congress, consistent with former termination statutes, will subsequently enact some or all of the following provisions: First, repeal of the tax exemption for Seneca lands, under Federal law; second, lifting the Federal restrictions on alienation of tribal lands, thus opening up the Seneca reservations to sale to commercial interests and State condemnation; third, termination of reservation hunting and fishing rights enjoyed by the Seneca Indians; and fourth, total abrogation of the 1794 treaty. The Seneca Nation is vigorously opposed to the loss of any of these rights.

Third, with respect to the termination amendment, I wish to point out that if this amendment is intended to end the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs for the Senecas, it is unnecessary in view of the fact that the Bureau has not maintained an office or otherwise carried out activities in New York since 1949. If the intent of the amendment, as the committee report indicates, is to destroy the special relationship between the Federal Government and the Seneca Nation, the Seneca Nation, as I have stated before, is unalterably opposed. In view of these objections to the termination amendment, I urge the conferees to eliminate section 18 of H.R. 1794.

In view of the urgency for a legislative remedy, it is hoped that this bill will go to conference soon. I believe the injustices which remain in the bill can be corrected by the conferees. My purpose in speaking today is to place facts in the RECORD with the hope that these injustices may be corrected.

The U.S. Congress owes a deep sense of moral responsibility to the Seneca Nation. During the debate on the fiscal year 1958 appropriation of funds for the Kinzua Dam in the 85th Congress, 1st session, my former colleague from New York, Senator Ives, and I, expressed our concern over the moral responsibility which we believed the Congress assumed with respect to assisting the Seneca Nation. Our late President Kennedy felt this deep responsibility for the relocation of the Seneca Nation, resulting from the Kinzua Dam construction, and in August 1961 pledged the Federal Government to assist the Seneca Nation "in every proper way to make the adjustment as fair and orderly as possible." I am confident that the Congress will live up to this pledge and will honorably fulfill the obligation which the United States owes to the Seneca Nation.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I 1 suggest the absence of a quorum--

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold the suggestion?

Mr. IDLL. I withhold it. Mr. KEATING. I have spoken in the

morning hour once, but if there are no other Senators who seek recognition in the morning hour, I wish to spend a moment or two on the subject of the Seneca Indians.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the circumstances that bring this bill before the Congress are well known, and I need not bring them again to the attention of my colleagues. Briefly, land has been taken from the Seneca Nation of Indians in violation of a treaty signed in 1794, in order to build the Kinzua Dam. A single building season remains before the waters of the dam will flood Indian lands, and yet the money to provide compensation and facilitate relocation of the Senecas has not yet been appropriated. The Indian cannot even borrow money to move their belongings and build new homes until the compensation bill is :finally approved.

Last February, the House passed a bill authorizing the payment of $20,150,000 to the Senecas. Of this figure, $1,289,060

is for direct damages, $1,033,275 is for indirect damages, and the bulk of the remainder $16,931,000 is for rehabilitation. This rehabilitation fund was developed after careful study of the best means of providing a firm base for the Seneca economy which will be greatly disturbed, if not destroyed, by the construction of the dam. Eight million dollars will be allocated for agricultural, commercial, and recreational development, and approximately $4 ½ million will be used for the construction of an industrial park in the vicinity of the reservation. These figures represent a considerable reduction in the original proposal for a $29 million rehabilitation fund. The final figure in the House bill takes into account the congressional precedent for establishing large rehabilitation funds in Indian compensation cases. It is, in my judgment, a fair figure and the minimum amount necessary to make the Seneca economy viable after the dam is constructed. The remainder of the $16 million will be used for an educational fund for Seneca children, and for relocation, resettlement, and construction of new community buildings and facilities.

Earlier this week, the Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 1794, which reduced the total funds to $9,126,550. In arriving at this figure, the Senate committee relied on two recent precedents, the Crow Creek and Lower Brule cases, and applied the same formula-that is, a certain ·fixed figure multiplied by the number of enrolled members of the tribe-to the Seneca case. It is to be hoped, however, that the conf·erees will consider, not the simple formula or the cold figures, but the programs which have been developed and the funds which will be needed to make rehabilitation meaningful.

One treaty has already been broken with these Indians, Mr. President. We must not again break faith with them by providing a sum for compensation which will not accomplish full rehabilitation. If more money is needed for the Senecas than was sufficient for other tribes, that is due to circumstances of the surrounding economy which cannot be controlled. We must not forget that this Indian nation was given a second promise by President Kennedy, who pledged meaningful rehabilitation funds. We must not allow that pledge to be abrogated. It has been said that broken treaties come high, and it is the opinion of most Americans that they should. It is my earnest hope that the SenateHouse conferees will rectify the inadequacies in the Senate bill and allow a figure more nearly consonant with justice to this injured nation.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I wish briefly but very wholeheartedly to concur in the statements made by the Senators from New York in this matter. I have been a cosponsor with them of the legislation. It seems to me that this great Government of ours could do no less than treat the Indian nation in a much fairer way than has been done by the action taken by Congress. I hope that in conference the legislation will be rectified.

6762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE April 2

A SIXTH STAR F'OR GEN. DOUGLAS MACARTHUR

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, all the American people, as well as other people of the world, view with sadness and deep concern the apparently losing struggle being made by that distinguished soldier, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, to overcome his illness. We hope and pray that he may still be given some time in this world, but there is at least the possibility that he will not.

In the hands of the Committee on Armed Services is a bill (8. 2396), of which I am a cosponsor, conferring upon General MacArthur the title of General of the Armies. It is my understanding that action on the bill has been withheld because of the fact that to take it up might bring up similar suggestions that have been made with regard to other distinguished soldiers: General Marshall, who, I believe, was then alive; and the distinguished ex-President of the United States, that great soldier, General Eisenhower.

However, under the circumstances that now prevail, as we are perhaps preparing to bid farewell to a man whose career has been almost unique in the annals of American military history, :.t would seem to me that without offense or reflection upon anyone else the Armed Services Committee might see fit to consider that bill. I believe there could be no more appropriate action by Congress than to confer this honor upon General MacArthur, just as it was conferred upon General Pershing during the last days of his life and during his last illness.

Therefore, I rise to call this matter to the attention of the Armed Services Committee; and I regret that the distinguished chairman of the committee is not in the Chamber. I express the hope that immediate consideration may be given to this subject.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Hampshire leaves the floor, I should like to call his attention to the fact that I heartily commend him on his remarks and support him in what he has said about that great man who is now desperately ill at Walter Reed Hospital, Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

I am a cosponsor of the bill to confer on General MacArthur the title of General of the Armies of the United States, making him a six-star general. I fervently hope that the suggestion of the Senator from New Hampshire will be followed, and that Congress will act to confer this well deserved honor on that great American. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate.

THE GREATEST NATURAL DISASTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY: THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the

unprecedented and unparalleled disaster wrought in Alaska by an earthquake of previously unequaled intensity and extent and the resulting tidal waves, grows in magnitude. The casualty lists are mounting as human bodies are discovered in collapsed buildings and the reports from smaller outlying :fishing com-

munities come in. It is undoubtedly the worst disaster that has afflicted any State of the Union since the beginning of our Nation's history.

I cannot commend too highly the instant and continuing concern which President Lyndon Johnson has shown from the minute that he was apprised of this mammoth catastrophe late last Friday night. Immediately he mobilized the Office of Emergency Planning and sent its capable director Ed McDermott to Alaska. My colleague Senator BARTLETT and I and staff members as well as press representatives accompanied him.

Yesterday we were all called into conference by President Johnson along with Budget Director Kermit Gordon, Assistant Director Elmer Staats, Ed McDermott and his assistant Justice Chambers, Leigh White of the White House staff-and plans for both immediate and long-range action formulated. President Johnson's deep interest and concern were manifested by the fact that our conference lasted an hour and a half.

Because of the historic and unprecedented nature of this disaster and its far-reaching effects I believe it desirable that an adequate record be kept in the official Journal of the Congress. I therefore ask unanimous consent that articles reporting on various aspects of this catastrophe from Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Star, the Washington News, the Drug News Weekly, the Home Furnishings Daily, the Women's Wear Daily, the Daily News Record, and the Anchorage Times which after an interruption of 2 days because the earthquake shut off power in Anchorage resumed publication on Monday last, be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

[From the November National Affairs] HELL ON GOOD FRIDAY

In the crisp, cold dusk of Good Friday, the streets of downtown Anchorage, Alaska, were alive with shoppers and strollers and motorists headed home after work for the Easter weekend. Then, suddenly, the ground was bucking underfoot and the street was splitting into crevices two blocks long and the spanking new J.C. Penney building was falling down. And when it was over, downtown Anchorage was gone.

It was a shock heard round the worlda roaring, rumbling earthquake that wrought splintering havoc in southern Alaska, set deadly tidal waves raging down the western rim of the continent, and jarred seismograph needles off their tracks on the other side of the world.

By the cool measure of science, the great Alaska quake of 1964 approached or touched the 8.6 rating at the outer limit of the Richter scale--the yardstick by which the seismic upheavals of the earth are ranked. By the cruel measure of sheer destructive force that placed it alongside the 1906 San Francisco quake (Richter rating: 8.25) as the worst in U.S. history. By a more modern gage, it loosed energy equivalent to 10 million Hiroshima-vintage atomic bombs.

TEMBLOR SCARRED The heart of the quake was 100 miles to

tho southeast, 30 to 60 miles below the earth's surface on the shores of Prince William Sound. That was earthquake country, the temblor-scarred region of the Fair-

weather Fault; a shift along that fault Une had set off a 7-magnitude quake and churned up a tidal wave in Lituya Bay 6 years ago. But the new quake was of a deadlier magnitude. Its tremors were felt as far south as Seattle; its spawn of tidal waves dashed at 400 to 600 miles an hour down the coast to California ~nd across the Pacific to Ha.wall.

Bustling Anchorage, Alaska's biggest city (population, 48,000) was hit hardest. Buildings over most of 14 blocks crumbled, remaining as twisted litter among table-size chunks of earth that thrust upward like eerie toadstools. Anchorage Daily Times Editor Robert B. Atwood watched his house wrenched apart as though in a gigantic taffy pull. Teenager Sam Krogstad's Volkswagen was catapulted from his driveway to a neighbor's yard-with him at the wheel. "It was the fastest parking I ever did," he said. Streets split into chasms 10 feet deep, 60 wide. Water mains, gas pipes, power and phone lines broke. Anchorage airport runways buckled like thin piecrust as the 60-foot control tower crumbled like an erector set under an elephant's hoof.

SEALED OFP

Powerless save for candles, waterless save for melted snow, nearly heatless in subfreezing weather, Anchorage was sealed off through the long Good Friday night. Next morning rescuemen began the task of caring for the living, saving until later the grim chore of counting the casualties, a tally some feared might reach hundreds.

Far beyond Anchorage swept the quake's lethal forces. Ruptured oil tanks ignited and set little Seward ablaze-ending its plans to celebrate an All America City Award. Newsmen flying in saw nearby Valdez as only a black scar marked by a spiral of dirty smoke against a backdrop of snow-draped mountains. A Valdez dock had collapsed, spilling some 30 persons into the sea. A 17-foot tidal wave demolished the downtown section of the island city of Kodiak. A neighboring fishing village was reported simply gone. Far down the Pacific coast, four members of a family disappeared to sea off a beach at Depoe Bay, Oreg. And at Crescent City, Calif., a 12-foot tidal wave dashed four downtown blocks to rubble, killing at least half a dozen.

The grim dispatches quickly reached the LBJ Ranch in Texas. The President-spending the weekend in retreat from the press of Washington business-was awakened twice during the night with the news, in the morning he declared stricken Alaska officially a disaster area. It was worse than that; worn, unshaven and haggard after 24 hours' emergency duty, an Anchorage cop shook his head sadly and said: "It was hell."

[From the New York Times] ALASKA Wn.L REQUEST $500 Mn.LION IN F'ED•

ERAL Am (By Lawrence E. Davies)

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 1.-Gov. William A. Egan expects to fly to Washington early next week to seek President Johnson's support for Federal grants totaling nearly $500 m1llion.

The money would be used to rehab111tate both the public and private sectors of the economy of Alaska, stricken last Friday by a disastrous earthquake and tidal waves.

The Governor voiced confidence that a huge rebuilding program, given sufficient financial backing, could get underway at the start of the summer construction period, normally May 1. Private builders agreed.

Enough construction materials were on hand in Anchorage to build about 200 homes, Mr. Egan said. He said there would be no problem in bringing in materials by ship to keep the program operating at high speed during the short summer and fall construction season.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6763 Residential construction appeared likely

to have a high priority in view of the hundreds of fam111es left homeless in Anchorage alone. Many of these have moved in with friends. Others snatched up vacant apartments, which had stood as testimonial to a construction program that had given the city a preearthquake housing surplus.

APARTMENTS RENT QUICKLY

George Muir, a painting contractor who owns an apartment house, said, "I had fl.VP! vacancies out of eight apartments. All were filled up on Easter morning in 2 hours."

Mr. Eagan, at a news conference in his trailer office here said that temporary piers could be fashioned by the time new facmtles were planned for towns like Valdez, Seward, and Kodiak. Despite lee in Cook Inlet, ships are now able to put in at Anchorage.

RISE IN COSTS DOUBLED

Suggestions that inflationary costs in materials might result from the heavy postearthquake demand were discounted in most quarters.

"From what I have seen," the Governor said, "the tendency on the part of suppliers, contractors and so on is the other way."

Labor and material costs in the 49th State are already 25 to 30 percent higher than those in the other 48 mainland States.

Theoretically, Anchorage, the State's metropolis with an area population approaching 100,000 has become a city planners' paradise.

Without doubt, when an extensive seismic survey is completed in 2 or 3 weeks by teams of the U.S. Geologic Survey, some parts of the city will be barred from future bulldlng. Already scores of buildings stm standing in the downtown section have been posted for demolition. A new city pattern is called for, according to some officials.

CAN'T WAIT FOR STUDIES Mr. Schoop acknowledged that "we w1ll

have an opportunity to perhaps plan a more efficient community."

"But," he said, "there ls going to be a tremendous surge of rebulldlng and I don't think it's going to wait for planning studies. However, where the studies indicate ground is unstable, we will have to plan more suitable use of areas."

Mr. Schoop said that he and his staff were working now on "How to shJft our land development pattern if we have to abandon certain areas."

He suggested that there might have to be a slight shift of part of the downtown area. but foresaw no abandonment of the present city core.

"It would take a tremendous lot of convincing of a lot of people to get them to give up rebuilding on land in which they have heavy investments," he said.

Mr. Schoop said that Anchorage's building codes were "fine." What ls needed, he suggested, ls provision for foundation studies to be made by builders before putting up business structures.

He had in mind the kind of study made for Walter J. Hickel, Anchorage builder, financier and motel owner, in 1959 by Shannon & Wilson, soil engineers, and the Arctic Testing Laboratories.

Mr. Hickel at that time was planning a 14-story Captain Cook Hotel and Office Building, to cover 2 blocks on Third Avenue.

"I paid more than $25,000 out of my own pocket for thP study," Mr. Hickel related, "but it wm be worth it when I build. There's no problem here from earthquakes; it's just a matter of proper design."

He said the design emphasizes the building's base. If a building, for example, was to weigh 500 tons, then 500 tons of earth would be excavated so that the weight on the earth after construction would be no greater than before.

"To give equal pressure on the earth, the building should sit on a pad instead of a normal foundation," Mr. Hickel said. "If a building ls 10 by 50 feet, the pad is 12 feet larger than that all the way around. For a building of 14 stories the pad is 3 feet thick, interwoven with 1-inch reinforcing steel. That pad is capable of carrying any portion of that building and it carries the whole building in unison in event of an earthquake. It's as simple as that."

FAULT CLEARLY DEFINED Mr. Hickel said the 1959 study showed

where the Anchorage earth fault lay. One part of the fault, as any visitor to Anchorage today can see, stretches along the north side of Fourth Avenue, the main downtown thoroughfare. The earth there sank 20 to 30 feet, carrying buildings down with it.

"You would have to be a complete ignoramus not to listen to the geologists' report," Mr. Hickel said, "but you have to be practical as well. If the city were to be moved, it would die. We should rebuild right here. I plan to have a major building program this summer and one of the banks ls going to announce a 10-story office building this summer. I'd like to go ahead with the Captain Cook of 14 stories, but if I don't do that I'll build an 8-story building on Fourth Avenue."

Mr. Schoop said that in the rebuilding "we'll be making up for 15 years of construction in 2 to 3 years."

Present-day Anchorage ls a product of the postwar period. It was a town of 3,500 when the war began.

L.B.J. NAMES UNIT To PLAN ALASKA Am: WILL AsK CONGRESS To ADD $50 MILLION IN DlsASTER RELIEF

(By Carroll Kilpatrick) President Johnson yesterday named a spe

cial Commission to plan Alaskan rehab111tation and announced that he would ask Congress for an additional $50 million for emergency public relief.

Alaska's two Senators, who conferred with the President for nearly 2 hours, said they would urge a Federal long-range contribution of up to a half billion dollars to help individuals and businesses recover from losses in the earthquake.

During the White House meeting with Senators E. L. BARTLET!' and ERNEST GRUENING, both Democrats, the President conferred by telephone with Alaska's Gov. William A. Egan, who agreed to name a State commission to work with the President's Commission.

MEET NEXT WEEK

The two groups will meet with Egan and with senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Democrat, of New Mexico. ANDERSON was named Chairman of the U.S. body, which wm be called the Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commisison for Alaska.

In Alaska yesterday, unsolicited funds were reported pouring into the State from individual donors. Businesses in other States were extending automatic credit.

Egan said the damage figure of $500 million was about right. He said he was considering calling a special session of the legislature in September to discuss taxes, but he emphasized the need for a Federal grant to save the State and its citizens from bankruptcy.

The White House released the text of a telegram from Soviet Premier Khrushchev to President Johnson expressing the Soviet people's sympathy for the victims of the earthquake.

"In connection with the grave natural calamity that befell neighboring Alaska," Khrushchev said, "I ask you, Mr. President, to accept our profound sympathy and to convey the Soviet people's sincere condolences to the population of the affected State."

Alaska's Senators emphasized that emergency Federal aid under existing procedures would never meet Alaska's needs.

When the President designates a disaster area, he ls authorized to make emergency funds available for various public needs. These include road repair, health requirements, and the rebuilding of publlc fac111-ties.

GRUENING and BARTLE'rl' said so many homes and businesses were wiped out that the Federal Government ought to break precedent and make direct grants to individuals.

There is no authority under present law for such a program. The White House press secretary, George E. Reedy, refused to discuss the posslbllity of massive Federal action but said the President's Commission would be empowered to consider all possib111tles and make recommendations.

GRUENING and BARTLETI' explained that nearly all small boats in Alaskan waters were lost and that the fishing fleet would have to be replaced if an important Alaskan industry was to work this year.

They said the damage to the Alaska Railroad, operated by the Interior Department, was estimated at more than $20 m1111on.

They estimated the damage caused to Alaska's roads at more than $100 million.

Many factories, office buildings, docks, and homes were completely destroyed, they said.

GRUENING said, "We feel we must go beyond the old concept" of aid for public enterprises and help individuals and businesses. "This is the worst disaster that has ever hit any State of the Union. The whole area has been practically knocked out."

In addition to Chairman Anderson, the President designated as members of the new Federal Commission the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Commerce, Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, as well as the Administrators of the Federal Aviation Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Emergency Planning, and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission.

At the meeting with the President and the Alaska Senators were Edward A. McDermott, Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, and Budget Director Kermit Gordon.

McDermott presented to the President reports of various Government agencies giving estimates of damage in their areas of responsibility and describing what they can do to help.

Before announcing the appointment of the Commission, the President conferred by telephone with Democratic and Republican leaders at the Capitol.

TOLL IN ALASKA STILL UNCERTAIN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 1.-Casualty

figures from last weekend's earthquake and sea waves were still undetermined. Gathered independently by various State agencies, they changed constantly.

It might be weeks before an accurate count of the dead can be obtained.

State civil defense said its count for all of Alaska showed 19 dead and 77 missing and presumed dead, plus 55 injured.

The Coast Guard had one death-at its Cape St. Elias Station, which was not included in the civil defense figures. There were unofficial reports of single deaths elsewhere.

In addition, there were unofficial reports of 31 persons missing, including 23 at Chenega, 5 at Port Ashton, and 3 at Port Nell1e Juan.

LUCKIEST Guy IN THE WORLD, SAYS ALASKA SURVIVOR

(By George Lardner, Jr.) ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 1.-"We'll prob

ably be in temporary quarters for about a year, but I'm the luckiest guy that ever lived. I haven't got a scratch."


Bruce Kendall, Republican, of Anchorage, Speaker of the Alaska House, is Just one of the hundreds driven from their homes by last week's earthquake.

A hotel owner, he has more resources than the average Alaskan, but his determination is about par for the course.

"We're not a bunch of ribbon clerks," he said.

"Ninety-nine percent of the men up here, I'd say, are familiar with tools. And our women aren't afraid to split wood either."

The quake made Kendall's $41,500 home at Eighth Avenue and O Street a candidate for the scrap pile.

"It raised it 4 feet in the center and gave it a gentle 20° twist,'' he said.

"I lose $19,000 right now. That's my equity. I'm not counting personal belongings.

"Me and that mortgagor have about an equal loss,'' Kendall grinned. "Except that he's got the privilege of clearing the house away."

The home was the result of 24 years work, Kendall said. "I spent $10,000 to $11,000 last summer getting it Just the way I wanted it."

A plain-spoken, self-reliant businessman, Kendall had $8.50 in his pockets when he came to Alaska at 19.

"My first job was on the steamer Alice. It was a riverboat run by the Alaska Railroad. I was a wood burner, a fireman."

Now he owns the Theodore Roosevelt Hotel in Anchorage, which escaped damage, he said. "Not even a light bulb was busted."

That's where he is staying with his wife and two children, who all came through the quake uninjured.

Countless others are being housed by friends throughout the State. Still others are in motels and hotels. The Red cross pays the bills for those who have no money.

Some have found other housing already. Schools and community centers are caring for more.

Donations of building materials are coming in to help with reconstruction. The Federal Housing Administration has announced it will automatically approve requests by lenders for a moratorium on FHA mortgage payments if defaults result from the earthquake.

Special rehabilitation, repair and newhome loans can also be obtained from the FHA.

No one knows how long the Job will take, but Kendall was optimistic.

"The cooperative spirit of Alaskans is absolutely phenomenal,'' he said.

JOHNSON WILL AsK EARLY ALASKA AID: $60 MILLION FOR EMERGENCY SOUGHT-FEDERAL PANEL ON RECONSTRUCTION SET UP

(By Hendrick Smith) WASHINGTON, April 1.-President Johnson

will ask Congress this week for $50 million in new emergency funds for Alaskan earthquake relief, the White House said tonight.

George Reedy, the White House press secretary, also disclosed that the President was establishing a Federal commission to draw up recommendations for the long-range reconstruction of Alaska's crippled economy.

There were indications that setting up this commission to lead the Federal Government toward a new concept of disaster relief, possibly including direct grants to private businesses wiped out by such wholesale disasters as the earthquake last Friday.

Mr. Reedy said the Government was moving as quickly as possible to help Alaska rebound from the disaster. He said the request for supplementary appropriations for the President's disaster funds would be sent to Congress in "the next day or two."

"It will go up rapidly," he said. He said that the new Federal Reconstruc

tion and Development Planning Commission

for Alaska would be established shortly by Executive order.

The group, to be headed by Senator CLIN• TON P. ANDERSON, Democrat, of New Mexico, is scheduled to meet next week with a State commission to be named by Gov. William A. Egan of Alaska.

The White House announcement followed Mr. Johnson's 2-hour meeting this morning with top White House aids and Alaska's two Senators.

During the session, the President telephoned Governor Egan at Anchorage to discuss the situation in Alaska. He also heard a report from Edward A. McDermott, Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, who has returned from Alaska. Mr. McDermott has been designated to coordinate the Federal relief program.

Afterward, Senators ERNEST GRUENING and E. L. BARTLE'IT, of Alaska, told newsmen that they estimated $500 million in Federal aid would be needed to put Alaska's economy back on its feet.

Both advocated a new concept of Federal emergency relief, including direct grants to private businesses and individuals who were economically wiped out by the earthquake.

"This has been the worst disaster that has struck any State of the Union,'' Senator GRUENING declared. "This has taken the heart of our economy. You have a situation where people have lost their homes, have lost their businesses.

"There are inadequate resources within the State to finance the long-range reconstruction,'' he said. "There is no alternative to the Federal Government," he said.

The Senators said that Federal assistance would definitely be needed to restore port facilities, the fishing fleet, and the canneries upon which many Alaskan wage earners depend.

White House sources said the type of assistance envisaged by the two Alaskan Senators would probably require new legislation. Mr. Reedy said it would be up to the new Federal Commission to recommend such legislation if it felt the measures were needed.

Under the Federal Disaster Act of 1950, the President is authorized to provide money for State and local governments to clear debris, repair local roads, and restore public utilities after a national disaster.

Although some loans are available for private enterprise through such agencies as the Small Business Administration, no outright Federal grants to private enterprise are provided.

Since the Federal Disaster Act was passed, more than $210 million in Federal funds has been provided, most recently for damage caused by flooding along the Ohio River.

Although the fund normally has a $20 million revolving reserve, officials said today the reserve was down to about $14 million. That is why the request for $60 million more is necessary, they said.

Mr. Reedy said it was the administration's intention that the entire $60 million be available for Alaskan relief.

Officials said that other relief funds were available through individual Government agencies, such as the Department of the Interior, which operates the severely dam.aged Alaskan Railway.

[From the Washington Star, Apr. 1, 1964} DEATH FIGURES SEESAW IN ALASKA QUAKE

WAKE

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 1.-The terror of earthquake and tidal wave was reflected today in seesawing casualty figures and pledges of help for stricken south central Alaska.

The toll of dead and presumed dead changed almost hourly. The Alaska emergency health office took over coordination of figures, but its lists-like those of other State agencies which earlier counted independently--did not include a number of unofficial deaths.

It might be weeks before an accurate total is obtained.

The health office tally showed 24 dead and 79 presumed dead, plus 55 injured. The known and presumed dead figures were up seven from a State civil defense total last night.

Omitted from the count was a Coast Guard reported death at its Cape Elias station on Kayak Island. No effort was made to check deaths in the Turnagain suburb of Anchorage, where much of the residential area tumbled into the bay, destroying numerous homes. There was word of at least one death in Turnagain.

THmTY-ONE NOT IN LIST MISSING Additionally, unofficial reports listed 31

persons missing who did not show on the health office list, including 23 at Chenega, 5 at Port Ashton, and 3 at Port Nellie Juan.

In Washington, Federal agencies charged with meeting the emergencies of natural disaster were under orders from President Johnson to hurry relief. Supplies were being rushed in a giant airlift by military and commercial planes.

The Air Force, Navy, and Military Air Transport Service flew to both Anchorage and Kodiak. Four commercial airline&Northwest, Alaska, Pacific Northern, and Pan American-carried tons of food, hardware, and clothing.

RELIEF MEASURES ASSURED Edward A. McDermott, the President's Di

rector of Emergency Planning, was attempting to determine how much Federal relief could be made available under existing programs and what new legislation would be required to restore the State stricken by the tremblor and sea waves.

Representative PELLY, Republican, of Washington, said he would offer legislation to permit the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to lease or purchase fishing boats along the Pacific coast for fishermen in the disaster area.

Alaska Gov. William A. Egan said it might be necessary to call a special session of the State legislature next fall to meet problems of reduced tax income and increased State spending resulting from the tragedy.

BODY IN RECESS NOW The legislature recessed last Friday night

after the quake. It was scheduled to resume next Friday, but Governor Egan said the reopening might have to be delayed.

The State Democratic convention, scheduled for Fairbanks next weekend, already has been postponed indefinitely.

"In the latter part of September or October, we might have a clear picture of the State and its tax picture," the Governor said. "Then it might be necessary to call a special session, but not before then."

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 1964} ONCE-BRIGHT ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CRUSHED

BY ALASKAN QUAKE (By Ward Sims)

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, March 31.-The earthquake and sea waves that battered the major centers of south-central Alaska on Friday dealt a orushing blow to the economy of this young State.

Alaska was looking forward to a banner tourist season, with the Southeast Marine Highway (ferry) system in full operation.

Business conditions were steadily improving. The outlook for the fishing industry, one of the most important segments of the State's economic base, was very promising after last year's dismal results in the important Bristol Bay red salmon fishery.

Then came the earthquake. The private economy reeled, and so did

that of the State government. The major setback to the government will

come through loss of individual and corpo-

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6765 rate income taxes, business license taxes, and raw fish taxes.

What the total drop in revenue will be, no one is prepared to state at this time. The closest thing to an estimate was made by Robert D. Stevenson, State commissioner of revenue.

Meeting with a joint senate-house finance committee in emergency session at Juneau, Stevenson said in reply to a question that the result could be a 20-percent drop in the State's income expectations in fiscal 1964-65.

For a State that had estimated its general fund revenues at a modest $62,158,319 during the 12 months starting next July, this could be a critical loss.

Gov. William A. Egan had proposed a budget of $140,384,150-a budget not yet finally approved by the legislature. It included $80,424,900 in State dollars, including $75,-996,190 from the basic general fund.

Egan proposed that the difference between the estimated general fund revenue and expenditures be made up by tapping an estimated general fund balance of $17,679,873, which he had predicted would be available next July 1.

The almost certain large reduction in tax revenues could be staggering 1n relation to the size of the budget.

In Washington, where some sort of drastic special congressional aid was under consideration, it was pointed out that individual taxpayers could write off casualty losses in their 1963 returns.

The State's net income tax for 1963 1s pegged to the Federal tax-16 percent of the Federal tax for an individual and 18 percent for a corporation-so it is highly unlikely that the State income tax revenue will come near the $13.9 million forecast for the current fl.seal year.

At the Juneau committee conference Monday, Floyd Guertin, Commissioner of Administration, said he understood no legislative action is needed for receipt of Federal aid funds.

He also said the legislature could authorize either general service bonds or revenue bonds for meeting natural disasters without approval of the voters.

The committee asked him to get a legal opinion on these points.

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 1964] .ARLINGTON MAN'S FIANCE DESCRmES TRYING

To DRIVE DURING EARTHQUAKE

Jacqueline Brock, 23, :flance of an Arlington man, thought she was getting a :flat tire last Friday as she drove from Anchorage to a nearby Army base to attend Mass with her future husband. She later found herself alone in the midst of a great earthquake.

In a letter received yesterday by her flance's parents, retired Army Col. and Mrs. Thomas H. Magness, Jr., of Arlington, Miss Brock, of Umatilla, Fla., wrote:

"The car began wobbling, and I thought the wheels must be on a ridge of ice. So I steered differently but the wobbling only got worse.

"I then decided it was a flat tire, pulled off the road and cut off the ignition. By this time I decided that something freakish was wrong with the car, that it was going to explode and I wasn't about to be in it when it happened.

"I leaped out onto the highway only to discover I couldn't stand up. I didn't want to faint in the middle of the road so I crawled back into the car. It was not until then that I saw the trees and telephone poles swaying and the road opened up in front of me. Then I realized what was happening.

"The car almost turned over and I was bouncing from door to door. Then just as suddenly as it had begun, it stopped and all was calm. When my legs stopped shaking

enough to drive, I came on out and we went to Mass."

Miss Brock's flance, Lt. Charles Magness, is stationed with Army Aviation at Fort Richardson, about 8 miles from Anchorage. They met and became engaged in Anchorage, where she is a teacher.

Of him, Miss Brock wrote: "When the quake struck, 'Bucky' (his nickname) was in the BOQ waiting for me to get there so we could attend Mass. I was late so he was in the process of leaving me a note saying that he had gone on and to meet him there.

"Then all havoc broke out for 2½ minutes which seemed like 2½ hours. He stood in the door and tried to hold on as everything :flew from the walls and the shelves and the walls swayed. The only damage to his room was a broken mirror, and thank goodness he was unhurt."

[From the Washington Daily News, Apr. 1, 1964]

STOICISM AND LOVE IN ALASKA-THEY KNOW NATURE'S Two FACES WELL

(By Milton Britten) ANCHORAGE, April 1.-This savage country

makes stoic people. They accept the majestic and cruel indifference of nature matter of factly.

During earthquake and tidal flood the heroism of Alaskans has been quiet, with a personal discipline almost incredible.

Thus Bill Waldron, red-eyed, unshaved mission commander of the Civil Air Patrol, says calmly from his Anchorage headquarters:

"I'm in the ready-Inix concrete businessor was before the quake came. But our block plant is still up so maybe we'll be able to help rebuild."

SMALL CRAFT

Meanwhile, he dispatches small craft to Moose Pass, Kenai, Nikishki and nameless areas where isolated homesteaders or miners might be in trouble.

A large "I" marked in the snow as a signal would mean injury. Two "I's" would mean medical supplies needed. "F" would indicate food shortage. But, he reported, the checks thus far had turned up only "LL"all right.

Alaskans do not toy with nature. CWO Craig R. Burroughs, a slim, dark Army flier from San Diego, knows this .

Piloting a six-place single-engine Otter from nearby Fort Richardson, he avoided a direct due-east flight in tricky weather from battered Anchorage to ruined Valdez.

CRAGS

Instead, with newsmen aboard, he flew a triangular pattern northeast to Glennallen, then southeast toward Valdez, up from Anchorage through Chickaloon Pass, following the highway and the Knik River, over the blue, ages-old Matanuska Glacier, threading through endless snow-toothed crags-some higher than the plane-and finally over the vast, flat copper valley to Glennallen; then southeast back toward the Chugach Range for 20 minutes before he turned back to Glennallen.

There he ran into a "whiteout." That means visibility is so poor the naked

eye can no longer distinguish between cloud and snow-capped crag ahead. To continue would have been a gamble more foolish than brave. Nature holds all the aces here. Alaskans accept this.

DOGS But if they hold nature in awed respect,

they also love it and its creatures. Emergency radio messages carry offers to house not only people but their dogs. In the Anchorage Police Station a homeless oldster snoozes, his dog on his lap; and at Glennallen, a boy and his dog caused a family crisis.

They were refugees from Valdez, an injured mother on crutches urging her son

toward a bus that would take them to Fairbanks and from there by plane outside the disaster area.

The boy held a long-haired little dog on a leash. If he went, he insisted the dog must go too. The mother cried and pleaded. An older sister who wanted to stay behind promised to keep the dog. The boy said the dog wouldn't eat. The wrangling continued with all boarding the bus-mother, boy, sister-and the dog.

Something of Alaskans' love and awe for nature seems to have rubbed off on a young Minnesota family encountered on the highway north of Valdez. Dennis Linehan, 23, with wife, Marianne and daughter, Debra, 3, said they were the last people to leave the Valdez dock alive, moments before the quake swallowed it.

LIKE A DREAM Mr. Linehan said: "We had friends up here. We thought

we'd like to move here. On the dock at Valdez we parked and watched the ship being unloaded.

"There were people on the dock and a guy with a forklift truck had just passed the car and headed farther out on the dock. I suggested we leave and go up town.

"Just as we left the platform, I heard people shout 'earthquake,• and the dock rumbled and water gushed up and the guy with the forklift and everything were gone. We let an Indian man sleep in our car that night.

"It was like a dream. It made me wonder about living in Alaska but I still want to."

(From the Washington Daily News, Apr. 1, 1964)

L.B.J. PuSHES ALASKA AID

President Johnson returned to his White House desk today to catch up on business that accumulated during his 5-day Easter vacation at his Texas ranch.

High on the President's agenda was a speedup in Federal aid to earthquake victims in Alaska. He was expected to confer with Edward A. McDermott, Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, on the relief efforts.

HONORARY DEGREE Mrs. Johnson, who received an honorary

degree of doctor of laws yesterday from Texas Women's University in Denton, accompanied the President back to Washington.

The President ordered the speedup in aid to Alaska in a directive he issued shortly before leaving Texas last night. He told Mr. McDermott to speed action as rapidly as possible.

Press Secretary George E. Reedy said that Mr. McDermott had asked 16 or 17 Government agencies to submit "a detailed statement or" what they believe they can do under existing statutory authority to aid in the rehabilitation and recovery effort."

Mr. Johnson kept in close touch with the Alaska situation during his absence from Washintgon. Brig. Gen. 0. F. Lassiter, Chief of the Air Force Command post in the Pentagon, flew to the LBJ Ranch yesterday to brief the President on Alaskan developments.

General Lassiter brought with him aerial photographs of the earthquake damage. The photographs were taken around Anchorage, Seward, Valdez, and Kodiak.

Mr. McDermott asked the Federal agencies to give him an estimate of funds required to carry out actions they could take to aid the victims. He said previously that the damage in Alaska would total $350 million to $500 million.

[From the Washington Daily News, Apr. 1, 1964)

KHRUSH SENDS REGRETS ON ALASKA

Moscow, April 1.--SOviet Premier Khrushchev has sent President Johnson a message


Of sympathy on the Alaskan earthquake, the officiaJ news agency Tass reported yesterday.

It said Mr. Johnson was asked "to accept our profound sympathy and to convey the Soviet people's sincere condolences to the population of the affected State."

[From the Washington Daily News, Apr. 1, 1964]

HOME BLOWS UP; ALASKAN DIES ANCHORAGE, Alaska, April 1.-A residence

in downtown Anchorage blew up last night, killing one man and injuring two other persons.

Natural gas was turned on in the area yesterday for the first time since the earthquake Friday night, and firemen thought the explosion was caused by a leaking main.

Meanwhile, Alaska's Health Service counted 107 fatalities from the quake and the subsequent tidal wave. The figure included 24 known dead and 83 missing and presumed dead.

However, a State policeman at Kodiak said that island had an additional 15 dead and 86 missing which were not being counted by the health service yet.

Also unconfirmed were reports that a number of persons were missing at Chenega. This would bring the figure to 180, with 46 dead and 134 missing. First reports said the death toll might reach 600.

But while deaths fell far short of expectation, the economic loss was shattering.

Said Seward City Manager James Harrison:

"We need a Federal grant, we need it fast and it must be made simple."

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 1964] ALASKANS Wn.L HA VE To DIG DEEP To RAISE

MONEY FOR REBUILDING (By George Lardner, Jr.)

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, March 81.-Alaska's devastating earthquake has left a gaping hole in its pocketbook.

The spirit and the will to rebuild are there, but not the money. How to get it-and quickly-is the State's main problem.

Gov. William A. Egan said today that he believes Alaskans can make a substantial contribution in putting the State back on its feet.

He said he is working on financing plans that he expects to announce later this wee·k.

WON'T MATCH NEEDS "They haven't completely Jelled yet," he

said, "but I think there is a way to make a substantial contribution without burdening the people of Alaska unduly."

The Governor had no ready estimate of how much in State funds might be raised, but it cannot come close to matching the needs. Egan put total dollar damages as at least $350 million.

"That's conservative," he added. "McDermott's estimates could be pretty

close." Federal Emergency Planning Director Ed

ward A. McDermott said earlier this week that the losses could reach half a billion dollars.

VOLUNTARY DONATIONS Anchorage Mayor George Sharrock said city

officials were thinking of seeking permission for Alaskans to defer payment of their Federal income taxes. The Government, he· said, already has put a moratorium on FHA mortgage payments.

Voluntary donations are also coming in. The Governor today set up a reconstruction fund to handle the cash. He added that Japan's consul from Seattle will be here Thursday to make a contribution from his Government.

Still the prospects are bleak. A spokesman for the Governor estimated

later that the quake may have driven 5,000

out of ,their homes around the State. Some houses can be made livable again, but hundreds are complete wrecks.

In downtown Anchorage, Civil Defense Manpower Control Coordinator Lew Dischner estimated that all the buildings three stories or higher will have to be torn down except one.

The exception: The new State courthouse. City building officials said they felt that

others could be saved, too, but most of the approximately 85 downtown buildings that high will have to go.

HIGHER COSTS SEEN Dischner, former State labor commissioner

and now legislative representative for the Teamsters, estimated that some $60,000 in free labor and equipment is being donated by union workers and building contractors.

Some 2,800 unemployed workers in Anchorage alone are working with the contractors in ripping down unsafe buildings and attempting to save others.

.. But we can't work for the rest of the year on a voluntary basis," Dischner said.

"Before it's over," he predicted, "we're going to see a further inflated cost of living in Alaska."

PRICE CONTROL DISCOUNTED "Take a guy with a little hotel. He's got a

$200,000 mortgage today, but he's got to spend $200,000 more to rebuild. He's got to charge more for his rooms, or he can't make it.

"I look for a spiral in everything for the next 6 months," he said. "We'll have an inflated economy for awhile."

Some have talked of price controls to prevent this, but Egan discounted this thought.

"I don't think they're going to be necessary at all," he said.

"I know of no instance where prices have be~n raised so far. The businessmen and the people are all standing together."

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 1964] ANCHORAGE CARRIES ON AS USUAL--ALASKANS

Vow To EMULATE VALOR OF SAN FRANCISCO

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, March 81.-Heartened by a mounting flow of aid, Alaskans speeded their rebuilding efforts today with the determination that "if San Francisco could do it1 we can, too."

They referred to the rebuilding the citizens of San Francisco did when their city was destroyed by earthquake and fire in 1906.

Anchorage, its downtown area smashed by Friday's earthquake, achieved near normality in all but a 2- by 10-block section in the central district and the hardest hit residential suburbs such as Turnagain.

Officials said accurate death figures in all Alaska from the earthquake and seismic sea waves still were not available.

The Alaska Health Service counted 105, including 22 known dead and 83 missing and presumed dead.

However, a State policeman at Kodiak said that the island had an additional 15 dead and 86 missing that were not being counted by the health service yet. Also unconfirmed on the official list were reports of 7 dead and 15 missing at Chenega. This would bring the figure to 178 with 44 dead and 134 missing.

Conflicting figures were given by civil defense officials, who reported only 19 known dead and 77 persumed dead.

(In Washington, the Air Force said that all of its military personnel and their families in Alaska were accounted for and there are no deaths or serious injuries among them.)

Donald Lowell, Alaska's Director of Civil Defense, said that 80 percent of the victims were killed by the waves triggered by the earth upheaval. These waves also resulted in 13 dead and 9 missing on the California and Oregon coasts.

The fluctuating casualty figures resulted from ruptured communications that isolated many communities.

Officials said the full toll in the 1,500-mile disaster zone might never be known since Eskimos and Aleutian natives in desolate areas seldom communicate with the cities.

In Anchorage, the State's largest city, it was business as usual outside the centra,,l district. Telephones were restored in most areas, the water system was in operation, electricity was back and natural gas again was turned on.

But later, a residence in downtown Anchorage blew up, killing one man and injuring two other persons. Firemen thought the explosion was due to a leaking gas main.

Civil Defense and police officials were reluctant to allow downtown banks to open while cranes were wrecking buildings and debris was being removed.

Unemployment is a major problem since hundreds of workers have no regular jobs to do because of the destruction of businesses and the crippling blow to the fishing industry, mainstay of the Alaskan economy.

A housing expert is being sent from Washington to establish an Anchorage emergency center to help the homeless get new loans for rebuilding.

The Small Business Administration has sent experts to make disaster loans.

The Military Air Transport Service, the Navy, the Air Force, and commercial lines are continuing a giant airlift of medicines, food, clothing, and every conceivable kind of equipment needed to make comfortable the thousands who have been living primitively since homes were destroyed.

The Government also has indicated that the fishing industry will get long-term lowinterest loans and possibly direct subsidies for reconstruction.

Alaska's transportation ties with the outside world were partly restored on a regular basis today, but some arteries are still cut.

Most airlines resumed regular service between Seattle and Anchorage.

Automobiles reached the city on the Alaskan Highway, the State's road link with the mainland United States by way of Canada.

Water transportation, however, was severely hampered in the south-central disaster area, where the earthquake and giant waves wiped out ports at many costal towns.

Still another effect of the quake came to light when a pilot reported that the large Copper River and the nearby 20-mile-long Lake Tazlina had gone dry.

Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall, whose Department runs the Alaska Railroad, estimated its losses at $20 million and reported that restoration already had started. Officials estimated that service will be resumed within 2 weeks between Anchorage and Fairbanks and on several lesser spur lines.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Sitar, Apr. 1, 1964]

ALASKA TAKES ITS FIRST STEPS ON THE LONG ROAD BACK

(By Jerry O'Leary, Jr.) ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 1.-Twenty years

may pass before Alaska recovers from the Good Friday earthquake, but today, 5 days after the catastrophe, the painful rebirth 1s already well underway.

Dr. Perry Mead, the only neurosurgeon in Alaska, is bent over his operating table for long hours every day. He has been doing this since 5:37 p.m. last Friday when he saw his two young sons disappear into a gaping crevasse in their yard in Turnagain. The earth closed again on his sons and they disappeared forever.

The American Red Cross is working around the clock. A large force of volunteers, under Herbert C. Larson, is busy checking on the welfare of a backlog of

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6767 35,000 Alaskans whose frantic relatives have sent queries from all over the world. The ARC workers are handling up to 2,000 queries a day.

Other Red Cross teams have fanned out in Anchorage, Valdez, Seward, Kodiak and the Alaskan refugee centers to offer cash gifts right now, to those who have no clothing or who need money to buy furniture or to repair their homes.

Coordinator of Alaska's efforts to struggle back to normalcy is Creath Tooley, regional director of the Office of Emergency Planning, which reports directly to President Johnson through Director Edward A. McDermott in Washington. Mr. Tooley has set up a command post of all the Federal agencies at Elmendorf Air Force Base, on the outskirts of Anchorage.

John Nichols is representing the Housing e.nd Home Finance Agency, which will assist Alaska with restoring its schools, its ruptured sewer and water systems, and its publicly owned utilities.

The HHFA already has sent more than 10,000 feet of hose to Alaska to set up temporary water points for the 93,000 persons here who do not dare drink tap water for fear of typhoid. Such water points have been set up all over the Anchorage area, and it is already a commonplace sight to see staid matrons, kids, and men who resemble bank presidents queuing up with buckets in their hands for water.

The electric power, which was knocked out for up to 20 hours by the temblor, has mostly been restored today, but water and sewer lines have been disrupted to an estimated cost of $33 million. The HHFA has the authority to hand over cash outright to publicly owned utilities here.

Mayor George Sharrock says Anchorage, Alaska's largest metropolis, already is in pertty good shape and he expects water and sewer service will be restored by tomorrow.

FIFTEEN MILES OF STREETS OUT Telephone damage has been put at $1,375,-

000. The Municipal Light & Power Co. estimates damage at $250,000 and said it lost 200 miles of overhead wires. The water utility loss was $7,830,000, with more than half of the system knocked out. Twenty-five percent of the sewer system will have to be replaced.

Street, curb, and pavement damage ir.1. Alaska adds up to $9 million, with a loss of more than 15 miles of the street system.

Elmer Gagnon is the Federal Housing Authority man on the scene. His men already are wen into the task of estimating damage to structures, public and private. In Anchorage, 23 city-owned buildings suffered $500,000 in damage, with $270,000 needed for emergency measures.

FHA has the power to make money available as an outright gift to help get city and State buildings back into shape and can lend money to private owners on a long-term, lowinterest basis. Best of all, for those homeowners who had encumbered homes that are either damaged or no longer exist, FHA can arrange to have the notes rewritten to provide for new construction or ease the term of existing trust notes. A moratorium may be declared on all FHA and Veterans Administration insured mortgages.

The Small Business Administration also has men here empowered to help homeowne-s and owners of stricken businesses get back on their feet with massive, 3 percent loans. These men are busy today surveying the areas where hundreds of homes were lost in the fires and tidal waves and the general destruction of the massive quake.

MILLION DAMAGE TO FAA The Federal Aviation Agency, which esti

mates it suffered $1 mlllion in damages to airfields and navigational aids at the big Anchorage International Airport, is surveying

damage to all aviation facilities. These will be rebuilt with Agency funds.

Most of the school children of Anchorage will be back in class somewhere, by tomorrow, according to Assistant Sunerintendent Don Fridley. The $900,000 Government Hlll School ls a total loss, and so is the $5 million West Anchorage High School. Students from these will report to other schools. The students of Valdez, who no longer have a town to live in, are registering for school at Glennallen and Cooper Center, well over 100 miles away from their ghost town.

The Post Office Department took the earthquake in stride and was delivering mailoften to abandon homes and offices-yesterday and today.

PICK: IT UP; PUT IT BACK The merchants and tradesmen of An

chorage are now passing through military roadblocks every morning to the damaged heart of the city to try to get back into business. Dress shop proprietors have rows of parkas and spring frocks out on the street in racks to air and dry in the sun.

Restaurants and bars, except those totally demolished, are reopening on a scattered basis, with large signs proclaiming the fact at their front doors.

Work crews in the 12- by 8-block section that was hardest hit are filling in crevasses, tearing down half-destroyed or condemned structures, repairing streets, shoring up walls, replacing window glass.

Clerks are putting hundreds of books back on the shelves in the U.S. attorney's office from the floor where they tumbled when the earth shook. Mannequins have been placed upright in store windows again. But downtown Anchorage ls still a desolate spectacle of stores. shops, offices, and bars and most of them remain just as they were when everyone fled in horror last Friday afternoon.

MUST TEAR DOWN BUILDINGS J. C. Penney's six-story building, which

crumbled like a cake, will have to be completely rebuilt. So will the Mount McKinley Building and perhaps the big Westward Hotel, which has developed a dangerous tilt.

The Tip Top Cafe on Spenard Road has developed a certain local fame. It was here that an unnamed hero continued reading a paper and drinking a cup of tea throughuut the earthquake without stopping to look up.

Anchorage has its two newspapers, four radio stations, and one of its two TV stations back. The Anchorage News, which was heavily damaged, got out a 12-page edition yesterday. The rival Times got out an 8-page extra Sunday and another paper yesterday.

The Conelrad emergency radio service went out when the four radio stations failed but soon came back on the air to broadcast emergency messages.

CLEARING AWAY PHASE

The Alaska Railroad, lifeline to the interior of the Nation's largest State, will not have its 470-mile system back in service for a week. Rail fac1litles at the sea terminal in Seward are a total loss. Near the sea, trackage is a twisted mass and cars have been tossed about like children's blocks. Only the last 100 miles into Fairbanks, metropolis of the interior, are intact.

This ls the phase of clearing away debris, shaking off the cobwebs of shock and getting plans in order. "It will be better than it was before," many residents assert.

Kodiak Island will need new boats, new docks, a new harbor, and new canneries to restore the fishing industry that made up 25 percent of the industry 1n Alaska. Valdez needs a brandnew port to replace the one that vanished under a 17-foot tidal wave. Seward, which was hammered beyond recog-

nitlon, needs back its harbor, its railyards, it.s business district, and most of its homes. Whittler has burned up in thousands of flaming gallons of fuel oil.

MILITARY WIN FRIENDS

In asserting what has happened to them. most Alaskans are showing the pioneer spirit they possess, beyond any comprehension 1n the rest of the United States. There was almost no looting.

The Army and Air Force did more to win the friendship of every Alaskan than any Government agency in the first dark days, performing every service for the victims up to and including babysitting. Without the defense installations, Alaska's plight would have been far worse.

And through it all, Alaskans have not lost their sense of humor. Recalling that television's David Brinkley, who is not a popular figure in Alaska, had once commented that Alaska did not qualify to be a State, an Anchorage man said wryly:

"What hurts the most ls, that earthquake damned near made Brinkley right."

[From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Apr. 1, 1964]

QUAKE DRIES UP ALASKAN RIVER, PERILING SALMON

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April !.-Thousands and maybe even millions of fish may be up the Copper River without water.

Reports have been confirmed that the river, one of Alaska's largest, is bone dry, possibly because of an upstream glacial ice jam caused by the great earthquake Friday. The Copper River flows into the Gulf of Alaska at Cordova, in the heart of the quakeravaged region.

In Seattle, a Federal fisheries official said drying up of the waterway could mean a "terrific loss" of red salmon.

Samuel J. Hutchinson, regional director of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, said salmon spawned last fall should be heading out of upstream gravel beds where they hatch.

Mr. Hutchinson said it was also about time for young red salmon to begin moving toward the ocean after their year's layover 1n fresh water.

The Copper and nearby Bering Rivers produced 71,000 cases of salmon valued at $2.5 million last year.

[From the Drug News Weekly, New York (N.Y.), Apr. 1, 1964]

EARTHQUAKE TAKES HEAVY ALASKA TOLL Po:aTLAND.-The earthquake which hit the

Anchorage, Alaska, area last Friday night destroyed at least nine drugstores and disrupted the supply of vital medicines.

The immediate worry was typhoid but vaccine supplies on hand were said to be sufficient for the present. Government planes flew in backup stocks of both vaccine and water purifiers.

In Anchorage itself, some seven drugstores were either completely demolished or badly damaged. Rebuilding and restocking of pharmacies will have to receive high priority.

Alaska's largest drugstore, Eastchester Super Drugs in Anchorage was among the stores suffering heavy damage. Others were Bert's Spenard Drugstore, Bert's Payless, BiRlte, Hewitt's Pharmacy, Super S Drugstore, and a Rexall drugstore.

Fairbanks' druggists extended offers of assistance to Anchorage pharmacists.

Other towns badly hit were Kodiak, where Woldinger Drugs was demolished, and Seward,, where the Seward Drug Co. was destroyed.

Wholesale houses run by Volney Grace and Bert's Drugs, both in Anchorage, were also reported damaged.

Burt E. Geraghty, manager of McKesson & Robbins, Inc., in Seattle, flew to Anchorage


Saturday night to assess the situation but at presstime, had not yet reported back.

Because the military is handling relief operations, pharmacists in hard-hit areas have not been pressed into emergency service in their professional capacity.

Pharmacists in Oregon and Washington have not volunteered to go to Alaska because they said they would not be needed. Drug houses in both States said that information coming out of Alaska is too sketchy for planning or action.

In Washington, neither the American Red Cross nor the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association had received requests from Alaska for drugs. It · was understood that certain drugs had been requested from Smith, Kline & French, in Philadelphia and that the company is supplying the needed items to earthquake victims.

An aftermath to the earthquake, the tidal wave that struck Crescent City, Calif., Saturday morning, spared the two pharmacies in the northern coastal community.

Endert's Rexall drugs, within the 35-block business area bearing the brunt of the flood, received slight damage. Pacific Drugstore, located on higher grounds, was not hard hit by the destructive wave.

Endert's was expected to be back in business as soon as the quarantine on the section is lifted. Pacific Drugs was able to remain open.

The two pharmacies are donating supplies to the Red Cross for relief operations. Byron Wilson, owner of Pacific Drugs, said his company is donating space for businesses to store merchandise salvaged from the flood.

How much of the $350 million estimated Alaskan earthquake damages will be borne by pharmacists could not be determined. Federal disaster funds will be available to the State and also will cover damages to stores. The Small Business Act provides for 20-year 3-percent loans for repair or replacement of structures and inventories.

[From the Home Furnishings Daily, Apr. 1, 1964]

PENNEY To REBUILD QUAKE-TORN OUTLET; OTHER FIRMS HIT HARD

Though communication with earthquakeshattered Alaska is still difficult, the staggering damage done to hard goods retailers is now becoming clearer.

Damage in the northern California city of Crescent City is also extreme, with overall losses of $25 to $30 million estimated by authorities.

In Anchorage, damage to the demolished J. C. Penney outlet is estimated at $2 million. Penney is hoping to establish temporary store facilities as soon as conditions permit, and is anxious to replace its loss with a new structure.

Northern Commercial's department store, earlier reported as having survived the quake, has been condemned and will have to be completely rebuilt, according to the firm's New York office.

Bernard G. Cohn, president of Independent Retailers Syndicate, the store's buying representative, said Northern Commercial, operating several stores in Alaska, will not cancel outstanding orders.

Sketchy reports on the Woolworth branch in Anchorage now are that the unit is usable, with mainly window and merchandise damage evident. No reopening plans have been made yet.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. has reported that there were no casualties at its catalog outlet in Anchorage. E. R. Cameron, northwest division director of public relations, sees no reason for altering the planned construction of the firm's new store, scheduled to open in late 1965.

Other Anchorage stores reported destroyed or badly damaged include: Kimball's Store ( dry goods) , Dicey's House of Fabrics, Fae-

tory Direct Draper, Carl's Drapery Installation, and the Anteroom, Inc. draperies).

Also, Hub Clothing Co., the Caribou, Monty's Department Store, Koslosky & Sons, and Sidenberg & Kay are said to be in ruins, or badly battered.

Montgomery Ward & Co. suffered only very minor damage at its three Anchorage catalog operations.

In Crescent City, near the California-Oregon border, a tidal wave set off by the quake caused extensive damage.

Among retail outlets believed to be destroyed or very badly damaged are: Baker & Stanton Furniture Store, Bob Ames Co. (major appliances), Lighthouse Electric, Howe & Hamilton (both housewares), and Soule Radio & Television.

The Crescent City Montgomery Ward store suffered extensive water damage.

A total of about 150 businesses in an area bounded by First, Fourth, A, and K Streets were wrecked by the wave, it is reported.


SBA READIES LoAN PROGRAM

(By Mark Baldwin) WASIDNGTON.-Earthquake and tidal wave

stricken small businesses in four States now can recoup lost sales with long-term, lowinterest loans from the Small Business Administration.

SBA officials said the White House haa authorized the agency to make economic assistance loans above and beyond the Administration's regular 20-year, 3-percent loans to rebuild, repair, or restock damaged businesses.

The economic assistance program is relatively new in SBA. It was used to help industries in the Great Lakes area during the fish botulism scare. In Alaska, Oregon, California, and HawaH, it will work like this, SBA officials said:

A merchant who thinks the quake has hurt his business would simply prepare statements of past earnings and statements of his earnings since the disaster. If the SBA decides the decrease was caused by the disaster, it can loan the difference on the same SO-year, 3-percent basis, according to Administration spokesmen.

Thus, many small businessmen will be eligible for two loans from SBA, officials point out.


JOHNSON CITY, TEx.-Following a personal briefing on the earthquake disaster in Alaska, President Johnson has asked the Federal Government to speed action in relief and recovery.

Edward McDermott, coordinator of Alaska relief, was scheduled to receive reports from 17 Federal agencies on what each agency can do for relief under existing laws.

[From the Women's Wear Daily, Mar. 31, 1964]

ESTIMATE STILL PRELIMINARY ON ALASKA RETAIL DAMAGE

Retailers hit by the Friday earthquake in Alaska were beginning to assess property losses Monday and plans for rebuilding.

Communications to Anchorage and other cities rocked by the disaster were still difficult. Contact is being made by plane through personal couriers from Seattle and other Northwestern States.

J. C. Penney Co. in New York estimated conservatively that damage to its 90,000-square-foot store, including inventory, fixtures, and building property will run to $2 million.

Penney's hopes to establish a temporary store as soon as facilities permit. The company is anxious to replace its loss with a new structure.

Northern Commerclal's two-story department store in Anchorage has been condemned, Chester Smith, general manager. advised his New York office from Seattle. The store has to be rebuilt completely. Earlier it was reported the store was undamaged.

Bernard G. Cohn, president of Independent Retailers Syndicate, the store's buying representative, said he has been advised that Northern Commercial, operating several stores in Alaska, will not cancel outstanding orders.

He is asking manufacturers to hold all unshipped orders outside of Anchorage until shipping instructions are forwarded. Resources are being asked to have merchandise ready for shipment.

Northern Commercial's stores in Alaska, including Fairbanks, are continuing to do business. There were no injuries to customers or employes at the Anchorage store.

Sketchy reports from Anchorage reaching Woolworth's district office in San Francisco, indicate the store appears in good physical condition. The store suffered window and merchandise damage. No deaths or injuries were reported. The store seems to be usable.

No reopening plans have been made, said Hubert P. Smith, the company's west coast district manager.

Seattle reports no casualties among employes at the Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalog order stores. E. R. Cameron, Sears northwest division director of public relations, sees no reason for the chain to alter plans for its proposed 140,000-square-foot department store to be built at Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage. The store had been scheduled to open by the end of 1965.

[From the Women's Wear Daily, Mar. 31, 1964]

WASHINGTON.-The Johnson administration put a $350 to $500 million price tag Monday on public and private damage in Alaska due to the earthquake.

Federal aid may not be forthcoming immediately. It must be preceded by extensive damage and geological surveys, demolition of weakened or destroyed structures, and a probable request for additional legislation.

Edward McDermott, coordinating disaster relief, told reporters after returning from Alaska that the property damage there has been much more than anticipated. Property damage surveys may consume weeks, he indicated.

Mr. McDermott estimated that it will cost $33 million to restore public utilities alone in Anchorage. And further quake damage is possible since additional tremors have been felt.

President Johnson was said to be "deeply concerned" and determined to expedite Federal aid. The Office of Emergency Planning, which Mr. McDermott heads, has opened an Alaska disaster office at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

Early tax relief is available for those who have suffered casualty losses in Alaska. Under Public Law 87426, such disaster area losses can be deducted for the preceding year even where the losses occurred after the close of the tax year.

Priorities are to be set for the rehabilitation and recovery effort. Mr. McDermott said every standing structure in Anchorage has been damaged to some degree. Some will have to be demolished.

For damage to stores and other establishments and homes, the Small Business Act provides for 20-year 3-percent loans for repair or replacement of structure and inventory, Mr. McDermott noted.

[From the Women's Wear Daily, Mar. 31, 1964)

CHICAGO.-Montgomery Ward & Co. suffered "very minor" merchandise damage in

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6769 its catalog order stores affected by the Alaskan earthquakes, a spokesmen reported Monday.

Ward's has three catalog order stores in Anchorage and three others elsewhere in the State.

The spokesman added that Ward's department store in Crescent City, Calif., was damaged by 4 to 5 feet of water as a result of the tidal wave that hit that city.

{From the Women's Wear Daily, Mar. 31 1964]

ALL'S CALM ON PRIBILOFS WASHINGTON.-The Pribilof Islands, breed

ing grounds for the Alaska fur seals, were not damaged by the earthquake, according to Interior Department sources.

The Department's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has radio contact with the Pribilofs, it was explained, and so far as can be determined, the earthquake had no effect on them.

The islands are located on the northern side of the Aleutian Islands, in the Bering Sea, and the earthquake and subsequent sea waves occurred along the southern side.

Whether the earthquake and waves had any effect on the seal herds themselves is another matter, and at press time was not known at the Interior Department. The herds arrive at the Pribilof Islands each year about mid-June and the killing is done through the summer months.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Daily News Record,Mar.31, 1964]

ALASKA DAMAGE MAY REACH $500 Mn.LION

(By Lloyd Schwartz) WASHINGTON.-The Johnson administra

tion put a $350 to $500 m111ion price tag on public and private damage from Alaska's earthquake.

Federal aid may not be forthcoming immediately. It must be preceded by extensive damage and geological surveys, demolition of weakened or destroyed structures, and a probable request for additional legislation.

Edward McDermott, coordinating disaster relief, told reporters after returning from Alaska that damage had been greater than anticipated. Complete assessments may take weeks, he said.

Mr. McDermott estimated that it will cost $33 million to restore public utilities alone in Anchorage. And further quake damage is possible since additional tremors have been felt, he added.

President Johnson was said to be "deeply concerned" and determined to expedite Federal aid. The Office of Emergency Planning, which Mr. McDermott heads, has opened an Alaska disaster office at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

Mr. McDermott met here with heads of principal Federal departments and agencies having disaster aid responsibilities.

Early tax relief is available to those suffering casualty losses. Under Public Law 87426, such losses can be deducted for the preceding year even where the losses occurred after the close of the tax year. This provision should be of considerable help to Alaska, Mr. McDermott said.

He described the quake as having seriously weakened the economic vitality in Kodiak, Seward, Anchorage, Valdez, Cordova, Whittier, and coastal fishing vmages.

Priorities are to be set for the rehabilitation and recovery effort. Mr. McDermott said every standing structure in Anchorage has been damaged to some degree. Some will have to be demollshed.

The OEP chief said the administration wm consider further aid, but was unable to say what form it will take or how extensive it will be. He had "no idea" how much it would cost the Federal Government.

Mr. McDermott said it was possible, even probable, that present legislation is inadequate and may have to be amended or supplemented.

About $20 million in Federal disaster funds is available under Public Law 875. This may be used as reimbursement for the cost of debris clearance, for restoration of essential public facilities ; and for repair of streets, roads and bridges not part of the Federal highway system.

For damage to stores and other establishments and homes, the Small Business Act provides for 20-year 3 percent loans for repair or replacement of structure and inventory, Mr. McDermott said.

He reported that the quake had caused heavy damage to business firms in Alaska and had wiped out the Kodiak business area.

In downtown Anchorage, a 13- by 8-block business district has been blocked off. Eighty percent of all structures in this section have been totally demolished or have sustained heavy structural damage .

Private insurance may prove largely ineffective for residents. Most policies are said to contain earthquake exclusions.

[From the Daily News Record, New York (N.Y.) Mar. 31, 1964]

RETAILERS BEGIN JOB OF ESTIMATING EARTHQUAKE LOSSES

Retailers hit by the Friday earthquake in Alaska were beginning to assess property losses Monday and plans for rebuilding.

Communications to Anchorage and other cities rocked by the disaster were still difficult. Contact is being made by plane through personal couriers from Seattle and other Northwestern States.

J. C. Penney Co. in New York estimated conservatively that damage to its 90,000-square-foot store, including inventory, fixtures and building property wlll run to $2 million.

Penney's hopes to establish a temporary store as soon as facilities permit. The company is anxious to replace its loss with a new structure.

Northern Commercial's two-story department store in Anchorage has been condemned, Chester Smith, general manager, advised his New York office from Seattle. The store has to be rebuilt completely. Earlier it was reported the store was undamaged.

Bernard G. Cohn, president of Independent Retailers Syndicate, the store's buying representative, said he has been advised that Northern Commercial, operating several stores in Alaska, will not cancel outstanding orders.

He is asking manufacturers to hold all unshipped orders outside of Anchorage until shipping instructions are forwarded. Resources are being asked to have merchandise ready for shipment.

Northern Commercial's stores in Alaska, including Fairbanks, are continuing to do business. There were no injuries to customers or employees at the Anchorage store.

Sketchy reports from Anchorage reaching Woolworth's district office in San Francisco, indicate the store appears in good physical condition. The store suffered window and merchandise damage. No deaths or injuries were reported. The store seems to be usable.

No reopening plans have been made, said Hubert P. Smith, the company's west coast district manager.

Seattle reports no casualties among employees at the Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalog order stores. E. R. Carnerson, Sears northwest division director of publlc relations, sees no reason for the chain to alter plans for its proposed 140,000-square-foot department store to be built at Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage. The store had been scheduled to open by the end of 1965.

[From the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily Times, Mar. 31, 1964)

REBUILDING BEGINS IN ALASKA-FEDERAL Am Is REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: FINANCIAL HELP NEEDED To RESTORE PUBLIC FACILITIES Anchorage has officially requested Federal

assistance to help the city recover from destruction of public facilities suffered in Friday's earthquake.

The Anchorage City Council meeting in emergency session Monday night, passed 10 resolutions aimed at obtaining financial assistance.

Aid will be sought for streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water systems and other fac111ties repairs.

One resolution asks the State department of civil defense to forward to the U.S. Office of Emergency Planning a request for aid for emergency restoration of sanitary sewers, water systems, underground telephone and electric systems; emergency restoration of oil storage and protective dike facilities at the municipal light and power generation plant; emergency measures for inspection, demolition and debris removal in the business area and Turnagain; emergency restoration of power and water to the port dock.

One asks the State department of highways and the bureau of public roads to program reconstruction of Federal aid primary and secondary highways within the city in coordination with the downtown street pattern.

One asks a blanket planning grant and reconstruction funds to restore municipal buildings.

One asks the State civil defense to apply to all appropriate Federal agencies for grants and other needs for the repair and expansion of the Anchorage municipal dock and terminal fac111ties. The resolution notes that the port of Anchorage municipal terminal is the "sole operating facllity capable of serving the maritime common carriers for the whole south central and central Alaska in the railbelt area."

One asks that the State civil defense request the Housing and Home Finance Agency to seek amendment of the current accelerated public works agreements to increase the Federal grant from the present 50-50 matching basis to the maximum grant allowable.

One asks the State civil defense to request immediate programing and blanket planning for the port of Anchorage expansion program. Requests will be made to the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Community Facilities Administration.

One asks the State civil defense agency to seek Housing and Home Finance Agency authorization for planning programs under the accelerated public works program for reconstruction and development of the city's public facilities.

One authorizes the city manager to act as the city's agent in the accelerated public works program.

One authorizes the city manager to process applications and file necessary documents relating to Federal assistance for natural disaster.

One asks the State civil defense to ask request reimbursement to the city of Anchorage for costs incurred for emergency restoration of public facilities.

A 90-DAY FHA DELAY AUTHORIZED Alaskans who lost their homes or who

had substantial damage to their property can apply individually for a 90-day deferment of Federal Housing Administration payments, according to Elmer Gagnon, FHA Administrator. - Gagnon said there is no blanket mora

torium and each case is treated on an individual basis.

Gagnon said property owners must apply to the mortgage holder who, in turn, will

6770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 2 apply to FHA for deferment of the payments. Gagnon said that the Alaska office has authority to defer payments for 90 days in individual cases.

SOME AREA SCHOOLS MAY OPEN NEXT WEEK

Dr. Don Dafoe, superintendent of schools, said today he is hopeful that high school and junior high students will be able to return to classes the first part of next week.

He said engineers and architects have completed their inspection of East Anchorage High School and found that all that will be needed to restore the building to full use is some shoring up of some nonbearing walls in the school and gym and repairing of a water main.

Dafoe emphasized this is not an official report on the condition of the building, that it must still be cleared by civil defense authorities.

East principal Joe Montgomery and West principal Leslie Wells have been conferring, working out plans for double shifting at East. West High was destroyed by last Friday's earthquake.

Government Hill School was also destroyed. in the upheaval, and plans are now being made for shifting its students to the Mountain View school, Dafoe said.

"Nothing will be open tomorrow-we're not that close yet," he said.

The superintendent emphasized that no school bu1ldings would be put back into use until they are found to be absolutely safe and water available is potable.

Principals and teachers meanwhile are cleaning up schools which have been declared safe to enter. No students or unauthorized persons will }?e allowed in any area school.

Dr. Fred McGinnis, president of Alaska Methodist University, said today that classes will resume on Monday at the school. No classes are being held this week.

AMU facilities are being held in readiness to serve any public or civil defense need which may develop in the current emergency, McGinnis said.

RELOCATION OF BUSINESS AREA NOT DISCOUNTED BY SHARROCK

Mayor George Sharrock said Monday afternoon that he "would not discount" the possibility that the downtown area of Anchorage would have to be relocated.

The mayor made the statement after describing the severe damage suffered by bluff areas in Friday's earthquake.

He said the geological formation which underlies the Anchorage area, made up from gravels and clay lenses, seems to have been responsible for the crumbling of the bluff areas during and after the quake.

He said a complete geological survey would be required before it can be determined if the downtown areas should be relocated.

"When we know where the safe areas are, we can plan the city," he said.

Sharrock said it might be possible to stabilize the bluffs.

Sharrock said he was optimistic that the Anchorage area would recover from the earthquake which he termed the "biggest shock, to my knowledge, in any urban area in the State."

"It has set us back a little-and I don't think we will be affected long," he added.

"There is no need to feel that this place is any more dangerous than any other,'' he said.

Sharrock said it is possible that the building code will be revised to provide for buildings which are more resistant to earthquake

PORT FACING FmE HAZARD Port Director A. E. Harned warned that a

serious fire hazard exists on the waterfront. Oil companies are attempting to flush out

gasoline which collected in the area after Friday's earthquake. The inlet is covered

with a film of this fuel and the danger of fire is great.

This condition is likely to exist for the next 8 or 4 days, according to the civil defense office.

No one will be permitted to smoke or use an open flame near any water area on the inlet.

.ALASKA LINE VESSEL DOCKS: VANSHIP "TONSINA" ARRIVES AT PORT

The first of a stream of general cargo and food for distressed Alaska communities is being unloaded today at port of Anchorage from the 7,200-ton Tonsina, cargo vanship.

Alaska Steamship officials said that two Alaska freight line barges are standing off Homer waiting for the Tonsina to unload its 1,900 tons of cargo. Friday the Alaska Steamship Co.'s Fortuna is expected to dock at Anchorage with more supplies.

Capt. Erling Brastae, whose ship arrived here early today, said it would be about 48 hours before the Tonsina is unloaded and ready to steam out of Cook Inlet.

The skipper of the recently converted van carrier said the vessel was stopped two times by ice about 60 miles out of Anchorage. The Coast Guard cutter Storis was credited with getting the cargo ship into port. The commander of the cutter was quoted as saying the channel soundings have not changed and in his opinion the channel is navigable.

The Tonsina left Seattle March 25, 2 days before the earthquake. Captain Brastae said the ship was originally bound for Seward, but did not stop upon learning of damage to Seward port facilities.

The Tonsina was commissioned in 1944 and today's arrival was the first trip to Anchorage for the skipper in about 5 years.

L.B.J. ORDERS "SPEEDUP" FOR RELIEF (By Douglas B. Cornell)

JOHNSON CITY, TEX.-President Johnson issued new speedup orders on relief for Alaska today and arranged to fly back tonight to Washington where he can run the operation from headquarters.

Presidential Press Secretary George Reedy said Edward McDermott, the President's special represen t at ive, also asked an estimate of what the finan cial requirements will be to carry out fully the relief efforts possible unde · present authority.

He said McDermott is asking for a breakdown of how much can be taken care of under the 1964 fiscal year budget and how much would have to be appropriat ed under the 1965 budget for the year starting next July 1.

McDermott's recommendations for future action will be built on a study of the material the agency heads submit.

Reedy said Johnson worked on the Alaskan situation Monday night after supper He announced that Brig. Gen. 0. S. Lassiter, chief of the Air Force command post in the Pentagon, flew down from Washington with photographs t aken on aerial survey missions, primarily over Anchorage, Seward, Valdez and Kodiak. These pictures also have been made available to McDermott and other top officials.

Johnson also confe red by telephone today with Secretary of State Dean Rusk and with Defense Department officials, Reedy said, but there was no announcement of subjects discussed.

LOSSES OF LIFE AND POSSESSIONS BEING TABULATED

Anchorage began coming back today from the devastation of the Good Friday earthquake, as across the State and the Nation the job of rebuilding stricken areas of Alaska picked up speed.

The task ahead is enormous. The cleanup and rebuilding activities con

tinued side by side with grim efforts to de-

termine what losses the quake caused in terms of human life, property, and commercial activity.

The losses on all counts were huge, but specific tabulations and the step-by-step recovery steps still were to be spelled out.

Officials worked around the clock in Anchorage, throughout the State, and in Washington, D.C., to come up with the answers.

While they pondered-and the rescue and recovery operations continued-the death toll from the disaster fluctuated.

No exact figures could be tabulated.. It will be days or even weeks before the final toll is known.

The reports ranged from as low as 18 dead and 79 ' missing to as high as 41 dead and 141 Inissing and presumed dead.

President Johnson prepared to leave his ranch at Johnson City, Tex., for a return flight to Washington, D.C., tonight. In advance of his return, he issued orders to speed up relief for Alaska.

In Anchorage, State, city, and borough governments turned to the task of planning for the future. As officials met in long sessions, individual homeowners began coping with personal recovery problems and businesses did the same.

Some stores which were smashed when the earth erupted set up in temporary quarters throughout the city. Offices were relocated. Some businesses cleared away debris in otherwise undamaged shops and resumed activities as close to normal as poss-Ible.

Banks reopened for business, as leading finance men met to set in motion all possible financial assistance to those hit by the quake.

For the city government, the big job ahead was guiding reconstruction and rebuilding the commercial and personal life of Anchorage.

The loss to Anchorage was a severe blow to the financial structure of the State. The full assessment on the State's budget picture remained to be determined, but combined with losses in the fishing industry throughout southcentral Alaska the force of the quake was severe.

In a statewide radio report to Alaska Monday night, Gov. William A. Egan called upon Alaskans for "a miracle of will and energy and faith to make this land of ours better than ever before."

"I have no doubt we will succeed," the Governor said.

The city council, meeting in emer,gency session, passed 10 resolutions designed to help indicate specific fields where financial assistance was needed.

Meanwhile, from over the quake area and into the various emergency headquarters in Anchorage, the awful scope of the tragedy became apparent.

Some of the tabulations were conflicting. For Kodiak Island, for instance, the State civil defense agency was carrying two sets of figures early today.

It said it could confirm 7 deaths and 14 missing, but also had unconfirmed reports of 22 dead and 50 missing. Civil d efense said it had received its unconfirmed figures from the state department of health and welfare.

The health and welfare agency said it believed its unconfirmed figures came from a newsman who had flown to Kodiak.

To compound the confusion, the same agency said it had three confirmed dead. The state fish and game department said, however, that it had passed along to civil defense the names of three Kodiak dead received by radio and that there were no dead at Homer.

The Coast Guard reported 1 t had lost a man at its Cape St. Elias station, but State figures showed no loss there.

State figures also pegged the death toll at Cordova at one, while State Senator Harold Z. Hansen of Cordova reported two deaths.

The State civil defense figure also did not include 23 reported missing at Chenega and three missing at Port Nellie Juan.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6771 State civil defense casualty devastation and

loss began to be counted. Figures indisputed by reports from other sources included: Whittier, 1 dead and 12 missing; Port Ashton, 1 dead and 5 missing; Seward, 3 dead and 16 missing; Valdez, 2 dead and 30 missing; Anchorage, 6 dead and 2 missing.

(From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] STANDARD SEES RAPID RECOVERY

A survey of damage to Standard 011 Co. of California facilities in Alaska indicates a loss of several million dollars but a ' rapid recovery to normal operations is expected, according to company officials.

The Monday report said one crewman from the tanker MS Alaska Standard is missing and another hospitalized with injuries but the vessel was able to move away from the Seward dock without damage.

Some damage was reported to the tankage and water systems at the Kenai Refinery at Nikiski but full operation is expected to be restored within a week. The marine terminal beside the refinery was also damaged but w:ill be restored to service quickly, the company reported.

A pipeline connecting the refinery and terminal to the Swanson River oilfield was undamaged but some feeder lines were ruptured.

Wells in the oilfield and production facilities there apparently were not damaged but production has been restricted to one-sixth norma~ until refinery and pipeline facilities are restored to normal operation.

Standard's marketing facilities suffered the most damage but distribution is continuing in the disaster area with stored product.

The Anchorage bulk plant is closed because of spilled gasoline from a damaged tank and 750,000 gallons of aviation jet fuel was lost at International Airport when a tank ruptured.

At Seward some 40,000 barrels of fuel was destroyed by fire. A dock and warehouse was destroyed at Kodiak and it was the same story at Valdez.

UNION OIL REPORTS FIELD IS OPERATING Union 011 Co. of California officials said

the Kenai gasfield is operating and there appears to be no well damage, but losses to the company's distribution facilities in Alaska were fairly heavy.

The entire Valdez plant and most if not all of the Whittier fac111ty were destroyed. The Whittier dock and tank farm was the firm's main supply depot for the entire central area of the State.

Union's warehouse and office in the An.::horage port area was d·estroyed but the local tank farm is intact and operating. Kodiak facilities are safe as are those in Soldotna.

A spokesman said they have no information on property at Portage as they have been unable to get in and examine them. The official said there is an adequate supply of fuel available in this area.

[From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] VIC FISCHER To SET UP HEADQUARTERS

WASHINGTON.-The Housing and Home Finance Agency announced today that Assistant Administrator Victor Fischer will go to Alaska tonight to establish an emergency headquarters in Anchorage.

Senator E. L. BARTLETT, Democrat, of Alaska, said he was informed Fischer will explore ways to expedite emergency programs of the Community Facilities Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Urban Renewal Administration.

The Small Business Administration, authorized to make disaster loans, also is dispatching personnel to Alaska. . Representative THOMAS M. PELLY, Repub

lican, of Washington, announced through his

office that he will introduce on Monday a bill to give the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries authority to acquire fishing vessels on the west coast by lease or purchase, and make them available to Alaska fishermen to harvest salmon during fishing seasons opening as early as May 1. The Alaska fishing fleet was reported virtually destroyed by the quake and sea waves.

PELLY noted that the Copper River fisheries open May 1, the Kodiak fisheries June 1, followed by the central Alaska fisheries.

BARTLETT said the American Mutual Insurance Alliance and its affiliated companies plan to send claims adjusters to Alaska to expedite handling of claims under fire and casualty insurance policies.

[From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] TEAMS CHECK ON TuaNAGAIN

Dr. William Davis, who headed rescue teams which searched Turnagain ruins, said late Monday he is "personally convinced that no individual is left alive in Turnagain."

Davis said search teams entered the Turnagain area at dawn Saturday following Fri-day's quake. ·

All buildings in the jumble of land, trees, and homes were entered and searched, Davis said. He said some of the houses were searched three and four times.

"We turned over every board," he said. Davis said some of the homes had gone

into the inlet and had to be searched at low tide.

(From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] SOME SCHOOLS SAID OK

Numerous State-operated schools in the Aleutian Chain area ·are reported in good condition by Henry Gilbertson, Aleutian Chain and western Alaska area supervisor for the State department of education.

Nikolski School at the tip of the chain is in good shape. Villagers evacuated to the military site Friday night, but have now returned to the village.

Also reported in good shape are schools at False Pass, midway down the chain; Sand Point, a larger community with a high school at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula; Cold Bay, and Pauloff (Pavlov) Harbor.

Gilbertson also reports the schools on St. Paul and St. George in the Pribilof Islands are fine. Giberston, who was at St. Paul at the time of the earthquake, said rolling motion of the quake made numerous persons dizzy and ill, but there were no casualties or damage.

Reports have been received on several schools on Kodiak Island. The Alitak School at Lazy Bay is undamaged and the teacher is OK. The schools at Ouzinkie, Old Harbor and Afognak are all damaged, but all teachers are OK.

The Tatitlek School near Cordova is operating in normal session according to a report from Ivan Auten, teacher. The Chenega School, also near Cordova, is fine and the teacher unharmed.

Gilbertson will fly out to the Kodiak Islands schools Wednesday to make a per, sonal survey.

[From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] TAX LOSSES POLICY TOLD-EXTENSION

AVAILABLE ON FEDERAL RETURNS Bankers, taxmen, and accountants are

working today to unsnarl the financial situation jumbled by the Good Friday upheaval.

The Internal Revenue Service has announced requests for extensions on filing Federal tax returns should be mailed to Anchorage Post Office Box 1500.

Initial extensions will be for 90 days and requests for further extensions will be considered at the end of the first extension.

Disaster losses can be deducted from the 1963 tax returns and top priority will be

given to loss claims and tax refund claims. Those who have already filed their 1963 tax statements and paid their taxes can file amended returns to include loss claims on either business or personal property.

Amended filings must be submitted before April 15, however, according to the IRS.

A new IRS . office will be opened as soon as possible to help people with Federal tax problems.

Banks opened for business as usual at 10 a.m. today and will remain open until 3 p.m.

All downtown Anchorage banks and their branches are open except for the National Bank of Alaska branch at International Airport.

Elmer Rasmuson, president of National Bank of Alaska, said the branches in Kodiak, Homer, and · Soldotna are also open and processing of loans began today.

Rasmuson said there is no need for concern as all aid and assurance that is needed will be given. He said the banks are receiving deposits as well as handling loans. A report from the Kodiak branch manager is that the businessmen there are determined to rebuild their community, Rasmuson said.

A spokesman for Alaska Mutual Bank said the firm is now seeking emergency loan powers from :the State banking director and meanwhile carrying on business as usual.

Alaska State Bank and both its branches are open as is First National Bank with its two branches.

The Matanuska Valley Bank offices in both Anchorage and Palmer are open but most of the Anchorage business is being transacted from three trailers set up at the Seventh Avenue and G Street drive-in branch.

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., certified public accountants, in Anchorage, has issued a public statement explaining losses can be deducted from last year's income tax under Disaster Area declaration and offering assistance to anyone needing more information.

Mutual of New York has offered financial aid to its insurance policyholders suffering earthquake losses and has extended premi um and loan payments 30 days beyond the normal 31-day grace period.

Anchorage agents of the company have been empowered to make over-the-counter loans on policies up to $500 without home office approval.

The Anchorage Insurance Agents Association announced today that insurance adjusters offices are open and staffs have been increased.

Loss claims should be made to insurance agents who will work with adjusters in processing the claims. Agents should be given detailed information on how to contact claimants.

(From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] EGAN SAYS KODIAK DEATHS MOUNTING

(By Jerry Bowkett) Gov. William A. Egan said here today the

number of persons who died on Kodiak Island during Friday's devastating earthquake and subsequent tidal waves appears to be growing.

He said he learned late Monday that 20 to 30 persons and maybe more are still unaccounted for on the island.

The latest casualty figures released by State police show 7 confirmed deaths and 14 persons missing and presumed dead.

Egan also told newsmen at his emergency headquarters here that he is receiving many contributions of money from around the Nation and that a receiving point for such donations will be established in Anchorage.

Future donations should be sent to him, as Governor, at civil defense headquarters, Fifth Avenue and Juneau Street, Egan said.

He said he has learned the city of San Diego, an All America City last year, is starting an earthquake fund for the devastated


city of Seward, only last week designated an All America City.

Joe Rothstein, special assistant to the Governor, has arrived in Anchorage to set up a press headquarters here. At the Governor's, meeting with newsmen today, Rothstein said the State is attempting to discourage persons from other States coming here at this time to seek work.

He said Lew Dischner, appointed manpower ooordinator by Egan in the current emergency, has said there are sufficient labor and technical skills available in Alaska to cope with the emergency.

"Persons coming here now from outside to seek work would only confound the relief problem," Rothstein said.

Egan said he is still pondering what the role of the legislature will be in the present emergency. "After today we will be able to arrive at some firm conclusions," he said.

The Governor said he met Monday with representatives from Seward and Valdez and Federal officials, and the need to restore water and sewers in the stricken communities "are the most pressing problems."

He said the Army Engineers are prepared to help with this restoration, do the contracting for it. Anchorage is the only community among those damaged in the upheaval which is fully capable of doing all preliminary design and engineering work for such projects, he said.

The Governor went on the radio Monday night to tell Alaskans what 1s being done in the aftermath of disastar.

"The way in which you, the people of Alaska, have shouldered the burden of this crisis, gives me a greater than ever pride in being an American, an Alaskan, and your Governor," he told listeners.

"Here in Anchorage, at Seward, Valdez, Cordova, Kodiak, the story ls the same-of devastation to human life and material loss.

"But in each of these hardest hit areas another story has been the same-a story of ordinary citizens facing the aftermath of dreadful ordeal and consequences with almost unbelievable courage and determination to build an even better Alaska."

The Governor made these other points in his radio speech:

All Federal assistance for Alaska will be channeled through the State government with Civil Defense Director Don Lowell as coordinator.

The Alaska Railroad has begun a crash program to restore its service and part of this service is expected to be back in operation in 2 weeks.

The railroad and highway links to Seward will be rebuilt as quickly as possible.

The highway between Seward and the rest of the Kenai Peninsula can be reopened within a few weeks. Special Federal programs exist for the reconstruction of highways damaged by disaster.

In certain areas such as Federal forests, the Government wm finance the entire cost of highway construction.

Federal assistance is the "only immediate source of the massive amount of funds that ls needed to patch together our stricken communities."

Egan concluded his speech: "Many have said it is nothing short of a

miracle that the casualties were not far, far greater. I can think of no finer tribute to those who are gone-many of whom I knew personally and will deeply miss-I can think of no finer memorial than to work another miracle.

"A miracle of will and energy and faith that will make this great land of ours better than the one we knew before. From what I have seen accomplished during the past 75 hours I have no doubt that we will succeed. No man could ever have had more pride than I do tonight at being Governor of this great State."

[From the Anchorage Times, Mar. 31, 1964] LEGISLATORS AWAIT NEWS AT JUNEAU

(By Mary Ann Dehlin) JuNEAU.-Alaska legislators who remained

in the capital city when the earthquake and tidal waves hit south central Alaska have stayed huddled close to their radios and other communication links with the disaster areas.

The legislative halls, which Friday bustled with activity, are now almost silent. A few sit at their desks, reading newspapers as they come in with reports of the disaster.

At irregular intervals throughout the days and night, the lawmakers drop in at the Associated Press office in the Capitol Building or Juneau radio stations to check the Associated Press wires for the more recent developments.

There are frequent dropins at the Governor's office which has been in operation to receive messages 24 hours a day since disaster struck.

Seattle newspapers are grabbed up by legislators and other Juneau residents the moment they hit the capital city. To most, the disaster reports are still unbelievable, even the stories being told by persons returning from south central Alaska.

Representative Robert Ditman, Democrat, of Valdez, looks over a list of the missing from his hometown quietly. These were people he knew personally. Each day, he telephones home for the latest reports.

Just as anxious, Senator Harold Z. Hansen, Democrat, of Cordova, makes regular telephone contacts with his community. Only last summer he had directed. much of the activity when fire devastated the heart of his community which had been making a rapid recovery.

Representative Clem Tillion, Republican, of Halibut Cove, has been assured by tele~ phone that his fishing boat is safe. He is even more grateful that he had his family with him in Juneau when the tidal wave ripped that area. On Friday night, when tidal wave warnings reached Juneau, he moved his family to higher ground but they are now back in their trailer home here.

He reports he has contacted Seattle and a freezer ship can be sent up to handle the catch "if there are 20 boats operating."

For Representative Harold D. Strandberg, Republican, of Anchorage, the Easter weekend meant a holiday visit from his wife and son, Steve, 10. They arrived in Juneau Friday afternoon and now will remain until the end of the week. They have been assured that their home survived the quake.

Knowing his family was safe, Strandberg, chairman of the house finance committee, stayed behind to work with the joint housesenate finance committee in reevaluating the State's finances. But Tuesday, he flew home to get firsthand information on the disaster area.

Few legislators slept Friday night when word of the disaster drifted into Juneau, bit by bit. Most huddled in the office of Gov. William A. Egan, listening to radio reports and awaiting messages coming from civil defense, fish and game department, and public works communication fac111ties.

There were tears in the eyes of the southcentral Alaska legislators, most of whom flew home Saturday. One said, "I cried for an hour after the initial shock was over."

Since those in Juneau have exchanged reports on how fellow lawmakers came through the disaster, they know legislators' families were uninjured.

But they also know Representative William Wiggins, Republican, of Anchorage, lost his home on the Turnagain bluff; that the home of House Speaker Bruce Kendall, Republican, of Anchorage, was ravaged, and that Senator Brad Phillips, Republican, of Anchorage, lost two cars when his carport collapsed.

But, at the same time, those like Senator Al Owen, Democrat, of Uganik Bay, can only shake their heads in disbelief as they get more details on the disaster.

State offices at Juneau continue to function although many department heads are in southcentral Alaska assessing the results of the disaster. For cabinet members remaining here, however, their duties are primarily concerned with shifts in the State's program which will be necessary.

[From the Anchorage Daily Times, Mar. 31, 1964]

PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNSHAKEN BY EARTHQUAKE CRISIS

(By Ed Fortier, personnel adviser, Providence Hospital)

This violent quake was at its peak when Mrs. Nancy West, Providence Hospital switchboard operator, in a quivering voice announced over the broadcast system, "Please remain calm, stay in your room. The hospital will stand."

It was a promise made shortly after 5:80 p.m. on Good Friday. And the $6 million new Providence made good on the promise.

In the first 48 hours of operation of Providence as Anchorage's major emergency medical center there were scores of heroes involved in the hospital's operation. But the special hero was the hospital itself.

Seconds after the first shock, it was apparent the 155-bed hospital was fighting for its life. It rocked, reeled, groaned, and moaned.

For those who work in the State's largest private hospital, it was suddenly a vital, living thing in deep agony. All they could do was pray and remain loyal. This they did.

Although many of the nurses, practical nurses, and aids on the upper four nursing floors had families in the midst of disaster, not a single worker left her duty station to rush to the relative safety of the hospital grounds. Not a single patient left the building.

Providence paid off nobly in the wellplaced trust.

As the first, worst blow ended, it was apparent that the hospital was hurting. Water was off, without which the steamplant could not operate, huge sterilizers were useless, toilets would not flush. All internal phones were out except the broadcast system. All phone links with the outside world were dead.

How badly Anchorage was hurt was unknown. Sister Barbara Ellen, administrator since the hospital opened in October 1962, determined that Providence could and would be made operational.

An emergency powerplant provided light for the emergency room, surgeries, nursing stations and main halls. The waterlines, steam lines and vital oxygen and gaslines within the hospital were intact.

As late as 6 p.m., the heavy reliance Anchorage would place on Providence was still unknown. There was no information concerning the usability of other hospitals.

Firemen arrived and pumped water from a small creek into the hospital's waterlines, insuring heat and steam.

First casualties began arriving shortly after 6 p.m., and doctors who had been on duty in the hospital were ready at the emergency room which had been set up as a screening and clearing area.

It soon became apparent that Providence would have to serve as the city's major medical emergency center. Doctors began arriving, going to work, despite staggering personal losses.

Dr. Don Val Langston, chief of the Providence medical operations, Sister Barbara Ellen and her assistants, Sister Stella Marie and Sister Cec111a Maureen, coordinated the overall effort.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6773 By 7:30 p .m., casualties ranging from

critical to minor were entering the hospital by all four doors, and yet the cool and calm work of the nurses and doctors maintained order in what might have become chaos. ThP main lobby became filled with volunteers and homeless. There was no hysteria, no panic at any time. Conscious, severely injured victims seemed to find special strength to endure padn.

For me, the first 24 hours are a series of indel'i'bly etched memories. Father James Snead, hospit;,a,l chaplain, standing by for last rites to the dying, comforting the injured. Father Lewis Hodgkins of All Saints Episcopal Ohurch, assisting the injured, hauling mattresses, lifting stretchers.

Ken Porter, Alaska Railroad conductor and president of the Pioneers of Alaska, recovering in the hospital from arm surgery, getting dressed and pitching in with his good, remaining arm.

Ed Crittenden, architect who assisted in design of Providence, was one of the flr9t to reach the hospital. He grabbed a mop and begam cleaning up the broken bottles in the pharmacy.

A 70-year-old man hauling in emergency supplies, and a 12-year-old Anchorage Times newsboy squirming in under fallen shelves to salvage vitally needed blood plasma.

The reassuring and essential work done by the Army and Air Force in meeting every request for assistance.

The work of Presbyterian Hospital nurses ln staying with and shepherding patients who were evacuated to Providence.

The principal conference room being converted into a nursery managed with no muss or fuss by the wife of Dr. John A. Pennington.

The first surge of casualties being placed on mattresses la.id on the fl·oor of a hallway.

Grim-jawed Otis elevator specialists fighting time to get an elevator in to operation-believed now to be the city's only usable elevator.

The speed with which the Air Force replied to a request for moving 80 emergency hospita.I beds into standby at Providence, w:hen it was not known how many casualties might be expected.

Dr. Asa Martin explaining he was lucky: All he lost was his spacious Turnaga.in home.

Cy Brewer, of FAA, quietly answering a call for a master electrician, and doing a masterfUl job of making essential hookups.

Army forces providing and manning emergency water supplies, diesel fuel, a big 100-kilowatt-hour generator needed to operate the kitchen and provide hot food, a special ster111zer.

An a-year-old boy announcing in a firm voice at 11 p.m., that he was in charge of the first floor.

Dr. Fred McGinnis, president of Alaska Methodist University, conferring with Sister Barbara Ellen and offering full support-doing a skilled job of hiding concern for his then missing son.

The refusal of anyone to panic despite alleged official broadcasts that a giant tidal wave would hit Anchorage any minute.

Completely unknown and unidentified volunteer workers who stayed on the job for 12 to 18 hours without a break doing the multitude of essential tasks required in a modern hospital.

Dr. Charles St. John delivering a new Alaskan baby with the aid only of flashlights when auxiliary power failed briefly early Saturday morning.

Ham radio operators efficiently handling vital messages, being grateful for a cup of hot coffee.

The confidence-inspiring manner in which Dr. Michael Beirne's laboratory team and Dr. James Coin's X-ray specialists stayed on top of the emergency.

CX-426

Cook Noreen Cahill providing an endless stream of coffee from out of thin air.

The no-strings generosity of merchants in augmenting the hospital's supply of essential items, and many of whom had anticipated needs before assistance requests were made.

Seven doctors from Fairbanks arriving shortly after midnight, offering full assistance.

The fantastic speed with which city of Anchorage utility crews did the impossible in restoring vital water, power, and phone services.

Sister Philias, nursing floor supervisor, trying to convince her nurses that she should get up from her fifth floor bed, where she was recovering from major spinal surgery, and pitch in.

A team of Anchorage surgeons performing delicate brain surgery on an accident victim after 7 hours of hectic work.

Chief Engineer Phil McLean facing and solving more tough problems in 12 hours than he had encountered in the last 12 months.

The strange emergency-developed working arrangements between hospitals. Evacuated Presbyterian offering food to St. Mary's Residence. The nonoperational Air Force Hospital providing supplies to Providence. The Alaska Native Hospital providing typhoid serum to Providence, which in turn is sterilizing surgical instruments for ANH. Alaska Psychiatric Institute doing laundry for Providence after the Easter Sunday evacuation of St. Mary's Residence.

"Providence Hospital and Alaskans proved themselves worthy of each other," said Sister Barbara Ellen on Easter Sunday. "Both performed nobly. Nothing less than a superlative effort would have succeeded.

"We cannot properly thank the hundreds of persons, known and unknown, who made it possible for Providence to operate during the critical first 48 hours.

"I hope in the near future to issue an individual citation to each known person, firm and agency who joined in our combined effort. It will say simply that the individual named served in Providence Hospital on Good Friday and Holy Saturday in 1964.

"For those who know the full story of the inspired effort that brought us new life and hope in this Easter season, it will be enough."

[From the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily Times, Mar.31, 1964]

ALASKA QUAKE Is TOP NEWS STORY IN "UNSHAKEN 49"-ALASKAN OUTSIDE TELLS RE• ACTION TO QUAKE NEWS (EDITOR'S NoTE.-The Alaskan earthquake

disaster is big news outside, too. Here is the reaction of well-known Alaskan Robert Giersdorf, vice president of Alaska Airlines, who was in California last we,ekend: )

(By Robert Giersdorf) The news of Alaska's great earthquake

reached Los Ang,eles within the hour after its crushing strength spread devastation over the State.

After a flight from Seattle I had just eaten dinner at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. I happened to switch on the television in my room when a bulletin interrupted the normal programing to tell of "a tremendous earthquake in the area of Alaska."

The announcer said it had such intensity it had bounced the needles off measuring devices of various institutes over the country. The announcement came shortly after 9 p.m.-which would mean it was just a few minutes after the earthquake since California is 3 hours ahead of Alaska time.

There was no news of any sort from Alaska concerning the extent of the quake, and the immediate concern was about the possibility of a tidal wave.

The next bulletin about 11 p.m. indicated that Anchorage had been hard hit by the quake, and the downtown section of the city leveled. The first specifics indicated the tower at the Internation,al Airport had toppled, that about 50 homes on the bluffs at Turnagain had crashed into Cook Inlet, and the loss of life was difficult to estimate but was going to be tremendous.

By midnight, a direct line had been established with Armed Forces News Service at Fort Greely. All networks were getting direct reporting from Alaska by phone, broadcasting the information as Fort Greely relayed it.

Virtually all national programing was set aside to allow full coverage of the story.

By midnight there was news of the tidal wave totally destroying Valdez and bulk fuel storage tanks setting the town aflame.

The same information of total disaster concerning Seward and Kodiak demonstrated for the first time the scope of the disaster.

Reports of "several blocks of the downtown section of Anchorage sinking into deep chasms, the total collapse of the J.C. Penney Store and that the only buildings left standing on Fourth Avenue were the Anchorage Westward Hotel and the Federal Building" filtered out additional details.

By this time all networks had pulled from their files, presumably from statehood publicity, clips of what Alaska "looked like before the devastation of this quake."

Full wall-sized maps of Alaska were used by commentators to point out the disaster areas.

At about 12 :45 a.m. the tidal wave had hit Crescent City, Calif., and people were aware of the magnitude of the jolt. Scientists were anouncing this was the severest jolt in the history of recorded quakes, surpassing the great San Francisco quake and the one in Chile in 1960.

Throughout the night, bulletins warned all residents of coastal areas to get to high ground. Information came from Hawaii that 300,000 people had been evacuated from the beach areas.

Live TV cameras were set up for the anticipated arrival of the tidal waves to show the swells of the waters along the California coastline.

Fearing for the lives of my family members, friends, and our company personnel in Alaska, I had been on the phone continually trying to get through to any point in Alaska.

I had contacted our operations office in Seattle, but they had no information. Finally the chief operator in Los Angeles patched me into a connection with a ham operator in Spokane who had contact with Alaska.

I exchanged a series of calls with him, never knowing if he was getting through any messages. About 2 a.m. I received a call from Brad Phillips in Juneau, requesting our jet aircraft come to Juneau to pick up a load of anxious State officials and individuals to take them to Anchorage.

Calling back to Seattle we discovered both Anchorage and Juneau airports were below minimums for operations, and we were unable to depart.

I stayed on the phone all night between Juneau, Seattle, and Spokane, and by 3 :30 a.m. even Seattle circuits became impossible to secure. I had already booked on the first flight to Seattle from Los Angeles, and headed for the airport at 5 :45 a.m.

Anyone calling long distance attempting to place a call to Alaska heard only a recording stating, "Due to an earthquake in Alaska your call has been delayed indefinitely."

On arrival at the airport in Los Angeles, the morning newspapers were out with extras and headlines bannered the story of the Alaska quake and the tidal waves.


When the aircraft I was on stopped in San Francisco, I again secured more newspapers which devoted all front page coverages to the Alaska quake and the tidal waves. Upon arrival in Seattle more information was available.

Alaska Airlines reservations office had received over 2,000 calls throughout the night mainly seeking information. Newsmen and national magazine writers and photographers called from all over the Nation seeking seats to Anchorage. The national newspapers and TV and radio stations have devoted almost all news coverage on the last 3 days to coverage of the Alaska quake.

[From the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily Times, Mar. 31, 1964]

DEPARTMENT STORES OPEN

Several department stores are open today and one mail-order store has made arrangement for night orders until the emergency period ends.

The Caribou's store in Mount View is open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. but the Spenard store is closed.

Brewsters Department Store in Mount View is open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily.

All Sears Roebuck & Co. catalog stores are open except the downtown store that will be opened as soon as the area is opened.

Montgomery Ward stores are open except the downtown store where pickup merchandise has been moved to the Fairview Store on Gambell Street.

Wards has arranged to accept telephone orders from 9 p.m. to 12 p .m. each night until further notice but asked that no orders be called in during the day. The telephone number for phone orders is BR 6-2401.

DoWNTOWN AREA To BE REOPENED BY ' WEDNESDAY

Downtown Anchorage should be open to the general public.by early Wednesday morning, City Manager Robert Oldland said today .

The downtown area has been blocked off since Friday's earthquake to prevent injury and to protect the property of businessmen within the center 'of the city. · ,.

Rrn:s SET FOR TOWER VICTIM

Funeral services for William George Taylor, 45, who was killed March 27 when the 'international Airport tower in which he was working collapsed during the earthquake, wm be held Thursday at 2 p .m. at the Anchorage funeral chapel.

The Pioneers of Alaska wm officiate at the funeral. Interment will be in the Pioneer section of the Anchorage city cemetery.

Taylor was born in Portland, Oreg., August 8 , 1918, and resided at 3729 McCain Road. He was an employee of Federal Aviation Agency.

Taylor was a World War II Army Air Force veteran. He is survived by his wife, Patricia Lou, and one daughter, Cheryl, of Anchorage; and his mother, Mrs. Heinle Carstens of Central.

CONFUSED FOREIGN TRADE POLICY

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the average, thoughtful American citizen interested in his country's foreign trade policy could well be forgiven if, in the past week or so, he has come to feel like the Biblical men of Shinar who built the Tower of Babel only to have the Lord say:

Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Since the start of the cold war, this Nation for the most part has had as a

general and consistent aim, a resistance to the cause and the progress of international Communist aggression, both military and economic.

But in the past week or so, some of our Nation's leaders have been talking with many tongues and a confused language.

On the very day that Secretary of Agriculture Freeman is telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that certain types of sales to Red Russia, notably farm products, "are clearly justified and are of real value to the United States," Under Secretary of State Ball is pleading with our allies to stop trading with Communist Cuba to help prevent the spread of communism throughout Latin America. .

The day after the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismisses Cuba as a "nuisance," Secretary of State Rusk tells us that Castro is a "menace."

Our Secretary of Commerce declares himself to be "a seller" and says he favors the "maximum of peaceful trade" with Communist countries in Eastern Europe. And in a speech in Oregon, he says that the time is "not yet" ripe for trade with Cuba. But he suggests that

· at some time in the future the time will be ripe.

Our Secretary of State unveils a new U.S. trade policy toward the ' enemies sworn to bury us. He calls it "customtailored" and designed to "differentiate among Communist countries." So far as he is concerned, only Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam should be totally excluded because they are "actively engaged in aggressive activity." It is. at

. least good to know, Mr. President, that the Peiping regime is recognized as something other than agrarian reformers.

What in heaven's name is the trade policy of this administration toward the Communists?

When it was fighting so diligently for passage of the Trade Expansion Act 2 years ago, the administration insisted that one of the three purposes cited in the act be "to prevent Communist economic penetration."

That act-Public Law 87-794-at section 102, "Statement of Purposes" reads as follows:

The purposes of this act are, through trade agreements affording mutual trade beneflts-

(1) To stimulate the economic growth of the United States and maintain and enlarge foreign markets for the products of U.S. agriculture, industry, mining, and commerce.

(2) To strengthen economic relations with foreign countries through the development of open and nondiscr1Ininatory trading with the free world; and

( 3) To prevent Communist economic penetration.

Throughout testimony and debate on the bill, administration spokesmen stressed and based their sponsorship and ultimately the enactment of the bill, in large and prominent degree on the third purpose cited above; namely: "To prevent Communist economic penetration."

Secretary of Commerce Hodges in his testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, in March 1962 gave it the priority of being first on his list of "three major objectives" of the bill in urging support for the bill. In part, at

pages 54 and 55 of the hearings, he stated:

Fundamentally, the Trade Expansion Act proposes an integrated and balanced program looking toward three major objectives. Each of these is vital to the economic and political interest of the United States. Taken together they are of surpassing importance to the Nation.

One objective is to enable the United States, and the rest of the free world together, to take the initiative to strengthen our economies and to counter the all-out trade and aid offensive of the Sino-Soviet bloc which strives to weaken and then destroy the economic ties among countries of the free world.

The Soviet offensive seeks particularly to reduce the newly developing countries to a position of economic dependence upon the Sino-Soviet economy. The act wm not only 'provide us a new initiative in the cold war, the act will also serve to strengthen the overall economic growth and cohesion of the free world, thus contributing directly to its stability, strength, and prosperity • • •

Under Secretary of State Ball, at page 632 of the printed hearings, said:

The international Communist conspiracy has tightened its hold on two great na'tions, the Soviet Union and Red China. This has given it not only the command of great potential economic resources but the mastery of the most advanced technology. Between th,e Iron Curtain that extends from the

-Brandenburg Gate to the Yellow Sea are a b1111on people-roughly one-third of the world's population.

In this changed and changing world, faced with a constant menace from the Soviet bloc, we have no option but to pursue' lines of policy directed at two major objectives.

· Mr. Ball then cited as the two objectives the cementing of the strength of the great industrial powers of the free

. world and the development of the socalled emerging nations.

Notice, Mr. President, that 2 years ago Secretary Ball saw the Soviet bloc, not just Red China and Vietnam and North Korea, as the enemy.

Now, what has h~ppened in those 2 years? We have had a complete tum

. about. Recently we started selling wheat to Russia.

Our allies, England and Spain, are engaged in trade with Castro's Cuba and our European Allies are doing business hand over fist with the Soviet satellites behind the Iron Curtain. And why not? After self-righteously proclaiming contlnuance of economic war on communism and its economic penetration in the Trade Expansion Act, we ourselves sell

· millions of bushels of wheat to the very center of the international conspiracy which was of such vital concern to the administration just 2 years ago. Who can blame our allies if they feel that trading with a nuisance like Castro is less objectionable than selling wheat to his masters in the Soviet?

In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Freeman said he thought the wheat sales to the Communists "would be a very good bargain" for America and he cited as part of

· the gain a propaganda victory. Mr. President, can the Secretary seri

ously believe that we have impressed any other nation with a single thing other than our colossal inconsistency?

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6775 I am inclined to agree with the able

Senator from Arkansas that our blockade of Cuba has been something less than a success. But that does not lead to his conclusion that we should therefore abandon our opposition to Castro and instead welcome him into the family.

In all of the foreign policy pronouncements of the past week from officials in the Government who should speak with authority, not one suggested a stiffening of our policy. The attitude instead seemed to be, "Communism is not so bad after all and besides it is here and the world is in an awful fix so why don't we just sit back and enjoy it."

Mr. President, if that is the policy of this administration, there is one very good way it can begin to implement it. It can repeal title I, section 102, paragraph 3 of the Trade Expansion Act and replace it with this purpose: "To encourage Communist economic penetration," thus replacing the present language "To prevent Communist economic penetration."

The next thing would be an admission that the more than $100 billion of the taxpayer's money which has gone into foreign aid to halt the tide of communism has been money down the drain.

And the third thing would be an explanation of why this Government spends a billion dollars every week on the defense of this Nation-a Nation without an enemy in the world-except communism.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1963 The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum--

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is the unfinished business now pending before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unfinished business is pending now. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names:

Anderson Bayh Burdick Case Church Clark Cooper Cotton Curtis Dirksen Dodd

[No. 108 Leg. J Dominick Douglas Goldwater Gruening Hart Hlll Hruska Humphrey Javits Johnston Jordan, Idaho

Keating Kennedy Lausche · Mansfield McCarthy McClellan McGovern McIntyre McNamara Metcalf Morton

Moss Robertson Symington Mundt Russell Talmadge Pearson Saltonstall Williams, N.J. Prouty Smith Young, N. Dak. Ribicoff Sparkman Young, Ohio

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Sena tor from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE J, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoREJ, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. JORDAN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MoNRONEY], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRsE], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MusKIE], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER]' the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON]' the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE], and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] are necessarily absent. ·

I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is absent because of illness.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT], the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETTJ, and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. MECHEM], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] is absent by leave of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIBICOFF in the chair) . A quorum is not present.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from· Michigan.

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate.

After a little delay, Mr. BEALL, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. SCOTT' Mr. SIMPSON' Mr. WALTERS, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Dela-

ware entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from New York is recognized. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I should

like to state to Senators who desire me to yield to them that I should like to speak for about 5 minutes, and then I shall be ready to yield as I come to a point in my speech which will take off on a completely new issue. I shall then ask unanimous consent to yield to Senators, and if I can get it, I shall happily yield. I. THE REPUBLICAN CONSENSUS ON CIVIL RIGHTS

I would like to deal at the outset with some rumors which have been circulating to the effect that Republicans in the Senate will support alleged weakening amendments to the civil rights bill. I have heard it said that Republicans in the Senate will take this administration "off the hook" by insisting on certain of such amendments as the price for enactment of the bill. There may be amendments, but it is certainly jumping the gun to assume they will be weakening. That is particularly so in view of the fact that the bipartisan group is working to see whether they think it would be wise or proper to have amendments.

Further, it has been published that no clear consensus among Republicans has developed yet on the pending bill. This is inaccurate, for a great majority of Republicans, in my judgment, are for all the titles of the bill before us. I believe this will be clear as the votes are castas it has already been clear on the votes cast up to now-including the vote, if it is called for, on cloture.

I think before such talk develops further-that there is no clear consensus among the Republicans-it is necessary to set the record straight, and as I am devoted to the bipartisan effort on civil rights, I think it is necessary in this debate to keep the record clear on the role of the Republican Party as it is represented in the Senate in this struggle.

First of all, let us make it clear to the country that the reason this bill is here in the Senate at all is that Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee and Republicans in the House Rules Committee voted to get it out of committee. And Republicans on the floor of the House voted 138 to 34 to enact this legislation; and their support was indispensable to passage in that body. Let us make it clear to the country, too, that this bill would not be here today in the Senate if it were not for the support of the House minority leader, Representative CHARLES HALLECK, of Indiana, and the ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, WILLIAM McCULLOCH, of Ohio, as well as other Republicans in the House like Representatives JOHN LINDSAY, of New York, and CHARLES MATHIAS, of Maryland, who played key roles in bringing about passage in that body.

I would also like to nail down today any doubts about how the consensus in my party is developing generally on this issue.

6776 CONGRESSIONAL RECOED - SENATE April 2 I have communicated in the past few

days with some of the leading Governors in our party-leaders who are respected so highly that they have been widely considered to be among the outstanding candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.

I think their views-the views of the men, one or more of whom may be earrying the Republican banner in the national elections in November-must be given great weight in arriving at the Republican consensus.

Here are some of them: Gov. William Scranton, of Penn

sylvania, for example, was asked in a newspaper interview early in March this question:

Do you believe that compromises are going to be necessary or desirable to get Senate approval of the House civil rights bill?

His answer was: As far as I am concerned it is not neces

sary or desirable.

He was further asked: Is it your position that you favor the

House bill as it stands and don't believe there should be any substantial weakening?

His answer was: Yes, that is my correct position.

Governor Scranton has confirmed to me the accuracy of that interview, and that it is his position today.

My own Governor, Nelson A. Rockefeller, of New York, has given me a statement, in which he says:

I strongly support the entire civil rights bill, as did the overwhelming majority of House Republicans. • • • I hope that the bill passes as it now stands and without any further delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the statement be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD' as follows: STATEMENT BY NELSON A. RocKEFELLER, Gov

ERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE

I strongly support the entire civil rights bill, as did the overwhelming majority of House Republicans when they voted 138 to 34 in favor of the bill.

This legislation is already 3 years too late. Both the 1960 Republican and Democratic Party platforms pledged comprehensive action on civil rights. But despite the Democratic campaign promises, despite 2-to-1 Democratic control of congressional committees, and despite very substantial Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, action on comprehensive civil rights legislation was not advocated by the Democratic administration until mid-1963. Had action been taken in 1961, I think we could have avoided much of the suffering and tragedy which this country has witnessed.

I hope that.the bill passes as it now stands and without any further delay.

Mr. JAVITS. Gov. George Romney, of Michigan, has also written to me with the same firm view:

I am pleased-

He states-to go on record in support of the bipartisan civil rights bill passed by the House of Representatives. I firmly believe that this legislation is sound and progressive.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Lansing, March 17, 1964. Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: I am pleased to go on record once again in support of the bipartisan civil rights bill passed by the House of Representatives. I firmly believe that this legislation is sound and progressive. Many of its provisions have been tested in individual States including Michigan, and these provisions have demonstrated that strong civil rights legislation contributes to the solution of our most important domestic problem.

I am particularly concerned that the public accommodations title of the proposed bill be kept intact. As I pointed out in Salt Lake City on January 17, 1964:

"A major part of the civil rights bill • • • is a provision which assures every American that he will not be denied the use of public accommodations because of his race or religion.

"We, in Michigan, believe it is tragic that this has to be a highly contested issue in Congress nearly two centuries after the Constitution was adopted-a Constitution which guaranteed such rights.

"I am proud to tell you that Michigan has had an equal accommodations law on the books since 1885, and we have enforced it.

"In other words, Michigan recognized its constitutional obligations in this field some 79 years before Congress is even seriously considering recognizing its own. Let that fact stand in opposition to those who argue that the States are incapable of meeting their responsibilities."

Sincerely, GEORGE ROMNEY.

Mr. JAVITS. In addition to those prominent Governors, I have also heard from the Governor of Oregon, Mark Hatfield, who wired me that a "national statute is not only right but long overdue" and that he was "proud of the fact that Republicans in the House of Representatives supported by a margin of 4 to 1 the civil rights bill now in the Senate.''

I ask unanimous consent that the telegram be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,

SALEM, OREG., March 9, 1964.

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.: Although I am proud of the fact that Re

publicans in the House of Representatives supported by a margin of 4 to 1 the civil rights bill now in the Senate, I know that the erasure of racial prejudice eventually must take place in the hearts of men. Although I am proud of the Republican leadership in Oregon that produced fair employment practices legislation in our State in 1949, I know it is essential that the National Legislature reaffirm the declaration of constitutional principle. Having sponsored Oregon civil rights legislation in 1953 that included a public accommodations provision, I am convinced that a national statute is not only right but long overdue.

MARK 0. HATFIELD,

<;;overnor of Oregon.

Mr. JAVITS. The Governor of Rhode Island, John H. Chafee, has similarly written to me:

I favor the civil rights legislation which is now pending before Congress.

And the Governor of Maine, John H. Reed, writes that--

It is vitally important for the Congress to enact legislation this year which will more adequately guarantee equal rights and opportunities to all our citizens.

I ask unanimous consent that both letters , be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,

Providence, R.I., March 11, 1964. Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: The question of civil rights is of vital concern to all of us. I favor the civil rights legislation which is now pending before Congress.

Events of the past year have brought home clearly to all Americans that our Negro citizens are discriminated against and that there is a great inequality of opportunity throughout the United States. Steps to correct this must be taken. Equal opportunity should be enjoyed by all our citizens.

Last July 10 I stated my approval of the proposed public accommodations civil rights bill in a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee.

I feel as you do that the Republican leaders throughout the country must take a firm stand on this issue.

Sincerely yours, JOHN H. CHAFEE,

Governor.

STATE OF MAINE, Augusta, Maine, March 23, 1964.

Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: I am in receipt of your recent telegram concerning the civil rights legislation that is currently before the Congress. I feel that it is vitally important for the Congress to enact legislation this year which will more adequately guarantee equal rights and opportunities to all our citizens. It is my hope that by a concerted bipartisan effort, a civil rights program will be enacted and that will be effective and meaningful.

With kindest regards. Sincerely yours,

JOHN H. REED, Governor.

Mr. JAVITS. I am sure that in time, an even more inclusive llst of such statements will be collected from Republican Governors and leading Republicans in the United States. But I believe it is sufficient to state, on the basis of the comments I have here reported, that the Republican consensus is positive and clear. With only minor exceptions, Republican support will be, I am confident, the indispensable ingredient for enactment of civil rights legislation.

And if there are any further doubts about how the consensus among Republicans in the Senate is developing, I think the country should take note of the fact that so far there have been three test votes in the Senate on the pending civil rights bill. On the first,

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6777 February 27, Senate Republicans voted 20 to 8 to bypass the Judiciary Committee and place the bill on the Senate Calendar. On the second vote, March 26, Senate Republicans voted 26 to O to take up the civil rights bill.

And on the same day, on a key vote, Senate Republicans voted 16 to 9, to defeat the Mcrse motion to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.

I should add, and with all respect as the support of both parties is urgently needed, that the Republican percentage on these votes is unmatched by the party on the other side of the aisle.

Also on this same general point of Republican support, I would like to call attention to the fact that a great deal has been written about the public accommodations section of this bill, title II, as being the most controversial. I think that the country should be aware of the fact that such legislation has a

long and impressive Republican history. Indeed, a study made at my request by the staff of the Senate Republican policy committee, with the assistance of the Library of Congress, has revealed that of the 30 States which now have public accommodations laws in effect, 24 were enacted under Republican Governors or by Republican-controlled legislatures. Also, the study shows that the first such statute was enacted in Massachusetts under a Republican State administration and a Republican legislature; and the first such bill introduced in this Congress was sponsored by eight Republican Senators and myself on March 28, 1963, just about a year ago.

I ask unanimous consent that the table be inserted in the RECORD at this point.

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

States with laws for bidding discrimination in public accommodations and party control of governorships and State legislatures at time of enactment

Year

1865 1869 1874 1874 1884 1884 1884 1884 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1887 1890 1895 1897 1949

1953 1955 1955 1957 1959 1961 1961 1961 1961 1963 1963

State Governor Senate

Massachusetts ___________ Unionist (Republican) __ Unionist (Republican) __ District of Columbia __ ___ --------- -- --------------- --------------------------Kansas___________________ Republican__ ________ ___ Republican __ __________ _ New York _______________ ____ _ do _____ ____ __ -------- _____ do _____ __ ________ ___ _ Iowa __________________________ do _______ - - -- --- - _ - _______ do _____ __ ___________ _ New Jersey__________ ____ Democrat. _______ _______ ____ _ do _____ __ ___________ _ Ohio ___________ __________ ____ _ do________ ___________ Democrat_ __ ___________ _ Connecticut_ ___________ ______ _ do_____ ____ __ ________ Republican ___ _________ _ Colorado_________________ Republican ___ ---------- ____ _ do ______ ____ _____ ___ _ Illinois ____ _____ __________ __ ___ do _______ - -- - _ -- -- __ - _____ do __________________ _ Indiana___ _____ _____ _____ Democrat_______________ Democrat_ _____ ________ _ Michigan_ __ _____________ Republican __ ----------- Republican ____________ _ Minnesota _______________ _____ do ______ ------------- ____ _ do _____ __ ___________ _ Nebraska ______________ __ _____ do __________ --------- ____ _ do __________________ _ Rhode Island _________ ________ do _____ _____ ------- -- ____ _ do __________________ _ Pennsylvania _________________ do _____ ___ -- --------- ____ _ do __________________ _ Washington ____________ ______ _ do _______ -- ___ ---- ________ do __________________ _ Wisconsin ____ ___ ________ ___ ___ do _____ -- ___ __ -- -- ________ do _____ _____________ _ California________________ Democrat. ______ ------- _ ____ _ do __________________ _ Alaska 1 __________________ __ ___ do _____ ______________ 8 Democrats and 8 Re-

publicans. Oregon ________ ,.__________ Republican __ -------- --- Republican ____________ _ Montana _________________ ____ _ do _______ __ __________ ____ .do _________ ___ ______ _ New Mexico _____________ Democrat_ ______________ Democrat ________ ______ _ Vermont_________________ Republican ___ - - -------- Republican ____________ _ Maine_____ ______________ Democrat ____________ _______ _ do. _________________ _ Idaho__ ____ ______________ Republican ____________ __ ____ do __________________ _ New Hampshire ______________ do ________ ________________ do ________ __________ _ North Dakota____________ Democrat _________________ ___ do. ________________ _ _ Wyoming ___________________ . _do __________ -- ---- _______ _ do ___ _______________ _ Maryland __________ __________ _ do_____ ________ _____ _ Democrat_ _____________ _ South Dakota ______ ______ Republican _____________ Republican ____________ _

House

Unionist (Republican).

Farmers Party. Republican.

Do. Democrat.

Do. Republican.

Do. Do.

Democrat. Republican.

Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.

Democrat.

Republican. Democrat.

Do. Republican.

Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.

Democrat. Republican.

1 Enacted when Alaska was a Territory. Revised and reenacted by State of Alaska in 1962. Table prepared by Senate Republican policy committee, with the assistance of the Legislative Reference Service

of the Library of Congress.

Mr. JAVITS. Clearly, the Republican Party has a great stake historically in public accommodations legislation. It has pioneered in this field in the past, it has shown initiative and leadership in the States, and will be following in this fine tradition by supporting the public accommodations section of this bill.

I recite all these facts to put the Republican record in perspective as we continue this debate. I am frankly disturbed by headlines which suggest that the "GOP Will Back Changes in Rights Bill." It is my view that the most meaningful changes that can be made to the civil rights bill are those suggested on Monday by the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], and on Wednesday by the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART]; and they would strengthen the bill, not weaken it. I would not for one moment pretend that the Republican view in this regard is unanimous. But I think the facts demonstrate that those

who would weaken the present bill before the Senate-if there be any--do not represent, on the record to date, a consensus in my party. On the contrary, there is every reason to expect that Republicans in the Senate, notwithstanding their relative size as a group, will be the indispensable means to attaining a meaningful civil rights bill with every title in it preserved and adequately covered, as they were in the House of Representatives.

The day that was recorded would be a day of supreme pride for me, and I am deeply confident that it will come based on the record, on what I have received from the Republican Governors, and on everything I have heard within my own party.

Several Senators addressed the Chair. Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator

from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], who I believe wishes to ask me a question.

Mr. CASE. I appreciate the generosity of the Senator from New York. I be-

lieve the statement he has made is extremely timely and pertinent. It is always proper to set the record straight in fairness to the groups concerned. I know that the Senator strongly shares this view. I believe it is of even greater significance, in that the statement that was made on the record should prevent us from being too ready to accept weakening amendments, or unwilling, at least, to consider strengthening amendments on the argument that this group or that group in the House or the subcommittee would be unwilling to go along.

Further, in support of his absolutely correct recital of the RECORD, I should like to direct the Senator's attention to one particular fact in regard to the Representative from Ohio [Mr. WILLIAM McCULLOCH], who, singlehandedly, I believe it is fair to say, stopped the weakening Harris amendment in the House by stating that if that amendment were to pass-and it looked at that time as if the leadership on the floor was about to accept it-he would find it impossible to further support the bill. It was that kind of action on the floor of the House, by Representative McCULLOCH and his colleagues, and in the committee, which prevented weakening of the bill, which was a great danger at the time.

Mr. JAVITS. Let me say, in response to the Senator, that our party is historically the party of equal opportunity. Our party brought the Nation to victory in a tremendous struggle, resulting in the largest number of casualties ever suffered by this country in any war, in order to validate that principle. It would be shocking, unseemly, and unthinkable if we were not the party which is the clinch pin, the central factor, in bringing about this century-old, overdue, opportunity to redress so many deeply held grievances and injustices that have been recounted on the floor of the Senate time and again, to which I shall have the tragic duty of adding another sordid, bloody recital today.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. JA VITS. I yield. Mr. KEATING. I should like to sub

stantiate what the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE] has said with regard to the other body. There has been an indication on the part of Representative McCULLOCH and the Republican Members in the other body that they would not accept a watered down or a greatly weakened bill. That is not to say that they would not accept a strengthened bill. I have had an exploratory conference with Representative McCULLOCH, and I am sure that I can fairly state that he has an open mind with regard to amendments which would make the bill more meaningful and stronger; specifically, the amendment discussed the other day, to make the bill's voting provisions apply to State elections as well as to Federal elections. We all know the inadequacy of having one rule for Federal elections and another rule for State elections which would be the result if the bill were passed in its present form.

I believe that there will be no difficulty whatever in reaching agreement with the

6778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Ap1·il 2 House side on clarifying amendments leading to a somewhat strengthened measure.

I know that my colleague from New -York recognizes, as I do, the fact that action cannot take place except by a united effort. Members of both parties sincerely believe that it is necessary to put meaningful legislation on the statute books. Nothing which my colleague has said indicated that he believes anything to the contrary. I believe my colleague has performed a great service in bringing out the facts of the situation, and that the majority of Republi·cans will support the commitments made in their 1960 platform. We are hopeful that that will be the situation on the other side of the aisle. It is time to place this matter in proper perspective, because of some of the reports which have been made.

I congratulate my colleague from New York on his fine presentation of the situation.

I was in the 1957 civil rights fight as a. ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee on the House side. We know what happened then. It was by no means the fault of the members of our party that that bill was watered down. I do not wish to assess any particular blame for what happened in 1957; but it was certainly not the fault of the members of our party in the House, where 90 percent of the members of the Republican Party voted for a vastly stronger bill, including the well-known part III provision, than the one which finally became law. It was the Republicans who stood firm, as they should stand firm, for a meaningful bill. That is still our position. I am sure that when the affirmative votes are counted, Republi~cans will be joined by Members on the other side of the aisle who feel as strongly, as deeply, and as sincerely about the 'issue as we do.

I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Mr. JAVITS. My colleague, the Senator from New York, was one of the leaders in the other body in 1957. He had a great deal to do with the successful enactment of the civil rights bill of 1957.

I should like to point out to my colleague-and I shall develop the point later-that on the part III vote, which was the key vote in the Senate on the civil rights bill of 1957, 25 Republicans voted to retain the provision and 18 Republicans voted against; in other words, a substantial majority of Republicans voted to retain the provision. Had we had the support then that we have now,

· part III would be a part of the law today, and might have averted the public disorder and bloodshed which have since ensued.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. JA VITS. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HART. A basic and wholly proper rule is that one should never volunteer to participate in the political discussion of a party of which one is not a member. Acknowledging the validity of that rule, I should like to explain to the Senator

from New York that from the outset those who lead in the effort to achieve the enactment of a good, responsive, civil rights bill have stated clearly for the RECORD-and I am glad to state it again-the absolute necessity for the broadest kind of bipartisan support possible.

We need not deceive anyone. We have no votes to waste. The sincerity and conviction on both sides of the aisle will be demonstrated at the crucial time when the clerk begins to call the roll. The conduct of those who seek enactment of a good, responsive, civil rights bill, will be to insure that in the days that intervene between now and that rollcall, we shall not be alarmed by newspaper stories casting doubt upon the depth or sincerity of the expressions of anyone, but shall work together and remain together in the effort to seek the achievement of what is probably the most important domestic responsibility for all of us-the enactment of a good bill, and its signature by the President.

Mr. JA VITS. I am grateful to the Senator from Michigan for his comments. This is not a party discussion. This is a bipartisan discussion. In view of the speculation which has already been engendered-and more will be engendered-by the statements of the minority leader, or statements emanating from an alleged Republican conference, or any other kind of statement, the point will be to demonstrate on the record that, when the chips are down, the Republican Party will have performed on civil rights, and also to demonstrate the great support among its leaders for effective civil rights legislation.

The newspapers are performing a great service when they raise these questions and recite the rumors. I have no complaint about what they report. I think it is good. I think it also gives us the opportunity, which we have taken today, to express our bipartisan solidarity and to express once more the commitment of the Republican Party to the fundamental performance of it up to this time.

II. THE HISTORIC HUB OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION--TITLE ID

Mr. President, I now start upon that part of my speech which relates to the historic hub of civil rights legislation, that is, title III of the bill. That is the key to the struggle which has been in progress in the civil rights field for a very considerable period of time, and certainly since 1957, when proposed civil rights legislation first came before the Congress after a lapse of more than 80 years.

Under part III as it has been proposed over the years, authority would be given to the Attorney General of the United States to go into court and sue in order to redress the individual rights of an American.

I depart from my prepared text in order to expand upon the subject because it is so fundamental to the debate, so critically important, and so little understood.

The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides that every American is a citizen of the United States as well as a citizen of the State in which he resides.

Its very first section so provides. In short, a person has rights, as well as responsibilities, as a citizen of the United States and as well as a citizen of his State.

For example, in many States he pays a State income tax, in addition to the Federal income tax. He is subject to many Federal laws. He may be punished for a violation of the counterfeiting laws, laws involving commercial deception and misbranding, the Narcotics Act, laws involving mail frauds, and so on.

In the State he is again subject to a network of responsibilities with respect to the common crimes of theft, murder, manslaughter, as well as the traffic laws, and soon.

Just as an individual has a dual responsibility to obey the Federal and State laws, he also has rights both as a citizen of the United States and as a citizen of his own State. In the Constitution the States yielded to the United States protection of the paramount rights of the citizen. Unless we understand that, we really do not comprehend the real basis for the struggle. Therefore, for example, though the laws of Mississippi provide that there shall be racial segregation in bus terminals, the laws of the United States provide' that there shall not. The individual citizen of Mississippi is then subject not to the rights which he has as a citizen of Mississippi, which would mean that he would have to go into a racially segregated waiting room, but to the laws of the United States, which provide that the waiting rooms shall be colorblind.

That is primary, because the fundamental argument which is constantly made by our friends from the South is, "Leave it to us and we will take care of it." We assume they are law-abiding people. How will they take care of it? They will take care of it in accordance with their own laws; and their own laws contravene the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That process goes on in case after case, whether it is a segregated hospital, a segregated telephone booth, a segregated park or playground, or even, what really should make the hair stand up on the head of any American, a segregated courtroom. There is even a case, which has recently been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, involving the desegregation of a courtroom, ridiculous as it may sound. So that I shall not be accused of talking in the air, that case is the case of Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61, decided not a decade ago, but on April 29, 1963, holding that the courts of Virginia could not punish a Negro for contempt because he refused to sit in a section of the courtroom reserved for Negroes. Nothing could be more inconceivable than that. Yet all of that is so.

If one had enough money and enough capacity, he could find some way of suing to redress his grievances in some fashion under some existing law of the United States or under the Constitution; or if southern juries would convict in cases of that character, or grand juries would hand down indictments, we might be able to use criminal laws on the books in order to deal with the situation.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 6779 But what we are not told, and what it

is almost impossible to pin down, were it not for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which at long last we established, is that such action does not take place. Whatever Senators may say about what appears on the statute books or what is the disposition of their courts or their people, the fact is that when we get down to the operation of society, the whole of society is organized to perpetuate-not to end-segregated practices.

So the real subject which I lay before the Senate-because it is inherent in the whole bill-is as follows: Shall the power of the United States through the Attorney General be permitted to intervene at an early enough stage to do any real good, in order to redress the balance between the individual put upon in a particular State and the whole State machinery and the whole machinery of society-at least the majority in that society, or those in positions of authoritywhich operates against him, or must he be so rich or so tough that he can endure everything that goes on until somehow he finally gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would undoubtedly, if he could ever get there, relieve him of his grievances? The answer is very obvious.

Somewhere along the line we must have a remedy which is not so expensive and not so hard to come by as an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the law would permit him to get one; and, of course, in some cases it does not.

That is what part III is, and always has been, about. In representative cases the Attorney General would step in and enforce for the citizen the rights which the citizen himself cannot otherwise enforce, and which a State may deny him with all the machinery of its government, its money, its officials, its police, its district attorneys, and its Governors, but which the United States grants him, and which, therefore, the Attorney General should seek to secure for him.

That is the fundamental aspect of everything that has been done so far under the 1957 and the 1960 laws; and it is absolutely inherent in every title of the bill. The bill is essentially part m, except that it is divided by subjects. Let us clearly understand that.

Who are the people whom we are trying to protect? Let us remember that. Who are the people whom we are trying to protect?

As I said before, if one is rich enough and tough enough, he may be able to come out on top in one of these cases. If he can last through jail, bail bonds, a few beatings, and the other difficulties that are involved, he may do so. But I should like to quote from the opinion of Mr. Justice Black in Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 238, a case decided in 1939, which describes very well who are the people that suffer the most from the deprivation of legal protections. He described them as having been "almost always poor, the ignorant, the numerical-ly weak, the friendless, and the powerless."

Let us remember that specificationthe poor, the ignorant, the numerically weak, the friendless, and the powerless.

Those are the people we are talking about. It is in the interest of those persons that we are seeking the intercession of the power and majesty of the United States, which, I point out-and this has not been pointed out adequately, in my judgment, in this debate-is not marshaled essentially against individual A or individual B, but is marshaled against the power and authority of an entire State.

Let us remember that when it came to trying to prevent school desegregation in Alabama, it was the Governor of the State who stood at the school door, with all the power of the State behind him, with the State attorney general, the legislature, the State and local police arrayed against the individual who was trying to get into school based on an order of the U.S. court.

Let us remember, when we talk about the Attorney General and his action in these cases, that we are not talking about his oppressing anybody. On the contrary, we are talking about getting, at long last, some equality of resources on both sides of this vexing national issue.

The great debate of national conscience in which the Senate is now engaged, has focused greatest attention on titles of the omnibus, bipartisan civil rights bill relating to public accommodations, equal employment practices, and the nondiscriminatory use of Federal tax moneys in Federal-State programs. In a curious way, attention has been diverted from what has for almost a decade been a central focus of the struggle for meaningful civil rights legislation: the traditional part III proposal, authorizing the Attorney General of the United States to bring suit in the Federal courts to enjoin State action depriving citizens of their constitutiona] rights on account of race or color.

The significance of the part III concept in the civil rights movement which is now reaching a climax in American life is both symbolic and functional. It is the concrete and material embodiment, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, of the Federal guarantees to citizens of the United States against arbitrary and unlawful State action. The Attorney General becomes the active representative of the individual in securing the individual's Federal rights. The Attorney General does so, not through administrative or regulatory action, but through suit in the courts of the United States. And he does so, not to obtain criminal conviction after the fact, as is the remedy under the stillexisting post-Civil War criminal statute-title 18, United States Code, sections 241, 242-nor to obtain damages in a civil action, as is the remedy under the still-existing post-Civil War civil statute-title 42, United States Code, sections 1983, 1985-but to obtain deprivations of the rights of individual citizens of the United States before they occur.

Let me deal for a moment with the matter of the post-Civil War criminal statute with respect to the deprivation of civil rights and the post-Civil War civil statute with respect to the deprivation of civil rights.

It has been argued many times by distinguished Senators from the South that there is a civil and criminal remedy, and the question is asked, Why is it not used in these cases? We are asked, Is it not a fact that, if the bill were passed in exactly the present language, the Attorney General would be called upon to sue in cases for which there is at present a civil and criminal remedy?

Assume that that is so, and assume even-which is a pretty broad assumption-that southern juries were ready to hand down indictments arid convictions in deserving cases. The pattern of law enforcement certainly does not indicate that is so, and the Civil Rights Commission reported exactly to the contrary, both in 1961 and 1963, based upon its investigations. But even assuming that that were so, let us see what the courts have done with the criminal statute.

In Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, the Supreme Court held that in order to convict an official under the criminal statutes for persecuting an individual and depriving him of his civil rights by virtue of his color, there must be proved specific intent of the accused-in this case the sheriff-to deprive a particular individual of a civil right. It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason the accused beat the prisoner, for example-which is what happened in the Screws case: not only did he beat him, but he killed him-was that he had the specific intent to deprive that prisoner of a constitutional right. That is a pretty tough thing to do-so tough that though a jury convicted Screws-and he was convicted by a southern jury, so it must have been a pretty bad case-after the Supreme Court sent the case back to the court for retrial on the ground I have just stated, the accused was acquitted.

So there is not much protection to be had from the criminal section of the code, aside from all the practical difficulties involved.

As to the civil section. of the code, it provides that an individual who is deprived of his civil rights because of his color by a police officer, let us say, acting under color of law has a civil remedy for damages. The suit is against an officer who may be earning, perhaps, $5,000 a year. So there is not much protection to be obtained under the civil statute, either, since it does not work.

So one of the amendments I shall be offering is to make such actions lie against municipalities, or States, or the agency for which the law enforcement officer is working. That is the only way to make such a law meaningful. So there is very little comfort to be had from either the existing criminal or civil statute. There may have been some convictions, but there have been very few. There may have been some recoveries, but there have been very few.

The important point is that as a general statute for the purpose of obtaining redress of serious, often fatal, damage, they do not work.

So the part m proposal calls for giving the Attorney General the power to obtain injunctive relief to prevent

6780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE April 2

threatened deprivations of civil rights b~fore they occur.

The part m proposal is vitally important precisely because it enables the majesty and power of the United States to stand between the citizen and the power of the State or municipality arrayed against him.

Again I emphasize what has not been emphasized, and what must be emphasized time and again-that it is the State and municipalities, with all their authority and power, with the prosecutors and police, that are arrayed against an individual who, in Justice Black's description which I have cited previously, is "almost always the poor, the ignorant, the numerically weak, the friendless, and the powerless," and hardly able to protect himself against this array of power.

This principle is inherent in every part of the pending bill which authorizes enforcement through suits brought by the Attorney General. In title III of the bill, the Attorney General, and not the American Negro alone, will face the resources of entire State governments and their political subdivisions when they seek the right to use public facilities and when they seek redress for denials of equal protection of the laws because of race or color.

Particularly because of the intervention provision of section 302, the possibility will exist for the first time for the Federal Government to assist in the protection of the individual's right under the :first amendment to assemble peaceably to petition for the redress of his grievances.

I have just made an important point, and I should like to repeat it, particularly because of the intervention provisions of section 302:

The possibiHty wm exist for the first time for the Federal Government to assist in the protection of the individual's right under the first amendment to assemble peaceably to petition for the redress of his grievances.

This situation has been at the heart of the disorders which have taken place in many areas of the South. Again, we are not operating in a vacuum. Whatever may be said by the opponents of the bill about the peace and order and tranquillity which prevails in their communities, all we have to do is open any morning newspaper in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, or any other city, and see where, in Jacksonville, Montgomery, Birmingham or Danville or in Arizona or any one of a dozen places in the country, the pot is boiling. People are being arrested; people are sitting-in and protesting, at peril to life and limb, because they will not endure repression any longer. Then, to stand on the floor of the Senate and tell us to let the situation alone and it will be all right, that we are stirring it up, it seems to me is doing what people who have come to grief throughout history have done; namely, to bury their heads in the sand, and to fail to realize that there is a vast public grievance, deeply held by millions of people, who will not be satisfied until they are given some fair means of redress.

One of the most tragic and unseemly recitals-which I have ever seen is in the report entitled "Justice," by the U.S.

Civil Rights Commission in 1961, which was reemphasized and brought up to date in its report of 1963, recounting the most tragic history of violence and repression, brutality, and killing experienced in the racial conflict which we are doing our utmost to resolve by some form of reasonable law.

Today, I shall not read every one of these cases. They are myriad. It is enough to turn one's stomach to read the bare facts as to the hatred and brutality involved in cases of racial conflict, from which we are asked to avert our eyes on the ground that the States will take care of it. For 100 years the States have been taking care of it and the situation is growing worse.

In cases like those in Birmingham, Ala., and Little Rock, Ark., which threatened national insurrection, we cannot let the situation rest. Whatever may be said by our southern friends opposing the bill, we live in the United States, and they are a part of the United States, so the United States has a right to say what shall be done, in terms of justice, in every one of its parts.

This issue is critically important. Let us remember that, up to this very day, acts of gross injustice which occurred in the period covered by the report of 1963, continue to occur. Any reader of the press knows that they continue. Yet we are asked to withhold our hands from the passage of law because, somehow or other, the Southern States will be able to take care of the situation. It seems to me that that is counseling us to accept the doom of our society and of order and tranquillity in this country.

Let me give one further example, which it seems to me is really shocking, from the 1963 report of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, concerning segregation in public facilities. I quote from page 123:

Clerks of criminal courts of original jurisdiction in the counties surveyed reported on racial segregation in courthouse facilities. In Southern and border States, courtroom segregation was reported in 17 percent of the returns, waiting room segregation in 14 percent, segregation in jury boxes in 5 percent, and segregation of restrooms ln 63 percent. In responses from counties in the North and West, no racial segregation in any courthouse fac111ties was reported.

This is not something that happened in the past. It happened recently, in a case in which the Supreme Court condemned and struck down segregation in courtrooms. So there is a strong factual basis for action. I believe that we have chosen, at least for this time, the right action. The Attorney General should be given the right to sue in such cases.

I have mentioned the intervention section 302, which would give the Attorney General the right to intervene-not to initiate, but to intervene-in cases involving what is euphemistically called excessive police action, and what is less euphemistically known as police brutality. Again, myriad violations are cited in the reports of the Civil Rights Commission. Section 302 would give the Attorney General the right to intervene in cases raising the question of excessive judicial activity. I shall mention a few of those cases to give an idea of what is happening.

I do not believe that the right of intervention is enough. I believe that in cases involving poor, ignorant, beaten, and powerless people, the Attorney General should have the right to begin suits. It is sometimes impossible for people in such circumstances even to :find a lawyer to start such a suit. No one needs to take my word for it. The report of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, as recently as 1963, deals with the question as to whether one can even get a lawyereven if one has the money to pay-in a Southern State to take such a case.

Let me read from pages 117, 118, and 119 on this vexing question of starting a suit or getting a lawyer to represent one in court. Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court will now reverse convictions in criminal cases in which there was no legal representation of the defendant, one does have to get to the Supreme Court; and, of course, it costs thousands of dollars before one can get to the Supreme Court. These are the very people who cannot afford to do so, and, of course, cannot do so. So they get injustice, not justice.

This is a quotation from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission:

In order to determine whether counsel was available to civil rights protesters and whether their counsel suffered any special difficulties because of involvement in civil rights litigation, the Commission conducted a study based upon a questionnaire survey in 17 Southern and border States and upon field investigations in the 5 cities where large-scale protest demonstrations had occurred. Questionnaires were sent to 3,555 lawyers, of whom about one-eighth were Negroes. There were 242 responses from Negro lawyers and 1,081 responses from whites, constituting a total return of 37.2 percent. Among the respondents, only 14 percent (184 lawyers) answered that they had represented Negro clients in civil rights cases within the preceding 8 years. Onethird of this group reported having suffered threats of physical violence, loss of clients, or social ostracism as a result.

The Commission's study shows that Negro lawyers have played an active role far out of proportion to their numbers in handling civil rights cases in the South in recent years. Many have suffered reprisals as a result.

In those same States, Negro lawyers have faced difficulty in gaining admission to law schools, impediments to admission to the bar, and severe limitations on their professional association and contacts.

In the five cities where the Commission conducted field investigations, protesters who were arrested and prosecuted were ln most cases represented by Negro lawyers. The Commission's survey disclosed that, among the respondents who had taken civil rights cases, 86 percent were Negroes.

Between 1940 and 1960, the number of Negro lawyers in the Southern and border States increased by 75 percent·. Yet, in proportion to the total Negro population, the number is still very small. Several factors appear to contribute to this situation. Until World War II, nearly all of these States not only excluded Negroes from publicly supported law schools, but also !ailed to establish segregated institutions. They provided funds for a limited number of qualified Negroes to receive their legal education elsewhere, mainly in the North.

Twenty-seven percent of the questionnaire responses from Negro lawyers claimed that "occasionally" or "infrequently" Negroes were excluded from admission to the bar on racial grounds. Most complaints referred to the

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6781 discriminatory screening of bar examination applicants or to examination grading based upon a racial quota. However, only 6 percent of the white respondents indicated that racial discrimination has been a factor in limiting Negro admissions to the bar. Most of these answers cited inadequate educational and economic backgrounds as the underlying factor.

Mr. President, what does this show? lt shows that tqe overwhelming majority of civil rights cases in the South must be handled by Negro lawyers and that only a limited number of Negro lawyers are available. The answer is very clear that this creates a condition in which the problem of obtaining counsel for a civil rights claimant, unless the claimant is well connected or has some backing, is almost an impossibility.

The argument was made, and the answer has been given to it that, "The NAACP can step in to help these people." In the first place, in order to fence this situation in as much as possible, many Southern States have passed what are called antibarratry statutes, which make it exceedingly risky for an organization to obtain lawyers for people who need lawyers in civil rights cases.

In addition, even if they can do so, an organization of that kind has only limited resources.

Is the protection of the rights of citizens of the United States, to keep them from being denied basic constitutional, fundamental rights-access to public facilities, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be beaten up by the sheriff, which are all reported on in a most authoritative way in the reports of the Civil Rights Commission, to which I have ref erred-to depend on whether the NAACP can raise enough money to do it? Or is it our bounden duty to have the United States say that our citizens shall be protected in this way? It seems to me that that question is self-answering.

Lest stones be thrown at the Civil Rights Commission, let us remember that consistently its composition has included three members from the North and three members from the South, and that of the six members only one, from the South, generally, has been a Negro. Yet the factual reports of the Commission in 1961 and in 1963, on the question of justice and part m, have invariably been unanimous.

I say again that at the very least the authority to initiate, not alone to intervene, should be given to the Attorney General. The power to initiate suits, which permeates this bill in its public accommodations section, in its fair employment practice section, and in its public facilities section, should be no less in the critical area of demonstrations.

Let us be thankful for small favors. The power to intervene is itself a step forward. Up to now the Federal Government has been virtually powerless to prevent violence and bloodshed, and the use of high pressure water hoses, police dogs, and cattle prods.

Mr. President, in the course of the years the shape of the part III proposal, the power of the Attorney General to interpose between the victim, the person whose civil rights have been taken from him, and the power and majesty of the

CX-427

State and its political subdivisions, has changed in various ways.

In 1956, the first such measure was proposed to the Congress by the Eisenpower administration, and a bill authorizing 'civil actions by the Attorney General to enforce the right to vote and other constitutional rights was passed by the House of Representatives, but was not acted on by the Senate. The administration civil rights bill of 1957 was substantially the same as the bill which had passed the House in 1956. Two titles authorized Attorney General's civil suits: Title IV-which was enacted-authorized suits to enforce the right to vote, and title III-which was deleted from the bill under threat of continuance of the filibuster-would have authorized suits to protect · other constitutional rights, including, among other things, the right of Negro citizens to equal educational opportunity in accordance with the 1954 Supreme Court school desegregation decision, and to equal access to public facilities.

Specifically, title III of the 1957 bill would have added two new paragraphs to the reconstruction civil damage statute-title 42, United States Code, section 1985. It would have authorized the Attorney General to bring suit on the same grounds previously made actionable only at the suit of individuals; that is, for conspiracy: First, to interfere with Federal officers and, as a result, injuring or depriving another of his rights or privileges as a citizen of the United States; second, to intimidate or injure parties, witnesses, or jurors 'involved in any court matter, or to obstruct the due course of justice in any State court with intent to deny to a citizen the equal protection of the laws; and, third, to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or of the right to vote in elections affecting Federal offices.

Tpis was the 1957 bill. At that timeand very importantly in connection with what we are discussing today, the intervention provision to which I have ref erred-Attorney General Brownell submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee a list of the rights protected by the proposed measure, including the right to be free of mob violence while in Federal custody, the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to assemble peaceably, free from unreasonable restraints by State or local officials, the right not to be discriminated against in public employment on account of race or color, the right not to be denied the use of governmentally owned facilities on account of race or color, the right not to be subjected to racial segregation under compulsion of State authority, the right not to be denied due process of law or equal protection of the law in other regards, the right to a fair trial, and the right not to be held in peonage. In addition, he indicated that the proposed title would also protect freed om of religion, speech, and of the press.

I ask unanimous consent that this analysis made by Attorney General Brownell in his testimony on the 1957 act, together with all the appropriate citations thereto, be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPECIFIC CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY' THE CON

STITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES

The following civil rights have been defined by court decisions wherein the rights were found to have been violated or wherein a pleading was found to sufficiently state a violation. This ,list is merely illustrative and does not attempt to include all civil rights nor to include all court decisions growing ou~ of violations of the rights here listed. The categorization of the rights is to some degree arbitrary.

Right to vote in Federal elections: Swafford v. Templeton ( (1902), 185 U.S. 487): Smith v. Allwright ((1944), 321 U.S. 649); Ex Parte Yarbrough ( (1884), 110 U.S. 651).

Right of a voter in a Federal election to have his ballot fairly counted: United States v. Mosely ((1915), 238 U.S. 383); United, States v. Classic ((1941), 313 U.S. 299); United States v. Saylor ( (1944), ~22 U.S. 385).

Right to vote in all elections free from discrimination by State on account of race or color: Lane v. Wilson ( (1939), 307, U.S. 268): Davis v. Schnell c-(S.D. Ala., 1949), 81 F. Supp. 872, affirmed 336 U.S. 933): Bryce v. Byrd ( (C.A. 5, 1953), 201 F. 2d 664); Mitchell v. Wright ( (C.A. 5, 1946), 154 F. 2d 924); Hall v. Nagel ( (C.A. 5, 1946), 154 F. 2d 931): Nixon v. Herndon ((1927), 273, U.S. 536); Baskin v. Brown ( (C.A. 4, 1949), 174 F. 2d 391); Rice v. Elmore ( (C.A. 4, 1947), 165 F. 2d 397).

Right to inform a Federal officer of a violation of Federal law: In re Quarles ((1895), 158 U.S. 532); Motes v. United States ( (1900), 178, U.S. 458); Nicholson v. United States ((C.A. 8, 1935), 79 F. 2d 387): Hawkins v. State ( (C.A. 5, 1923), 293 Fed. 586).

Right to testify in Federal court: Foss v. United States ((C.A. 9, 1920), 266 Fed. 881).

Right to be free from mob violence while in Federal custody: Logan v. United States ( (1891) 144 U.S. 263).

Right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures: Irvine v. California ( ( 1953) , 347 U.S. 128, 137).

Right to peaceably assemble free from unreasonable restraint by State or local officials: Hague v. CIO ((1939), 307 U.S. 496); De Jong v. Oregon ((1937), 299 U.S. 353).

Freedom of religion: Cantwell v. Connecticut ( (1940), 310 U.S. 296): Board of Education v. Barnette ((1943), 319 U.S. 624); Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( (1943), 319 U.S. 105).

Freedom of speech and of the press: Lovell v. Griffin ( (1938), 303 U.S. 444): Myerson v. Samuel ( (D.C., E.D., Pa., 1947), 74 F. Supp. 315); Grosjean v. American Press Co. ((1936), 297, U.S. 233).

Right not to be purposefully discriminated against in public employment on account of race or color: Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City ( (C.A. 4, 1945), 149 F. 2d 212); Mills v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel County ((D.C . . Md., 1939) , 30 F. Supp. 245); Davis v. Cook ( (D.C. Ga.1948), 80 F. Supp. 443); Thompson v. Gibbes ( (D.O. S.C., 1945), 60 F. Supp. 872); Morris v. Wil• liams ( (C.A. 8, 1945), 149 F. 2d 703).

Right not to be denied use or enjoyment of any governmentally operated facilities on account of race or color: Brown v. Board of Education ( (1954), 347 U.S. 488; (1955) 349 U.S. 294); Dawson v . Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ((C.A. 4, 1955), 220 F. 2d. 386, afflrm~d 350 U.S. 877); Holmes v. City of Atlanta ((C.A. 5, 1955), 223 F: 2d 93); Fayson v. Beard ( (E.D. Tex., 1955) 134 F. Supp. 379); Williams v. Kansas City, Mo. ( (D.C., W.D. Mo., 1952), 104 F. Supp. 848); Easterly v. Dempster ( (D.C.E.D., Tenn., 1953), 112 F. Supp. 214); Jones v. City of Hamtramck ( (D. C.E.D., Mich., 1954), 121 F. Supp. 123); Vann v. Toledo Metropolitan Housing Authority ( (D.C~ Ohio, 1953), 113 F. Supp. 210); Draper v. City of St. Louis ( (D.C. Mo., 1950),


92 F. Supp. 546); Sweeney v. City of Louisville ( (D.C. Ky., 1951), 102 F. Supp 525, affirmed 202 F. 2d 275).

Right not to be segregated under compulsion of State authority on account of race or color: Browder v. Gayle ( (D.C., M.D. Ala., 1956), 142 F. Supp. 707, affirmed 352 U.S. 903); Morgan v. Virginia ((1946), 328 U.S. 373); Fleming v. South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. ((C.A. 4, 1955), 224 F. 2d 752); Shelley v. Kraemer ((1948), 334 U.S. 1); Buchanan v. Warley ((1917), 245 U.S. 60); Valle v. Stengel ( (C.A. 8, 1949), 176 F. 2d 697).

Right not to be denied due process of law or equal protection of the law in other regards: Brown v. United States ( (C.A. 6, 1953), 204 F. 2d 247); Oyama v. California ((1948), 332 U.S. 633); Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission ( (1948), 334 U.S. 410); United States v. Gugel ( (D.C.E.D. Ky., 1954), 119 F. Supp. 897); Burt v. City of New York ( (C.A. 2, 1946), 156 F. 2d 791); Cobb v. City of Malden ((C.A. 1, 1953), 202 F. 2d 701); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. ((C.A. 3, 1945), 151 F. 2d 240).

Right to be free to perform a duty imposed by the Federal constitution: Brewer v. Hoxie School District ((CA 8, 1956), 238 F. 2d 91).

Right, when charged with crime, to a fair trial: Moore v. Dempsey ( (1923), 261 U.S. 86).

Right not to be tried by ordeal or summarily punished other than in the manner prescribed by law: Screws v. United States ((1945), 325 U.S. 91); Davis v. Turner ((CA 5, 1952), 197 F. 2d 847). ' Right not to be forced to confess an offense: Williams v. United States ((1951), 341 U.S. 97); Refouie v. Ellis ( (D.C. N.D. Ga., 1947), 74 F. Supp. 336).

Right to be free from brutality at the hands of prison officials: United States v. Jones ((CA 5, 1953), 207 F. 2d 785); United States v. Walker ((CA 5, 1954), 216 F. 2d 683); United States v. Jackson ((CA 8, 1956), 235 F. 2d 925); Mccollum v. Mayfield ( (D.C. N.D., Cal., 1955), 130 F Supp 112); Gordon v. Garrison ( (D.C. E.D. Ill., 1948), 77 F. Supp. 477).

Right to representation by counsel at criminal trial: Powell v. Alabama ( (1932), 287 U.S. 45).

Right to trial by a jury from which members of the defendant's race have not been purposely excluded: Smith v. Texas ( (1940), 311 U.S. 128).

Right of prisoner to protection by officer having him in custody: Lynch v. United States ( (CA 5, 1951), 189 F. 2d 476).

Right not to be held in peonage: Pierce v. United States ( (CA 5, 1944), 146 F. 2d 84); United States v. Gaskin ((1944), 320 U.S. 527).

Right not to be held in slavery or involuntary servitude: United States v. Ingalls ( (S.D. Cal., 1947), 73 Supp. 76).

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the bill, including title III to which I have just ref erred, was passed by the other body in 1957 by a vote of 286 to 126. When the bill came over here, title III was deleted by a vote of 52 to 38.

It seems to me that it was one of the worst actions we could have taken. I believe we thereby caused ourselves a great amount of difficulty, trial, casualties, disorder, and violations of our domestic tranquillity of the most dreadful kind--including the riots and bloodshed on college campuses, such as that on the University of Mississippi campus, the attacks on freedom riders in Montgomery, Ala., the dreadful incidents in Jaekson, Miss., and other incidents throughout the South and across the northern areas as well. This statute will apply across the board. We did not give the Attorney

General the power to proceed in advance of one of these conflagrations-every one of them is signaled well in advance-in order to obtain a down-the-line injunction restraining both those who would be affected if they demonstrated illegally and those who would enforce whatever law had to be enforced.

We should set the rules of the game, by the terms of an injunction. We have deprived the Attorney General of that opportunity in all the years since 1957. It has been a national disaster that we have done so. In title III, which I am discussing today, we at least have an opportunity to make up for a little of that by giving the Attorney General the power to intervene in such cases. Perhaps I shall be able to make that provision even more effective, by giving the Attorney General the power which he ought to posses, the power to institute suits in such situations.

I have not permitted the matter to rest. When we considered the civil rights bill in 1960, I again sought to include the title III provision to which I have ref erred, authorizing the initiation of suits; and again it was defeated in the Senate, by a vote of 56 to 34.

Let it be known that up to now the principal thrust of the proposals which I have made and which others have made with respect to title III, was to assist in the painfully slow progress of the privately brought school desegregation suits based on the 1954 Supreme Court decision.

In its 1961 report on education, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that 7 years after the 1954 decision, ''only 775 of 2,837 biracial school districts in the 17 Southern States that required racial segregation in the public schools on that date had taken any action to abolish racial segregation."

The cost of litigating each suit up to the Supreme Court-and this is illustrative-in each of the thousands of school districts, none of which would consider binding upon it the decree against any other district, even if a decree were made in that case, was estimated at upward of $17,000.

The burden was, and still is, overwhelming in coming forward with the evidence necessary, not only to establish a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but also to help the court frame a decree of compliance "with all deliberate speed," as the Supreme Court has required. And there are certain physical and economic reprisals which discourage parents from bringing suits.

Mr. President, I pause for a moment on the subject of physical and economic reprisals. This is not a light matter. It involves bombings, as well as intimidation which does not burst out into actual bombing. I shall come to some of those cases in a moment.

At the moment, I should like to refer to a particularly appalling case of economic coercion which is reported on by the U.S. Civil Right Commission in its 1961 report of voting. It relates to two counties in Tennessee-Fayette County and Haywood County. I read from pages 36 and 37 of the Civil Rights Com-

mission report without any embellishment. This is a situation in which Negroes at long last sought to register to vote.

This brought serious economic retaliation. Many Negroes lost their jobs. A list of the "culprits" was circulated. White merchants quit trading with them. Pressure was brought to prevent suppliers in Memphis from selling to them. Their credit was stopped; their loans called; their mortgages foreclosed. They could not buy necessities of life. One white banker was quoted as saying, "My secretary's got the names of the 325 who registered. I tell them, anybody on that list, no need coming into this bank. He'll get no crop loans here. Every store has got that list."

In December 1960, a second Department of Justice suit was filed to restrain these retaliatory actions. A number of Negro tenant farmers had been notified that their leases would not be renewed, and eviction actions were pending. The Government alleged that the evictions were in retaliation for registering to vote. It obtained a court order stopping some of the evictions until the case could be fully heard on its merits. On June 14, 1961, President Kennedy authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to send surplus food to the Negro victims of the economic pressure.

As to Haywood County, the recital is this:

As in Fayette, this registration brought economic reprisals, which resulted in a suit by the Department of Justice in September 1960, charging that 29 defendants (a subsequent suit brought it to 75), including 2 banks, had "threatened, intimidated, coerced, and attempted to threaten, intimidate, and coerce Negroes of Haywood County who have registered to vote during the period from May 16, 1960, up to the time of the filing of this complaint."

These are some indications of what people like myself mean when we speak about the fact that it is all right and easy enough to talk about quiet, tranquil conditions, to say, "Just let them alone, and they will be OK.'' Let them alone, and they will be all right, if they remain quiescent and live in a shack by the side of the railroad. But let them stir around and try to get somewhere in education or in jobs, or in seeking to vote, and things suddenly become pretty hot, pretty tense, pretty difficult, and pretty dangerous for these people.

The platforms of both political parties in 1960 echoed the struggle for a part III or title III provision, which we are discussing. And, of course, the emphasis then was particularly on the field of education. The Democratic platform, for example, called:

For this and for the protection ;:>f all other constitutional rights of Americans, the Attorney General should be empowered and directed to file civil injunction suits in Federal courts to prevent the denial of any civil right on grounds of race, creed, or color.

The Republican Party's platform called for legislation-

To authorize the Attorney General to bring action for school desegregation, in the name of the United States, in appropriate cases, as when economic coercion or threat of physical harm is used to deter persons from going to court to establish their rights.

Those are the very safeguards which are provided by the pending bill, in order to provide for representation of everyone by the Attorney General.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6783 Various titles of the bipartisan civil

rights measure now pending in the Senate reflect this history in a number of significant respects. The suit-initiating power for the Attorney General in school des~gregation cases is specifically granted m section 407 of title IV. It is conditioned upon signed complaints of deprivations of equal protection of the laws in either public schools or public colleges, and upon certification by the Attorney General, that the complainants are unable to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings and that "the institution of an action will materially further the public policy of the United States favoring the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education." Inability to initiate and maintain proceedings is defined to mean financial inability or danger that institution of litigation "would jeopardize the employment or economic standing of, or might result in injury or economic damage to, such person or persons, their families or their property." '

Similarly, section 204 of the public accom~odations title, title II, of the pending bill authorizes the Attorney General to initiate suit for preventive relief to enforce the rights enumerated in that title. Since that title insures nondiscriminatory access to certain public accommodations in which discrimination or segregation is supported by State action, within the meaning of the 14th amendment, as well as those which affect commerce, this authorization to bring suit constitutes a significant portion of the traditional part III.

Title III of the pending bill which I am discussing in the main, today, covers two addi~ional aspects of the traditional part m: m section 301, suits by the Attorney General seeking desegregation of public facilities; and in section 302, intervention by the Attorney General as a party in suits brought by individuals seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws on account of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The coverage of section 301 which d.eals with public facilities, is r~latively sunple. Public facilities within the meaning of the section are defined so as to exclude schools, which are covered as has been said, by title IV, and to inclt'.ide facilities "owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof." In a great variety of cases the courts have upheld individual suits brought against public authorities to enjoin discrimination in such public f~ili~ies as State or municipal public bmldmgs, parks, golf courses, swimming pools, libraries, hospitals, beaches and playgrounds. In a recent three-judge court decision in New Orleans, enjoining segregation in that city's municipal auditorium, the leading cases were cited:

It ls no longer open to question that a State ( or city) may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities. Johnson v. Virginia, 1963, 373 U.S. 61. In that case the Court held that a city may not segregate seating in courtrooms. In other cases courts have held that public parks and playgrounds (Watson v. City of Memphis, 1963, 373 U.S. 526), public beaches and bathhouses (Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 4 Cir. 1955, 200 F. 2d 386, atf'd per curlam 1935, 350, 877), golf courses (New

Orleans City Park Improvements Association v. Detiege, 5 Cir. 1958, 262 F. 2d 122, aff'd per curlam, ~58 U.S. 54), and restaurants in public buildings (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 1961, 365 U.S. 716) may not be s~gregated. (Horace C. Bynum, et al. v. Victor H. Schiro, etc., et al.) 219 F. Supp. 204, W D. La. 1963.

Just as in the provisions of titles II and IV authorizing the Attorney General to sue, there can be no real question about the constitutionality of authorizing the Attorney General to seek injunctive remedies in legal actions in the Federal courts in public facilities or equal protection cases. The part III provision, limited to voting cases, which was adopted in the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was specifically upheld by the Supreme Co~rt in the case of United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960), in which this issue was squarely dealt with:

It ls urged that it ls beyond the power of Congress to authorize the United States to bring this action in support of private constitutional rights. But there is the highest public interest in the due observance of all the constitutional guarantees, including those that bear the most directly on private rights, and we think it perfectly competent for Congress to authorize the United States to be the guardian of that public interest in a suit for injunctive relief. See United Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39, 43, and cases cited.

Congress has in a great variety of statutes provided for relief, at the instance of the Federal Government where the injury to be redressed is pers~nal to the citizen, but the public interest of the United States is directly involved, too. The following is a list of such statutes:

Antitrust laws, restraining violationby U.S. attorney under direction Attorney General: 15 United States Code 4, July 3, 1890.

Associations engaged in catching and marketing aquatic products restrained from violating order to cease and desist monopolizing trade-by Department of Justice: 15 United States Code 522, June 25, 1934.

Association of producers of agricultural products from restraining tradeby Department of Justice: 7 United States Code 292, February 18, 1922.

Atomic Energy Act, enjoining violation of act or regulation-by Atomic Energy Commission-by Attorney General: 42 United States Code 1816, August 1, 1946.

Bridges over navigable waters, injunction to enforce removal of bridges violating act as to alteration of bridges-by Attorney General: 33 United States Code 519, June 21, 1950.

Clayton Act, violation of enjoinedU.S. attorney under direction of Attorney General: 15 United States Code 25, October 15, 1914.

.Electric utility companies, compliance with law enforced by injunctions-by Federal Power Commission: 16 United States Code 825m, August 26, 1935.

False advertisements, dissemination enjoined-by Federal Trade Commission: 15 United States Code 53, March 21, 1938.

Freight forwarders, enforcement of laws, orders, rules, and so forth, by injunctions-by Interstate Commerce Commission or Attorney General: 49 United States Code 1017, May 16, 1942.

Fur Products Labeling Act, to enjoin violation-by Federal Trade Commission: 15 United States Code 69g, August 8, 1951.

Enclosure of public lands, enjoining violation-by U.S. attorney: 43 United States Code 1062, February 25, 1885.

Investment advisers, violations of statute, rules, and regulations governing enjoined-by Securities and Exchang~ Commission: 15 United States Code 80b-9, August 22, 1940.

Gross misconduct or gross abuse of trust by investment companies, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission: 15 United States Code 80a-35, August 22, 1940.

Use of misleading name or title by investment company, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission: 15 United States Code 80a-34, August 22 1940. '

Violation of statute governing, or rules, regulation, or orders of SEC by investment companies, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission: 15 United States Code 80a-41, August 22, 1940.

Fa!r Labor Standards Act, enjoining of violations-by Administrator, Wage and House Division, Department of Labor, under direction of Attorney General, see 29 United States Code 204b-29 United States Code 216c, 217 June 25 1938. ' '

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, enforcement of order by .injunction-by U.S. attorney, see 29 Umted States Code 921a-33 United States Code 921, March 4, 1927.

Import trade, prevention of restraint br in~unction-by U.S. attorney, under direction of Attorney General: 15 United States Code 9, August 27, 1894.

Wool products, enjoining violation of Labeling Act-by Federal Trade Commission: 15 United States Code 68e October 14, 1940. '

Securities Act, actions to restrain violations-by Securities and Exchange Commission: 15 United States Code 77t, May 27, 1933.

. Securities Exchange Act, restraint of violations-by Securities and Exchange Commission: 15 United States Code 78u June 6, 1934. '

Stockyards, injunction to enforce order of Secretary of Agriculture-by Attorney General: 7 United States Code 216, August 15, 1921.

Submarine cables, to enjoin landing or operation-by the United States: 47 United States Code 36, May 27, 1921.

Sugar quota, to restrain violations-by U.S. attorney under direction of Attorney General, see 7 United States Code 608(7), and 7 United States Code 608a-6, May 9, 1934.

Water carriers in interstate and foreign commerce, injunctions for violations of orders of ICC-by ICC or Attorney General: 49 United States Code 916, September 18, 1940.

Flammable Fabrics Act, to enjoin violations-by Federal Trade Commission: 15 United States Code 1195, June 30 1953. '

National Housing Act, injunction against violation-by Attorney General: 12 United States Code 1731b. This code citation was repealed.


Defense Production Act: 50 United States Code appendix 2109, July 31, 1951.

National Labor Relations Act-TaftHartley Act: 29 United States Code 160 (L), June 23, 1947.

Rent control cases: 50 United States Code 1896, March 30, 1949.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: 21 United States Code 332, June 25, 1938.

Trademark infringement: 15 United States Code 1116, July 5, 1946.

Rubber Act of 1948: 50 United States Code 1933, March 31, 1948.

International Wheat Agreement Act: 7 United States Code 1642, October 27, 1949.

Natural Gas Act: 15 United States Code 1717s, June 21, 1938.

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act: 7 United States Code 499k, June 10, 1930.

Shipping Act of 1916: 46 United States Code 828, September 7, 1916.

Federal Plant Pest Act-Secretary of Agriculture may seek injunctive relief to enforce orders relating to treatment and disposal : 7 United States Code 150dd (b); Public Law 85-36-71 Stat. 33-May 23, 1957.

Civil Rights Act of 1957-Attorney General may ask for injunctive relief to prevent illegal practices relating to voting rights: 42 United States Code 1971 (c) ; Public Law 85-315-71 Stat. 637-September 9, 1957.

Federal Aviation Act of 1958: Board or Administrator may seek injunctive relief to enforce rules, regulations, and so forth: 49 United States Code 1487; Public Law 85-726-72 Statutes 796-August 23, 1958.

Textile Fiber Products Identification Act: Federal Trade Commission may seek injunctive relief to reS'train unlawful acts-15 United States Code 70f; Public Law 85-897-72 Statutes 1721-September 2, 1958.

Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act: Permits injunctive relief to restrain violations of the act-15 United States Code 1267, 1268; Public Law 86-613-74 Statutes 378-July 12, 1960.

Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961: Permits injunctive relief of any withholding of payment of minimum wages or overtime found by the court to be due employees-29 United States Code 217; Public Law 87-60-75 Statutes 74-May 5, 1961.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961: Attorney General may bring suit for abatement of pollution-33 United States Code 466g (f) ; Public Law 87-88-75 Statutes 209-July 20, 1961.

Small Business Investment Act Amendments of 1961: Injunctive relief is authorized to restrain violations-15 United States Code 687c(a); Public Law 87-341-75 Statutes 755-0ctober 3, 1961.

Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act Amendments of 1961: Injunctive relief to enjoin improper acts or practices-29 United States Code 308(f); Public Law 87-420-76 Statutes 38-March 20, 1962.

I call special attention to the statutes in which the relationship of the Attorney General to the protection of individual rights is most intimate. These

include the Fair Labor Standards Acts; the National Labor Relations Act, in which individuals are directly involved; the rent control cases; the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which are in the very tradition we are discussing now; the 1961 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which deal with the rights of union members; the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, again dealing with the rights of individual union members; and both the Wool Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, dealing with protection of individual business rights.

The justification for the part m proposal, which involves suits against public officials and the entire power of States and municipal authorities on behalf of the most disadvantaged segment of the population, is even clearer than that for most of the existing statutory provisions, which involve suits against individuals rather than public authorities. In addition, businessmen may be entirely capable of bringing suit against their competitors under the antitrust laws, but the Sherman Act authorizes injunctive suits brought by the Attorney General for the benefit not only of the private parties involved but also of the national interest. Clearly there is at least as great a public and national interest in protecting the individual's constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws and to equal access to public facilities as in enforcing the statutory rights which underlie many of the statutory authorizations for suit by the Attorney General which already exist.

I turn now to the second, and perhaps far more controversial, and indeed critically important aspect of the bill, namely, the authority which would be given to the Attorney General to intervene in civil rights cases in which the State deprives an individual of the equal protection of the laws because of his race, color, or national origin. That is the kind of case in which section 302 would authorize the Attorney General to intervene.

I shall not deal again with the difference between intervention and an original suit, except to say that it is a difference in degree. I believe it is a material difference. If the occasion is opportune, I shall endeavor to give the Attorney General the right to institute original suits, which I believe he urgently needs. But even the intervention part of the statute is such a step forward in so critical an area that I welcome it. I think it deserves to be fought for. I make the prediction that if that provision is enacted into law, it will prove to be perhaps the decisive element as to whether the Negro revolution, about which we have heard so much, will be a controlled and peaceful revolution within the full ,.<;ontext of the orderly procedures of the Constitution of the United States, or whether it will be an uncontrolled revolution which will get beyond all of us.

Section 302 of the bill represents a most significant step forward because it creates the first meaningful opportunity for the Federal Government to assume

a role in the crucial area of excessive police action, especially against demonstrators who are exercising their right of peaceful assembly and petition for the redress of grievances under the first amendment. Section 302 authorizes the Attorney General to intervene as a party in any suit brought by private plaintiffs in the Federal courts seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws on account of race, color, religions, or national origin. I do not at this time make any distinction between the whole sweep of the 14th amendment, including "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; due process of law; the equal protection of the laws," and section 302, which deals with the equal protection clause alone.

In my opinion, there is adequate authority under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to deal with some of the most difficult cases. The leading authority on that subject is the case of Lynch v. United States, 189 F. 2d 476, in which certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, 342 U.S. 831. That case demonstrated the scope of the protection which equal protection of the laws will provide in certain of the cases which need to be covered by the intervention authority in section 302.

We shall be studying and evaluating the question of whether all the cases for which section 302 authority is urgently needed are covered by it. For the sake of this presentation of the proponents' case, I will assume that, by the time section 302 passes the Senate, it will be designed to cover the cases which need urgently to have the application of such authority in the Attorney General.

On a technical point, under rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both mandatory and permissive intervention are provided for. That rule does not now authorize the Attorney General to intervene in cases of excessive police action, for example, for which authority in the Attorney General to act is urgently needed. It is my judgment that section 302, which would give such authority explicitly in cases in which intervention authority is needed, would supersede the Federal Rules of Procedure in that regard and stand in the place of them with respect to the authority granted to the Attorney General, so that once the conditions set out in section 302 are met, it is mandatory upon the court to permit the Attorney General to intervene.

To continue with the analysis, section 302 presupposes that a private suit is pending in Federal court to seek relief from denial of equal protection based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Two examples of such actions might be a private suit for injunction, or an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Unless or until such an action is filed in a Federal court, section 302 would not be applicable at all.

It should be noted that some types of cases covered by section 302 might be the outgrowth of situations which did not originally involve State officials directly. For example, a criminal trespass prosecution growing out of a civil rights demonstration; that is, a demonstration at a lunch counter with which we are so familiar--could give rise to action

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 6785

within the scope of section 302 notwithstanding that the original and underlining dispute may have been one between private parties. Thus, section 302 would apply to a case brought in a Federal court seeking relief from a situation where the State imposes an excessive penalty on civil rights demonstrators or where the punishment imposed upon conviction for a minor offense was unusually severe and the circumstances were such that the State's action amounted to a denial of equal protection of the laws on account of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I should like to state an interesting example. In his very fine speech the other day opening the debate, the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] spoke about the case of the Reverend Ashton Bryant Jones, of San Gabriel, Calif., who was arrested in Georgia as a demonstrator in respect to civil rights. The court in Georgia found him guilty of a misdemeanor. He had been arrested for the great crime of attempting to worship at, of all things, a segregated church.

As Senator KucHEL so properly said, his attempt to worship at a segregated church was a private matter, but his arrest made it a public matter. Reverend Jones was declared guilty, and was given the following maximum misdemeanor sentence by the State judge: 12 months at hard labor on public works, 6 months in jail, and a $1,000 fine. Bail for trying to worship at a segregated church was fixed at $20,000.

Obviously the Reverend Jones was unable to raise the bail, though later the bail was lowered by the Georgia Supreme Court. Reverend Jones languished for several months in the Atlanta jail. He stayed in jail under a huge fine, a sentence of 18 months-12 months at hard labor, and 6 months in jail-with bail fixed at $20,000, on a completely unconstitutional charge; nevertheless the Attorney General could not do anything about it, and so advised the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL]. But he did tell him that if section 302 contained in the House-passed bill became law, that would be precisely the type of situation in which the Attorney General could intercede.

What could be a better incitement to public disorder and breaches of public tranquillity; what could awaken in American hearts a greater feeling of injustice; in Negroes a feeling of burning injustice, demanding redress; and among whites a deep feeling of terrible conscience that such situations should be permitted to exist, in the absence of legal tools with which to do something about the situation?

Section 302 would permit intervention by the Department of Justice where, in an action· brought by a private party, it was claimed that excessive bail was set and this setting of bail constituted a denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Another possible case could be one similar to that arising out of an incident which occurred in Americus, Ga., which ultimately became the basis for a Supreme Court decision. A mixed group of civil rights demonstrators, Negro and white, were charged with violation of an unconstitutional State sedition statute,

conviction under which could have resulted in the death penalty. After the defendants had been in jail for several months because of inability to make bail, they-the petitioners, not the Attorney General, because he has no power to institute such suits-petitioned the Federal court for an injunction to stop the trials. At the hearing the State made no real attempt to justify bringing such a serious charge against the demonstrators. Now, Mr. President, hear this: It was admitted by the prosecutor that his purpose was to have the bail set so high that the demonstrators would be taken out of circulation for a long time before they came to trial.

Shades of the French Revolution, the trials in camera, and the disappearance of individuals, associated with the most repressive dictatorships.

Had section 302 been in existence at that time, and had there been a bona fide allegation that the State had so acted bcause of the race or color of the defendants, in violation of the equal protection clause, the Attorney General could have intervened and would have had full rights as a party thereafter.

That certainly is a particularly blatant case. Another blatant case, was that of Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, a very famous case. A group of 187 Negro high school and college students were arrested for demonstrating in Columbia, S.C. They were convicted of a misdemeanor by the State courts, the common law crime of breach of the peace. What they did, according to the Supreme Court, was to walk in groups of 15 in single file, or 2 by 2, to the South Carolina statehouse grounds, an area of 2 blocks, open to the general public, to submit a protest to the citizens of South Carolina as to their feelings of dissatisfaction with conditions of discriminatory action against Negroes, and to let the legislators know that they were dissatisfied and that they would like the laws which prohibited privileges to Negroes of South Carolina removed.

That is hardly a hostile demonstration. Yet they were convicted for breach of the peace and sentenced to penalties ranging from a $10 fine or 5 days in jail, to a $100 fine or 30 days in jail.

Those people were hauled into the police station on March 2, 1961. They remained convicted until February 25, 1963, which was the time it took to get the case through all the State courts, including the State supreme court, all of which sustained the conviction, and to a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The situation to which I have referred bears upon a very important element as to why title III of the bill is needed. We cannot expect individuals to be subjected to the terrible hazards attributed to the built-in social order of certain of our Southern States like South Carolina, when, if there were somebody to represent them in a suit in a Federal court, an injunction might have been obtained which would have prevented their arrest in the first place.

The way to deal with injustice is to nip it in the bud. By this sort of legislation we have an opportunity to nip such practices in the bud.

Let me reply to the arguments of Senators who say, "We do not care if there are demonstrations, or if there is dissatisfaction which is expressed on the streets. We are Senators of the United States, and we are not going to be coerced into voting for this bill because of such demonstrations."

That is all very fine; but is it right, is it tenable, is it conscionable, is it within the province of legislators, when we are refusing by our delay to grant these very remonstrants the opportunity for relief to which they are entitled as a matter of basic justice, and which they cannot obtain except at great expense and long lapses of time under the strain of criminal prosecutions or convictions which are intolerable to individuals?

Let us remember that this is the exceptional case. The general run of cases do not get to the U.S. Supreme Court, but die along the way, with the convictions standing.

Let us think of the intimidating effect of that situation, which has lasted for 100 years, and which has kept American citizens in subjection, which has caused their failure to vote, and their failure to participate in the life and activities of the community and give themselves and their children half a chance. These conditions have plagued this country for decades.

Certainly we cannot state with authority whether a denial of equal protection has occurred in any particular case unless all of the surrounding circumstances are known and can be carefully evalu-ated. ·

But the point is that when an action seeks relief from a denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, or national origin, the United States may intervene under section 302, whatever form that denial may take. Thus, if the State denied equal protection because the persons involved were Negroes or because they were seeking to assert Negro

·rights, section 302 would apply. The denial might occur in the form of mass arrests of Negro demonstrators solely because of their race or solely because they were demonstrating for their civil rights.

Another situation to which section 302 would apply is where local policemen have interfered with a peaceful protest demonstration or engaged in excessive police action against demonstrators, because of hostility to Negroes or to the demonstrators' goal of equal rights. If a complaint is filed in Federal court alleging such facts and asserting a denial of equal protection of the laws on account of race, it would fall within the language of section 302 authorizing the Attorney General to intervene.

Mr. President (Mr. McINTYRE in the chair) , in an interchange with one of our southern colleagues, I cited an instance the other day from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, in which a. registrar of voting, armed with a sawedoff billiard cue, walked up and down a. line of Negro registrants who were waiting to register, making it plain that he was gravely displeased with them, prominently displaying the sawed-off billiard cue in the hope that it would discourage them and they would go away.


Who has not seen pictures in American newspapers of police authorities photographing prospective Negro registrants as if they were members of the Mafia, in order to identify them for later retaliatory action because they had the temerity to try to register to vote in a southern State?

The enormous need for some strengthened Federal protection in municipal and police excess cases was thoroughly documented in the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's 1961 report on the administration of justice, which unanimously-and again I emphasize that of the six members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, three are from the North, and three are from the South, and one from the South is a Negro, so I emphasize the word "unanimously"-unanimously found police excesses by some State and local officers "a serious and continuing problem in many parts of the United States" with Negroes "the victims of such brutality far more, proportionately, than any other group in American society." The Commission found the existing misdemeanor statute and provision for civil suit for monetary damages by the victim wholly inadequate.

I have already discussed the Screws case in all its dreadful and sordid detail, in which it was held by the Supreme Court that specific intent to deprive a victim of his constitutional rights had to be proved under the existing criminal statute. And the existing authority to bring private civil cases is inadequate, principally because most victims are too poor to bring suits and because the statute limits recovery to the individual police officer concerned, who is usually unable to satisfy a money judgment even if one were forthcoming.

This is a clear case in which there is a real need for additional Federal legislation, and in its recent report for 1963, the Civil Rights Commission repeated its earlier conclusions about the inadequacy of existing law and specifically recommended that the Congress enact the part m provision.

In its 1963 report, the Commission also stressed the need to protect the right of peaceable assembly and petition.

This is the basis for the police action cases which have been so widely advertised to the world. I wish Americans would think what it means to the image of America to have displayed on the front page of a daily newspaper in Nigeria a photograph of a police dog attacking a Negro. How we are-and I use these words advisedly-indulging ourselves, living in a land of euphoria and dreams. We are spending $56 billion a year for defense, at a cost to every man, woman, and child in the United States of probably $350. In addition, we are spending approximately $4 billion in foreign economic and military aid, designed to win freedom for the people of the world. We hope and pray that it will not be decided by atomic, hydrogen, or cobalt bombs, but by the consensus of mankind that it prefers the concept of freedom.

How will that consensus be obtained? It will be obtained only if a majority

of the people of the world decide for

freedom, to use the concept of the great evangelist, Billy Graham.

Two-thirds of the people of the world who will decide live in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, and in Latin America, and their skins are not white. They are yellow, brown, or black. Essentially, they will have to decide-because decisions become rather personal, as they do in any election campaign-between the United States and the Soviet Union.

We shall be fortunate if their decision does not have to be as between the United States and Communist China. But let us give ourselves the best break and assume that it will be between the United States and the Soviet Union, both, relatively speaking, having a great preponderance of whites in their populations.

They are "having a look." If they go along with us, I believe it will be perfectly legitimate for them to wish to know how we get along with people whose skins are not like our own. How do we get along with Negroes? Do we like them? Do we "give them a break," as the saying goes? Do we treat them as equals? Or, do we kick them around and deny them opportunities and subject them to all kinds of undignified and unnecessary repression in violation of our own Constitution which declares them to be citizens just like the rest of us?

This may prove to be the most decisive element in the civil rights struggle-even more decisive than the deep constitutional and moral crisis which we face in the United States.

Mistake it not, this is one of the deep, pervasive, glacial feelings which are developing in the world. We would be blind indeed if we did not begin to understand what this means to our situation in the world, as well as in our own country.

So it is in that sense that I point out that the report of the Civil Rights Comsission stressed the need to protect the right of peaceable assembly and petition, to get abreast of the situation which has developed from the small beginning in the Greensboro, N.C., sit-in cases in 1960 to the swelling movement of peaceful demonstrations which reached its climax in the great march in Washington on August 28 of last year of 200,000 people, and which is the pervasive news on civil rights every time one opens a newspaper-including this morning.

As the Commission unanimously found in most cases, these protests "have been peaceful and orderly and well within the protective guarantees of the first amendment." The Commission also found that "breach of the peace and trespass ordinances, on their face unrelated to the preservation of segregation, have been employed by local officials to maintain it. That this use of breach of the peace and trespass ordinances may be prohibited by the 14th amendment has now been recognized by the Supreme Court in a series of cases decided in 1963." Again, as the Commission concludes, this is an area in which injunctive suits by the Attorney General are critically needed.

The Supreme Court has decided that when A sits in the store of B, and B re-

fuses to serve A, and A is arrested by the local police on the complaint of B, on the ground that he is trespassing-these are the classic sit-in cases-and there is a pattern of segregation in that community, or segregation laws exist-and there are many such places-and the laws are enforced by the police, or the local public officials have stated clearly that they intend to enforce the social order of segregation, the courts will strike down those convictions.

With whom are we dealing? We are dealing with college students. We are dealing with people many of whom will take bar examinations and other professional examinations and will have to pass character tests, in which they will be carefully screened, as a result of which they can be disqualified for their entire lives from following their chosen professions.

I ask this question in all good conscience: Should we require these mettlesome youngsters, who have shown great discipline and dignity in these demonstrations, to serve the cause of their people-and it is a noble cause-to run the gauntlet of destruction of their entire lives because the Attorney General does not have the authority to move in in time to restrain the police from excessive action? It seems to me the answer is self-evident. Of course, we should give the Attorney General such authority.

A broad part m-and I do not here deal with whether section 302 of the pending bill is broad enough in terms of intervention, but assume that it will be by the time it leaves the Senate-is aimed at police excesses which have occurred during racial demonstrations in certain cities.

I have already referred to the use of police dogs and cattle prods, which, incidentally, for those who are not initiated, are long, electrified rods which are used to prod cattle into stockades. They are used on civil rights demonstrators. Mistake it not, Mr. President, anyone who has been on the hot end of one of these prods, will never forget it.

That is an affront to the conscience of the United States.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator has dis

cussed the decision of 1963--Mr. JAVITS. The sit-in cases. Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator has said

that the Court will strike down the right of any State or any governmental unit to pass laws to prevent the granting of equal treatment to all persons, regardless of race, creed, or color. Am I correct in my understanding that the basis of the Court's decision was the 14th amendment, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6787 The Supreme Court has declared that

it does not lie within the authority of a State to enact any law which denies to citizens of the United States equal protection.

Mr. JAVITS. That is exactly correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. I wish the Senator

would discuss that point further. Mr. JAVITS. The court has imple

mented the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by striking down State action which punishes people because they are Negro, in these cases applying the State or local trepass laws to Negroes seeking lunch counter service, not because they were trepassers but only because they were Negroes.

Therefore one might say, technically, that if a person arbitrarily sat down in a chair at a lunch counter without any intention of requesting service or, after being served, continued to occupy a seat and would not pay his bill, or in some other way breached the peace by his mere passive conduct, which is entirely possible, the court would say, "This is a State problem, an ordinary crime committed under the laws of the State, and he may be prosecuted under them." That would be the end of it.

But where service is sought and denied because the customer is a Negro and the State enforces that discrimination by prosecuting for trepass when a white man could sit down in the same place and· ask for service in precisely the same way without prosecution, constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws upon which the Supreme Court will strike down the conviction.

Three levels of local condition might justify this result:

First, the enacted law of segregation in that community-and there are many such laws, either State laws or local ordinances. That is the highest degree.

The second degree consists of assertions by the mayor or police chief, or any other person in governmental authority that segregation would be enforced, law or no law.

The third degree is the practice of segregation in the area, where, for many years a Negro had not been served at such a lunch counter.

Under the first two circumstances the Court has said that the State's action in seizing the individual and punishing him is in pursuance of a policy or law to enforce unconstitutional segregation.

That decision, I believe, is a milestone decision among such cases. The leading cases are Peterson v. Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 and Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267: which give the rationale and philosophy of what was done.

Mr. LAUSCHE. The Constitution absolutely prohibits any State from enacting a law that imposes upon a businessman the obligation of discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, creed, or color. Is that correct?

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. That is the most

flagrant violation of the Constitution. Mr. JAVITS. Exactly. Mr. LAUSCHE. In categories 2 and

3, is it sound to say that when there has been a practice which has developed into what can be called a custom, or tanta-

mount to a custom, it practically reaches the level of a law, and must fall within the same rule of court as a case in which there is a prohibition of equal treatment under a specific statute?

Mr. JAVITS. I would prefer to describe the hierarchy as first, a law or an ordinance, mandating segregation, and second, segregation or discrimination which is, using the words of the Lombard case, commanded by the voice of the State, that is by an official, and so on. In the third category, I am making an inference from the decisions to cases in which, in my judgment, there is a clear pattern of segregation, so that the person demonstrating has an absolute right to expect that it will be enforced against him.

I thank the Senator for his very helpful intercession.

The Attorney General of the United States in very interesting testimony before the House committee raised various questions on the question of authorizing the Attorney General to institute suits in any case involving a deprivation of any constitutional right, whether or not based on race or color. Since the power to intervene in a small class of those cases, cases of racial deprivation of equal protection of the laws, would be granted by section 302, some of those questions should be answered in support of section 302.

Question No. 1 was: "Can such a part III prevent sporadic acts by terrorists or isolated excessive acts by individual police officers in racial situations?" Let us remember the dreadful history of bombings beginning with the bombing of the home of the Reverend Shuttleworth as retaliation for the efforts of Negroes to realize their rights by peaceful demonstrations. It is true, of course, that all such acts will not be reached; but it is also true, as the Civil Rights Commission found in its 1961 report, that suits, whether criminal or civil, may serve as deterrents to illegal violence: "The threat of suits may well dissuade officials from using unnecessary violence. Moreover both criminal and civil suits, by directing public attention to police abuses, may develop community pressure for their correction. Such public sentiment can also be expected to deter law enforcement officers from committing, and their superiors from condoning, acts of brutality." The Commission also found that the cost of paying for civil suits was so great that it made such suits under existing law almost nonexistent, because "the victims of police brutality and racial violence are predominantly the poor and the powerless." Clearly, one effective way to inject this deterrent factor into the situation is to permit the Attorney General to bring such suits.

I make one further point with respect to the question of police brutality which, if I read the signs in the sky correctly, is gradually creeping into the consciousness of the people of the South. Lawlessness can never be confined. It will always break its bounds. If a southern community begins to tolerate lawless actions as a pattern in the protest of Negroes, it will soon be visited on protesting whites who may be protesting in

connection with matters having nothing to do with race. Southern communities are beginning to give that problem much thought, and well they might, when we consider the shambles that was made in Jacksonville, Fla., by racial violence, which is attributable to an obdurate restriction to the march of time. Then we begin to realize what a stake the communities have · in the issue.

When we realize that Birmingham, Ala., began to turn the corner away from Police Commissioner Eugene <Bull) Connor's administration because the city threatened to go to pot economically, we begin to have some appraisal of why it is so important that such areas of the country be brought abreast of the times in order to allow them to progress.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Has the Senator

given any thought to the possible future development of any other field of social and economic activity in which Congress might be asked to enact laws to invest the Attorney General with the right to bring actions in behalf of aggrieved people similar to that proposed under title III?

Mr. JAVITS. I am unable to divine at the moment additional areas in which that might be necessary or desirable. A while ago I introduced a list of many statutes in which that authority is established now in a representative capacity. Perhaps the most direct analogy is the Fair Labor Standards Act, under which, because the individuals concerned may also be poor, weak, and powerless, the Government will sue to recover wages which are not paid to them. That is perhaps the most directly analogous statute, along with the part III in voting cases which was enacted in the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

I realize that a Senator with the deep concern for the spread of governmental bureaucracy and power, on the basis of which the Senator from Ohio has built his life's history and great reputation in the country and in the Senate, would have such apprehension. But at the same time, I point out that the Senator has great confidence in himself as a pretty tough-minded individual.

When precedents are discussed, let us remember that there are precedents which we make, and which we can unmake. If it seems to us that the ends of justice and the ends of order, tranquillity, and the Constitution require certain legislation, we may enact it without being inhibited by the fear that tomorrow it may be extended in a direction of which we would disapprove. If we disapprove, we will turn it down.

First, there are many precedents. Second, none of them are immutable precedents. The precedents do not necessarily have to be followed at any time anyone raises the issue in a different context.

Mr. LA USCHE. My recollection may be incorrect; but when the Kennedy urban renewal bill was before the Senate, an amendment was offered to give the Attorney General the right to institute an action on behalf of a member or members of a labor union who might allege


that they were denied their bill of rights, or equality of treatment by labor leaders.

In that instance we determined that we ought not to give that power· to the Attorney General. I understand the right given to the Attorney General to sue for an aggrieved worker when he has been denied his legal rights of compensation. But a case such as was last mentioned might arise. May I ask the Senator's view on that question? Of course, no such case is before us.

Mr. JA VITS. As I recall, this issue was raised in a committee on which I serve, with respect to the so-called union democracy provision. It was covered in the labor-management amendments adopted a few years ago.

The Congress decided to have intercession by the Federal Government in cases in which the interests of the Nation require that attention be paid to union administration-for example, in connection with the maintenance of their books and funds-but not in other cases.

Mr. LAUSCHE. It is my recollection that two aspects were presented to us. One was in regard to maintenance of the rights of a member of the union. The other was in regard to the insistence upon honesty in connection with the handling of the funds and accounts. The proposal in regard to the latter was adopted. I do not know whether the proposal in regard to the former issue even came to a vote.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator from Ohio.

The next question is as follows: "Is part III vitiated by the fact that not all demonstrations are protected by the 1st and 14th amendments, and therefore not all offensive police conduct in connection with civil rights demonstrations would be within the reach of part III"in other words, suit by the Attorney General?

This would be an extraordinary argument, for carried over to other fields, it would mean that no law should ever be enacted until it can be shown that it will be entirely effective in eliminating the evil it is directed against, and this is virtually always the case. Yet as I have noted, the Civil Rights Commission after careful study finds that most of the demonstrations have been "within the protective guarantees of the first amendment." Why should not those demonstrations be protected effectively? This would be the effect of part III.

Would part III require Federal courts to make difficult determinations as to whether a particular demonstration was or was not protected by the Constitution? This is true, but it is also true of all the difficult constitutional cases presented to the courts at all times, with or without Federal statutes authorizing the Attorney General to become involved in them. The State courts are now deciding these questions every day in the many trespass and breach of the peace prosecutions which local authorities have brought against demonstrators; many of these cases are being contested, · at enormous cost and individual sacrifice-in many cases serious criminal charges are involved-on the ground that the demonstrators were protected by the 1st and

14th amendments. I have stated that one of the charges in such a case in Georgia was sedition, for which the penalty could be death. Yet those rights are protected by the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court had no great difficulty in deciding the case, which I have mentioned earlier, of Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, on appeal from State breach of the peace prosecutions, on just these grounds in January 1963-namely, that prosecution for exercising the right to demonstrate peacefully is unconstitutional.

A suitable part III would not require the Federal courts to handle any new or unusual question which courts are not already deciding. It would simply authorize the U.S. Government to initiate such litigation to protect rights of U.S. citizens under the Constitution, rights which individuals are finding extremely difficult and extremely dangerous and extremely trying to redress under existing law. It should also be noted that in the cases, in which under existing law the courts are faced with deciding these issues, there is no redress for denials of rights where such denials are finally found, and therefore little deterrence to a repetition of the denial during the next demonstration. The demonstrators' convictions under State law are simply reversed.

This is an extremely important point, because of the following reason: The Edwards case, which I have cited, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but 2 years elapsed before the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the defendants were in great jeopardy; and when the same person or same group of persons again walked the streets, carrying placards bearing the inscription "Give the Negroes Their Rights," they could be arrested by the same policemen, and the whole process could be engaged in all over again, including trial in the State court, conViction, appeal to the State supreme court, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, finally, reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Part m would permit an injunction to be obtained, so as to establish the rights of both parties-both the police and the demonstrators-and would permit the injunction to be changed from time to time; and it would represent the rules of the game in that particular jurisdiction. Therefore, the great uncertainty and great hazards now involved would no longer be involved.

It seems to me that this is one of the most salutary and effective provisions for which we contend; and a consideration of this situation will cause almost all of us to favor most strongly this provision of the bill.

Would the courts have to decide in advance what police action might or might not be justified in the fast-changing conditions accompanying demonstrations?

The Supreme Court had no difficulty in making the applicable distinction in the Edwards case, in which it said of the demonstrators, whose convictions were reversed on this ground, that "There was no violence or threat of violence on their part, or on the part of any member of the

crowd watching them. Police protection was ample." And the Court was readily able to distinguish this case from another case in which the contrary was true. These were cases decided after the fact, rather than in advance of it; but the principle is one which local authorities in areas of the South apparently do not accept, even in the face of clear Federal law.

That is the principle of allowing peaceful demonstrations. It would, therefore, be of enormous value for the Attorney General to be able to ask a Federal court for an injunctive order embodying this principle, against local authorities who have consistently denied the principle. The deterrent value of such an order, punishable by contempt proceedings, can hardly be doubted.

Mr. President, I should like to say a few words about contempt. A great deal is made of the fact that a court can punish for contempt, without a jury trial.

First, let it be said that the bill limits this punishment to 45 days in jail or a fine of not to exceed $300. If either of those limits is exceeded, the defendant will be allowed to demand a jury trial and will be entitled to have a jury trial.

So this part of the bill provides for the time-honored practice of contempt proceedings before a judge alone. In the South there have been many contempt proceedings in connection with matters far different from civil rights, and no one has complained about the punishment for contempt. Appeals have been taken to the Supreme Court and repeatedly upheld.

It is said that in the South, judges, as well as jurors, have some feeling for local social customs and patterns and what they betoken in terms of what can be done and what cannot be done. But the point is that I do not believe that those who violate the civil rights of others, under color or law or local custom or local practice, are hardened criminals. Instead, they are honorable, ordinary Americans, very much like all other Americans, with their children and their troubles and a mortgage and installment payments-much like all other Americans. But in those areas of the country there is a completely anachronistic concept of living-a concept absolutely unacceptable to the Negroes and absolutely unacceptable to the rest of the people of the United States. If in some effective, vigorous way the ·mirror of their own conduct and what it means can be held up to those people so that they may see that society disapproves of it, we shall not need condign punishments to bring about the necessary correction. The power of the court to punish for contempt with imprisonment of less than 45 days and a fine of less than $300 is adequate for the purpose. So I do not believe there is anything to the argument that the punishment is onerous, certainly not in relationship to what the bill is seeking to redress.

The next question is as follows: Would injunctions in advance cause

State and local authorities to abdicate their law enforcement responsibilities altogether? This is precisely the result under existing, inadequate Federal law.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6789 In the case of the Birmingham, Ala., demonstrations in 1963, just as in the cases of Little Rock, the University of Mississippi, and the University of Alabama, the Federal Government was unable to handle the situation of virtual anarchy which the State and local authorities permitted to develop, short of having the President call into Federal service the State's National Guard and bring other Armed Forces or marshals of the United States into the breach. Should that be the only remedy which the Government of the United States has when rights of citizens of the United States are flagrantly denied by State and local authorities? A suitable part III would at least permit the Federal courts to decide the constitutional questions rather than forcing the demonstrators to test their rights in the streets with only the hope that, if conditions finally deteriorate to the point of anarchy, the President will send in troops or marshals.

In my view, speaking as one Senator, in order to meet adequately the crucial problem of public order which I have outlined, title III of the pending bill should be amended in three respects.

First, section 302 should be amended to authorize the Attorney General to initiate suits as well as to intervene in suits already initiated by private individuals. I believe this class of suits, involving the most difficult questions of public order and individual rights, should not be given a lower order of priority than those involving public accommodations or school desegregation, which under titles II and IV the Attorney General is authorized to initiate. In addition, the need for speedy relief in advance of a confrontation in the streets is so great that the additional hurdle--of requiring that a private suit first be brought-should not be placed in the path of enlisting Federal support for constitutional rights. By the time such a private suit can be filed, the relief sought may well be moot. This might not be the case if the Attorney General and the resources of the Department of Justice can be brought to bear at the outset.

Second, an additional section should be appended to make meaningful the existing civil remedy under title 42, United States Code, section 1983, by making any county government, city government, or other local governmental entity that employs officers who deprive persons of rights protected by that section, jointly liable with the officers who alone are now liable in damages to victims of such officers' misconduct. This was a unanimous recommendation of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in its exhaustive 1961 report on the administration of justice, in which it found as follows:

The Federal civil rights acts providing civil liability for unlawful official violence have not proved to be effective remedies. Relatively few suits are filed under the principal civll statute, section 1983, which allows suits by the victims of police brutality against officers for monetary damages. SuccessfUl suits are rare.

And well they might be when a court or jury knows that it is the officer himself who will have to pay the judgment.

The Commission stated further: One deterrent to the filing of civll suits

ls the fact that even if a victim of official violence sues successfully, few police officers are able to satisfy a substantial money judgment. This can be corrected by an amendment to section 1983 which would render counties, cities, and other local governmental entities liable for the misconduct of their policemen.

Incidentally, that is a recommendation which the U.S. Civil Rights Commission repeated in its 1963 report.

Third, a further additional section should be appended to the title to make useful the existing criminal remedy, title 18, United States Code, section 242, by making the penalties of that statute applicable to those who maliciously perform, under color of law, certain described acts including the following:

1. Subjecting any person to physical injury for an unlawfUl purpose.

2. Subjecting any person to unnecessary force during the course of an arrest or while the person is being held In custody.

3. Subjecting any person to violence or unlawful restraint in the course of eliciting a confession to a crime or any other information.

4. Subjecting any person to violence or unlawful restraint for the purpose of obtaining anything of value.

5. Refusing to provide protection to any person from unlawful violence at the hands of private persons, knowing that such violence was planned or was then taking place.

6. Aiding or assisting private persons in any way to carry out acts of unlawful violence.

This, too, was the unanimous recommendation of the Civil Rights Commission, as the result of the following finding in its 1961 administration of justice report:

Difficulties also arise from the language of section 242, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Screws v. United States. The requirement of "specific intent"-as opposed to the usual general criminal intent--for conviction under the statute severely limits the statute's applicability. Moreover, there is confusion among judges, jurors, and lawyers as to the meaning of specific intent. Some Federal trial judges have issued instructions to juries which seem to interpret specific intent more narrowly than is required by the Screws decision.

A more specific statute supplementary to section 242 spelllng out certain conduct proscribed by the 14th amendment would more effectively protect the constitutional right to security of the person against official misconduct.

With these strengthening amendments, which can be offered by me at an appropriate time and after considering the need for any due process inclusion, I believe a truly meaningful part III proposal will have been incorporated in title III of the pending bill.

Mr. President, I am about to conclude. I should like to sum up briefly what I have covered today in such great detail.

First, it is an honor to make this affirmative case. It is long overdue. It is long overdue because the people of the United States may get an idea that we are living in a vacuum and that we do not know what is going on outside these quiet and peaceful walls. But there are riots in the streets. It is one thing to suppress riots when the causes they seek are public disturbance and the

destruction of the social order. It is another thing to deal with riots in which people are expressing deeply held grievances from which they have suffered for years-for generations-and which we have been unable to do anything about, but which we recognize as a nation to exist, and which we are trying to recognize and do something about in areas of the country in which there exists this built-in, archaic social order which insists that because a man's skin is black, he is different from a white man and must be kept segregated from him.

Such a situation is intolerable in our present day. It should not exist. It is destructive of the Nation, and of the Nation's position in the world. It is that simple. It is going on every day outside this door in the far reaches of the coun- · try. We cannot stand still for it.

We should have full debate and consideration and solve the problem in every way compatible with our democratic processes, but let us understand that the days of the delay add to the days of aggravation, the days of continued public disorders, the days of continued deprivation of the Nation's conscience, and the continued deprivation of the Nation in terms of its economy, which is &uff ering now to the extent of between $13 billion and $17 billion a year in productivity because of the fact that Negroes are not given equal employment opportunities and equal educational opportunities.

Finally, when I began I said something about my own party. I would like to conclude on that note. My party has a great opportunity, just as the Democratic Party has in this struggle. We are the party of Lincoln. We are the party which was founded upon the concept of the free workingman and the urgent· needs of that kind of economy, Many people in the South are beginning to realize that it is also absolutely essential to their section of the country.

The pride and integrity of our party are at stake in this struggle. I deeply believe that when the roll is called, and as the various developments take place upon which the roll must be called, my party will do its duty in the tremendous and dramatic struggle in which we are engaged.

I reject the idea that weakening amendments will be offered from our side which will complicate a situation which demands the national attention so urgently. I do not believe that the great majority of the members of the Republican Party in the Senate will stand for such an idea. I believe the great majority will find it untenable, and will reject it, as has been shown time and time again on votes in the civil rights struggle, beginning in 1957, when the civil rights bill was intercepted at the Senate door and considered in the Senate, so that at long last, action might be taken on the problem.

We are face to face with a discussion of a meaningful civil rights bill which the administration supports, and behind which, in my judgment, are a majority of the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle.


It is said that when a majority of the Senate wants something, it can get it. I add to that statement the corollary that it can get it if it shows the necessary determination. We have the power to act, if the majority of the Senate will show the necessary determination. With God's help, it will.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the floor.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I commend the

Senator on the lucidity and force and clarity of the speech he has made.

Mr. JAVITS. I am extremely grateful to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts for the kindness of his remarks on my speech. I thank him very much.

I yield the floor.

THE FALLACY THAT CASTRO IS HERE TO STAY

During the delivery of Mr. JAVITS' speech,

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to a study entitled "Terror and Resistance in Communist Cuba," which was made public on Tuesday by the Citizens Commit-tee for a Free Cuba.

We have been too prone to be pessimistic about Cuba. In recent months an increasing number of people have expressed the belief that Castro is here to stay, that our economic embargo is an exercise in futility, and that the best we can do is to reconcile ourselves to the reality of Castro and seek some wa~ of living with him.

I believe that "Terror and Resistance in Communist Cuba" is the most effective reply that has yet been made to all those who advocate the passive acceptance of the Castro regime because they see no serious possibility of liberating Cuba from its clutches.

The policy of passive acceptance is based on three principal fallacies.

The first fallacy is the belief that the Castro regime, as tyrannical as it may be, nevertheless enjoys a substantial measure of popular support and that its hold over its people is, therefore, secure. It is this fallacy, in particular, that is demolished by the report, "Terror and Resistance in Communist Cuba."

The fundamental fact about Cuba, says this report, is that its people are waging an unrelenting war against the hated, despotic Communist regime. It draws a picture of a Cuba seething with discontent; of a Cuban people who continue their struggle for freedom undaunted by Castro's terror; of a regime that sits on top of a veritable volcano of popular discontent that may erupt at any moment.

The second fallacy on which the apostles of passive acceptance base their case, is that Communist regimes in general are immune to popular revolt and therefore immune to overthrow. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that the total tyranny of communism has succeeded in breeding the most total popular hatred known to

history. The past 10 years alone have witnessed the East German uprising, the Poznan revolt, the Hungarian revolution, the revolt of the Vorkuta slave laborers in the Soviet Union itself, and the Tibetan revolution. These heroic uprisings failed only because of the presence or direct intervention of the Soviet Army, or of the Red Chinese Army in the case of Tibet. But we have not yet seen the end of popular explosions against Communist tyranny.

The time or place of the next popular explosion against communism is something that no one can predict. But if such an explosion should take place in Cuba, the outcome would be different from the outcome of the Hungarian revolution. It would be different for the simple reason that the Soviets could not send 200,000 men and 5,000 tanks to crush the Cuban revolution, as they were obliged to do to crush the Hungarian revolution.

Apart from the fact that their theory is belied by history, I sometimes wonder whether those who regard Communist regimes as unassailable have stopped to assess the ultimate meaning of their assumption. If the Communists are free to subvert and overthrow non-Communist governments in various parts of the world at the tempo that has characterized the postwar period, and if the free world accepts every Communist conquest as final and irreversible, then, as surely as 2 and 2 makes 4, the whole world will ultimately be Communist.

The third fallacy on which those who propose a do-nothing policy in Cuba base themselves, is that the Castro regime, while admittedly a nuisance, does not pose any mortal threat to our security.

They do not deny that Castroism poses a threat to the stability and security of the other American states. This would be impossible to deny in the light of the bloody campaign of terrorism in Venezuela, the recent riots in Panama, the rising tide of Castroite leftism in other Latin American countries, and this day, at this hour, the ominous events in Brazil.

Nor would they deny that the mere existence of Castroism nullifies the Alliance for Progress and makes serious planning impossible because lack of confidence in the future frightens away new investment and makes for an actual process of disinvestment.

But, admitting all this, they still hold that Castro does not directly threaten the United States, and we should not therefore react in what they consider to be an exaggerated manner to the fact of his existence.

In the old days, there used to be a brand of isolationism which held that we could ignore what happened to the rest of the world and maintain our own independence, our freedoms, our standard of living and our happiness. It was said that all we had to do was to make of America a fortress so strong that no nation or combination of nations would think of assailing it. That doctrine was known as "fortress-America" isolationism.

It is perplexing to note that some of these who understood the illusion of "for-

tress-America" isolationism, have now become the advocates of an essentially identical brand of isolationism. They appear to believe that our security and our freedoms would not be affected even if the major part of the hemisphere and, for that matter, of the free world were to go Communist.

Castro and the Alliance for Progress are mutually incompatible. One or the other will have to go.

If Castro remains in power, the coming years will inevitably witness the emergence of other Castro regimes in the Americas.

At this very moment, indeed, Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, is the scene of a desperate uprising against the increasingly pro-Communist policies of the Goulart government. It is still too early to predict the outcome of this struggle. But if one major country like Brazil were to go Communist, it is questionable whether the political tides generated by this development could be stopped anywhere south of the Rio Grande.

To say that this would make no difference to our own security is nonsense. An America isolated within its own hemisphere, cut off from its traditional markets and sources of raw materials in the Americas, forced to increase its defense expenditures even over present high levels, could no longer play any serious role in world affairs. If America were thus isolated, it is not inconceivable that internal pressures would lead either to a popular-front regime or else to a Fascist regime.

What this all adds up to is a lesson that we should have learned long ago from history: that we cannot separate our own freedom and our own security from the freedom and security of our neighbors.

Castro must go. That is the simple fact of the matter. This does not mean that we must send in the Marines to depose him. But it does mean that we must be prepared to give our unstinting support, both moral and material, to the brave people of Cuba who have never given up their aspirations to freedom.

All those who feel pessimistic about the future of Cuba or resigned to the fact of Castroism, would do well to reexamine their beliefs in the light of the detailed testimony presented in "Terror and Resistance in Communist Cuba." Let me list just a few of the many facts that illustrate the mass disaffection that exists in Cuba and the incredible will to resist of the Cuban people.

First. Over a period of 3 years, 350,000 Cubans have sought freedom in the United States and other countries, leaving behind them their houses, their automobiles, their furnishings, and everything they possessed. Another 325,000 CUbans had applied for visa waivers when air transport to the United States was canceled as a result of the October 1962, missile crisis.

Second. Despite repeated military actions against the guerrillas and the execution of many captured resistance leaders, new guerrilla bands and new resistance leaders continue to spring up.

Third. The Cuban peasants, or guajiros, have cooperated openly with the

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6791 resistance in the mountains. So widespread was this cooperation that the Castro regime promulgated decree No. 988 in an effort to cope with it. Anyone caught giving one mouthful of food to a counterrevolutionary, said Castro, would be executed; peasants in areas where guerrilla bands were operating who did not report their existence, would feel the full measure of revolutionary wrath.

Fourth. The resistance of peasants has been matched by the resistance of the city dwellers.

In April 1962, saboteurs burned down the Cuban National Bank Building.

Twenty-four hours later, bombs leveled the chemical fertilizer plant in Cotorro.

Shortly thereafter, several warehouses went up in smoke.

From December 1962, to the end of February 1963, saboteurs caused three train wrecks, to add to Castro's growing transportation crisis.

On March 9 and March 20, 1963, there were two more major train wrecks.

In early January 1963, a large garage filled with scarce automobile parts was burned in the center of Havana.

And so it goes, right down to the present day.

Fifth. Stories of open resistance in the streets, of the heckling of pro-Castro orators, of spontaneous demonstrations in movie theaters, are continuing to come out of Cuba.

In June of 1962, in the port city of Cardenas in Matanzas Province, demonstrations reached the point of near-insurrection, with the people battling both the Young Communist goon squads and the militia. The situation was brought under control only when the Government ordered in the Cuban Army. Castro's TV network recorded this resort to force and broadcast it throughout the country to dissuade dissidents in other towns and cities from following the example of Cardenas.

These items are only a few of the many events that are presented in documented form in "Terror and Resistance in Communist Cuba."

In the face of all this, how can anyone say Castro is secure and is accepted by the people of Cuba?

I think the evidence is clear that the Castro regime is not accepted by the Cuban people. Indeed, I think it would be no exaggeration to say that the Cuban people, in their resistance to communism, have displayed a heroism that rivals that of the Hungarian freedom fighters and a stubbornness that has not been surpassed in the annals of opposition to communism.

The many uprisings against Communist tyranny in recent years and theirrepressible will to freedom displayed by the Cuban people, both point to the conclusion that Cuba in the not too distant future will be the scene of another popular revolt against Communist bestiality.

This revolt will take place whether we encourage it or not, because human endurance has its limits and its explosion point. It is not in our power either to prevent such a revolt or to artificially create it. But what we say and what we do can expedite the process or slow it down. And on the day when the pentup

wrath of the Cuban people explodes, our action or our inaction may make the difference between victory or defeat.

These are the real choices that confront us.

For several years I have been urging that we commit ourselves to a carefully spelled out program of liberation for the Cuban people, so that neither our friends nor our enemies can mistake our intentions. Let me again suggest the outlines of such a program.

First of all, I would like to suggest that we commit ourselves to a ''declaration of independence and freedom for the Cuban people" and to the proposition that the Cuban people should be given the right to select a government of their own choice in free elections, under OAS supervision.

Second, we should make it clear that we stand by the Monroe Doctrine.

I hear much talk to the effect that the Monroe Doctrine is out of date. But the Monroe Doctrine was of very great importance to us at the time of the missile crisis. And, thank God, President Kennedy applied it.

I believe we should again invoke the Monroe Doctrine to proclaim a total embargo on shipments of Communist military materials and military personnel to Cuba.

Third, we should use all the resources of diplomacy, not excluding economic countermeasures, to discourage allied and friendly nations from shipping critical materials to Cuba.

Some say that our embargo has been an exercise in futility. I agree that it has not been as effective as it could have been. But this, primarily, has been because of our failure to make it effective. We can strengthen it, we can make it more effective, first by urging our allies to desist from selling critical goods to Cuba. Most important, however, we, ourselves, can set a proper example by rigidly restricting our own trade with Communist countries in all parts of the world.

Fourth, I believe we should be prepared to give open and increasing assistance to Cuba's heroic freedom fighters, who are daily defying Castro's execution squads. Instead of discouraging the Cuban freedom fighters, instead of interfering with their operations, as we have sometimes done in the past, I believe that we should give them at least the same leeway that we gave Fidel Castro in the late 1950's when he was able to use the United States as his chief base of support and supply for the July 26 movement.

Not only should we support the antiCastro resistance movement in Cuba, but I would urge that we publicly support the creation of a "Cuban Freedom Legion" in exile, whose ranks would be open to all Latin American nationals.

I do not regard this program as complete or final.

These are only a few of the many things that can and must be done to help the Cuban people recover their freed om and to liquidate the Communist beachhead in Cuba and the threat it poses to the stability and independence of the American States.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the argument, which is made by some, that a Communist tyranny in Cuba, stretching its tentacles into Brazil and into other countries of Latin America, is not a real menace to all of us. Although some urge that it is nothing to worry about, that it is only a minor nuisance, it is clear that it is a very definite threat to all the Americas and to our own Nation.

Certainly a threat to freed om in this hemisphere is a serious menace to the freedom of all, and we had better be about the business of dealing effectively with it. If we do what I propose, there will be no need to send American Marines or American soldiers into action there. Instead, the Cuban people themselves will take care of Castro, if they have our moral and material support.

Therefore, let us make it very clearand let us do so firmly-that we stand on the side of freedom, that we are opposed to tyranny, that we were not only opposed to it yesterday, but we also oppose it today, and we will oppose it tomorrow, whenever and wherever it appears.

So I urge all Senators to give their most careful consideration and attention to the facts set forth in the current study by the Citizens' Committee for a Free Cuba.

I believe this to be one of the most significant studies of the Cuban situation yet published.

The Citizens' Committee for a Free Cuba is headed by some of the most distinguished and responsible men and women in American life. I hope that their report will be read by all Members of Congress and by the American people generally, so that all of us in America will better understand what is occurring in Cuba and what must be done to deal with the situation.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll and the following Senators answered~ their names:

Bayh Boggs Burdick Clark Dirksen Domin-lck Douglas Ellender Gruening Hart

[No. 109 Leg.] Hickenlooper Hlll Javits Keating McGovern McIntyre McNamara Metcalf Morse Morton

Mundt Ribicoff Robertson Saltonstall Stennis Williams, N .J. Williams, Del. Young, N. Dak. Young, Ohio

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate.

After a little delay, Mr. BEALL, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. CASE, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COTTON, Mr. DODD, Mr. F'uLBRIGHT, Mr. HRUSKA, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. JORDAN of Idaho, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.


LAUSCHE, Mr. LONG of Louisiana, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. McCARTHY, Mr. McCLELLAN, Mr. Moss, Mr. PEARSON, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. SMITH, and Mr. SPARKMAN entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH in the chair). A quorum is present.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. ROBERTSON obtained the floor. Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the

Senator from Virginia yield briefly to me?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Michigan, without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR McNAMARATESTIMONIAL DINNER

Mr. HART. Mr. President, Senator PAT McNAMARA, my senior colleague from Michigan, has often been termed a selfeducated man-and I suppose that is true. His formal education ended early, for he left high school, to become an apprentice in the shipbuilding industry.

The knowledge he has acquired-and it is impressive--is a tribute to determination, to hard work, to dedication, and perhaps to the principle of self-education.

But PAT McNAMARA does not see it that way. Unlike some self-educated men, he does not see it as the road that other men should travel. Senator McNAMARA'S concern for formal education has been more than just enthusiastic; it has been downright zealous.

Doubtlessly one of the reasons for PAT McNAMARA'S growing stature--both in this body and in Michigan-has been his deep sensitivity for the feelings of the people he represents and for their welfare.

All who know him well recognize this sensitivity, although sometimes he succeeds in obscuring it with his aggressive independence and forceful comments.

What this is building up to is an announcement that on June 6 a testimonial dinner will be held in Detroit for the Senator. The dinner is sponsored by Histdrut, an Israeli labor organization; and all the proceeds will go to establish a Senator PAT McNAMARA Scholarship Fund for indigent Israel students.

I am looking forward eagerly to attending the dinner.

During his career, Senator McNAMARA has enjoyed many tributes. Reelection by a large majority certainly has been one of them. He is chairman, as all of us know, of the Senate Public Works Committee. He has become closely identified with the search for solutions to the problems of aging. He has worked hard in connection with labor law and for economic growth.

But I suspect that one of the tributes he treasures most was given during the 1958 debate on the National Defense Education Act, when Lyndon Johnson,

then majority leader, now President of the United States said:

In my opinion, perhaps we would not have any kind of education bill except for Senator McNAMARA'S constant prodding all year long.

So of all the testimonial dinners which could be held for PAT McNAMARA, I suspect that the one on June 6, linked with the chance to promote education for youngsters, will be the one that will please him most.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. HART. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I merely wish to say

that the group which will give the dinner will honor itself by honoring Senator McNAMARA.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield briefly to me?

Mr. HART. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. In this election

year there have not been too many dinners about which a Senator on my side of the aisle, a member of the Republican Party, could say something complimentary. I hope that the dinner will be a notable occasion. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA] is a former citizen of Massachusetts. He was brought up in that State. I hope that the dinner will be a fine occasion and a great success.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia cannot claim the Senator from Michigan as a former resident of his State, but I am glad that the Senator from Viriginia has been able to yield for the purpose of permitting others to speak.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Montana without losing my right to the floor.


Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. First, I wish to

join in what the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART] has said about his outstanding colleague [Mr. McNAMARA]. As the Senator pointed out, his colleague has come up the hard way, but he has been a jewel in the conduct of the affairs of the Senate. He has carried his full share of the load and a little more. As chairman of the committees on which he has served-the Committee on Public Works and the Subcommittee on Labor-and as a member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the Subcommittee on Education, his work has been outstanding. I feel deeply indebted to him for the many contributions that he has made and the conscientiousness he has shown in carrying out his duties.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1963 The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney

General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO QUORUM CALLS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, today there have been two live quorums. One required 53 minutes and the other approximately 44 minutes. This is the middle of the week. We are considering a very important measure. I would hope that from now on Senators, regardless of what particular attitude they have toward the pending bill, would make it a point to be close by and to answer quorum calls as expeditiously as possible. I believe I can speak with some authority on the subject because I happen to be one of those who was summoned by the Sergeant at Arms. But that is beside the point.

Some serious questions have been raised by certain Senators as to the recording of the so-called live quorums. A quorum is present when 51 Senators are present. The first 51 Senators answering the roll call will be listed hereafter as those constituting a quorum, and not those who happen to be in the city but who fail to show up. I know of no other way to meet the situation which has been called to my attention by various Senators than to make that announcement at this time. I hope that in fairness to all, and in the cause of accuracy, that procedure will be followed by the recording clerk. I hope also that all Senators would be aware of the fact that from now on quorum calls will be accurate and will be based on having at least 51 Senators present in person.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I should like to inform

the majority leader that I shall call for a live quorum when I obtain the floor today, because I intend to raise a matter of serious personal privilege. I do not wish any Senator to have the excuse that he did not have an opportunity to be present at the time I speak.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senate is on notice.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. CLARK. The Senator from Ore

gon is, of course, within his rights in suggesting that he will call for a live quorum. I would hope very much-and this is merely a personal request on my part-that he would not complete his speech on the civil rights aspect of his talk before he calls for a live quorum. The Senator is not bound by anything which is done by other Senators, I understand, but those of us who are for the bill and those who are against the bill had an informal understanding that there would be no further live quorum calls after the one just had. Senators have been told of that arrangement. The Senator from Oregon would be startled if he had an opportunity, as I have had, to look at the lists on both sides of the aisle,

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6793 and if he knew how many Senators are not in the city.

I believe it is at least possible that if the Senator calls for a live quorum after an hour or 2 or 3, he will not get it. I do not ask the Senator to make any comment on the subject at this point. I merely had some information that I thought he would like to have before he does what he has every right to do.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I have the floor; and I wish to make a statement on that very point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from Montana has correctly stated that we are dealing with important proposed legislation. I believe that it is the most important bill that has been before the Congress in my 31 years of service. In my opinion, it is a most dangerous bill. In my opinion, it would take us further down the road to dictatorship. So I was prepared to discuss this afternoon only one part of the bill, namely, title VI, which has no constitutional foundation. It is unconstitutional on the ground of vagueness and indefiniteness.

I sat here for nearly an hour hoping that perhaps my colleagues would come.

Meanwhile I saw a large attendance in the press gallery, and I knew that the Fourth Estate was not there to hear me speak. I found out why they were there. The distinguished Senator from Oregon will speak about Vietnam. He will open up what might be called some "powder kegs." In any event, what he has to say will be news, and it will be in the newspapers. It will be reported.

Under those circumstances, for me to speak for at least 3 hours, as I had planned, would be unfair to both the Senator from Oregon and the members of the Fourth Estate, who have their pencils poised to take down what he will say. I know they would not even put down my remarks with the back ends of their pencils. In view of that situation, why would it not be the part of wisdom for me to yield the floor to the Senator from Oregon with the understanding that he will hold the floor until the agreed time of 6: 30? That is the time I was told to be ready to speak. I prepared to speak, and I do not wish to make merely a part of a good speech. I know that the Senator from Oregon has a really good speech. So I should like to ask the majority leader if he has any objection if I merely take my seat?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield while he still has the floor--

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. I might have an

objection to his sitting down, but I would not have an objection to his arriving at an accommodation with the Senator from Oregon on the basis which he described. To do so would be most gracious and courteous on the part of the Senator from Virginia. What would the Senator from Oregon think of that arrangement?

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, in view of that statement, so nicely said, the Senator from Virginia would like to

keep his speech for a more propitious time. I shall yield to the distinguished Senator from Oregon with the understanding that what I have said did not deal with what I was about to say.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERTSON. - I yield the floor. Mr. MORSE obtained the floor. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. As a Senator on

the Republican side of the aisle, I should like to ask the majority leader whether there will be any other speeches tonight or any other quorum calls of which the majority leader knows after the Senator from Oregon :finishes his speech.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would defer to the acting majority leader to answer the question. I do not know the battle plan.

Mr. CLARK. I am a little embarrassed to make the statement I am about to make in the face of the crowded galleries. I would rather have made it to the Senator in the secrecy of the cloakroom. But the answer to his question is "No."

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia, but I wish to assure him that not a word of what I say will be written in any newspaper.

Mr. ROBERTSON. If the Senator says what he told me he would say, it will be.

Mr. MORSE. I will make that statement, but it will not be in the newspapers. We have a kept press in this country. That kept press will not print criticisms of the present administration.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Oregon with the understanding that I may continue my speech on title VI on a subsequent occasion.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I am afraid that I may have to object-I would hope that my good friend from Virginia would be willing merely to yield the floor without any unanimous-consent agreements, because of the fact that tomorrow, and for weeks thereafter, the Senator will have ample opportunity to make his speech. We were hopeful that tomorrow a couple of speeches which have been prepared would be made.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Let me clear up the parliamentary situation. I mentioned the fact that I had the floor. I was about to speak on title VI. I do not want any Senator to say, "You have already spoken on title VI and you cannot speak on it any more."

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, under the circumstances, I shall not object.


Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK]. I always find him very persuasive. I was not aware of the information the Senator from Pennsylvania gave concerning

what program the leadership on this bill had arranged in regard to the procedure for today. If I had known of it, I would not have said I was going to call for a live quorum. Under those circumstances, I will not call for a live quorum. But I respectfully suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and through him to the floor leaders of the bill, that whenever it is possible, there should be the broadest possible cloakroom discussions of plans. We are likely, in the not too distant future, to find ourselves in a position in which each Senator may have to exercise his own right for his protection, regardless of any understanding some group in the Senate may have reached.

By announcing that I shall not ask for a live quorum at this time, I do not want Senators to think I am setting a precedent to guide them in the future. I shall not ask for a live quorum merely because the leadership may have entered into an understanding, of which I was not aware, that there would not be a live quorum.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I completely agree with

the Senator. I point out only that since the Senator was out of the city on important business, arrangements had to be made before he returned. We did not not have an opportunity to call his attention-although we did inform a member of his staff-to the situation which had occurred on the floor. I am grateful for what he has done. I thank him for his understanding.

Mr. MORSE. It was perfectly proper for Senators to make those arrangements. I was called, as the Senator knows, at the University of Kansas and asked if I could return to make a major civil rights speech at 4 o'clock. I said I would, and I did.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY SENATOR MORSE-SOUTH VIETNAM Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, let me

talk a little about South Vietnam. I shall base these remarks on ·a matter of personal privilege, because if Senators will look into the meaning of personal privilege in the Senate, they will understand why I am basing my statement on a matter of personal privilege because of future reference.

Mr. President, the tinhorn soldier tyrant whom the Government of the United States is supporting in an unjustifiable war in South Vietnam has publicly called the senior Senator from Oregon a traitor.

I ask unanimous consent that the story appearing in the New York News, entitled "Khanh Labels Morse Traitor to U.S. People,'' written by staff correspondent of the News Mr. Joseph Fried, be published in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: KHANH LABELS MORSE TRAITOR TO U.S. PEOPLE

(By Joseph Fried) SAIGON, VIETNAM, March 28.-Strongman

Premier Maj. Gen. Nguyen Khanh today

6794 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD - SENATE April 2

called Senator WAYNE MORSE, Democrat, of Oregon, a traitor to his people for advocating withdrawal of U.S. advisers from Vietnam.

Khanh was questioned at the coastal city of Nha Trang, 200 miles northeast of Saigon, about MoRsE's recent statement on the Senate floor that "all of South Vietnam isn't worth the life of a single American boy."

DOESN'T KNOW SENATOR'S NAME Khanh replied: "I do not know the name

of this Senator. However, if I were an American, I can say this Senator would not be good for the American fighting men right here."

MORSE, he went on, is "a traitor of the American people" for taking such a view. He said he understood Red Chinese advisers were with Communist guerrilla cadres.

Khanh also spoke of Vietnamese-Cambodian relations after attending the graduation of a class of air cadets at Nha Trang.

SET TO WELCOME CAMBODIANS He said he was ready to welcome a Cam

bodian delegation for talks on VietnameseCambodian differences, but expressed hopes the two countries could settle their dispute without outside help.

Plans for early Cambodian-Vietnamese border talks fell through after the Vietnamese bombed and s trafed a Cambodian village last week, killing some 16 villagers.

The News learned that the United States has begun supplying two-seater A-lH fighter planes to Vietnam to replace slower T-28 trainers. A shipment of A-lH's, formerly known as the AD-6, arrived here this week by ship. Other shipments will reportedly follow.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, that statement was made long enough ago for the White House to have had an adequate opportunity to reply to it. I want to know whether the President of the United States proposes to continue to give support to this tinhorn soldier tyrant in South Vietnam-a straight dictator. I want to know whether the President of the United States proposes to continue to allow the killing of American boys in support of this tyrant, in view of the fact that the tyrant publicly announced that an elected representative in the Senate of the United States of the free people of the State of Oregon is an alleged traitor.

I want to know what the position of my Government is on that charge; and I want to know it quickly.

I want to know what the position of the President of the United States is on that charge, because the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of this country, as well as President. I want to know whether or not the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of this country pro-poses to continue to give military support to this kind of tinhorn soldier tyrant in South Vietnam.

Freedom in South Vietnam? The statement of this tyrant in South Vietnam shows the kind of political system that exists in South Vietnam. It is perfectly obvious that if in South Vietnam an official of the people stood up and criticized that government, the tyrant in South Vietnam would liquidate him.

That is the conception of freedom held by this tyrant whom the Government of the United States is supporting at the rate of a million and a half dollars a day, and at great loss of American blood.

The continuation of the support of this tyrant with American money and American blood cannot be justified by the President of the United States.

I shall call upon the American people to respond to this kind of support of a military dictator and tyrant, who is involved on one side of a civil war in South Vietnam.

I repeat what I have said before, and I shall continue to repeat it. I discussed it at length at the University of Kansas last night, and I shall discuss it on platform after platform in this country in the months ahead because, in my judgment, U.S. foreign policy is at the crossroads, and the American people will have to render a judgment as to whether the largess and blood of the United States will continue to be used to prosecute the McNamara war to strengthen tyranny in various parts of the world.

I am just as opposed to the type of Fascist military tyranny that this tinhorn soldier in South Vietnam symbolizes as I am opposed to Communist tyranny, because there are no human rights for the individual under either type of tyranny; and the end result is the same.

I also want to know from this administration how many men we have in American uniform in South Vietnam. The figure 15,000 or 15,500 continues to be used, but I have been advised that there are already 18,000 American boys over there. At least, that is the word that comes out of the Pentagon; and some of the press correspondents who sit above the clock in the front of the Chamber have so advised me again today.

Day before yesterday I a.sked the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee two questions for information, which we have the right to ask of any committee, to find out whether or not there are any plans by McNamara to prosecute the McNamara war in South Vietnam by sending marines, guerrilla trained. That is a rumor out of the Pentagon also. We do not have the answer yet. I wish to know what the answer is.

I have also asked the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to notify the Pentagon-and I know he has done so-to keep us informed day by day as to the casualties suffered by American boys in South Vietnam, including not only those unnecessarily slaughtered by this unjustifiable McNamara war, but also those who have been wounded.

I wish to make clear to the Senate that I shall look to it, on the basis of a resolution which will be introduced in the near future, to take its stand in regard to McNamara's war in South Vietnam. Senators' constituents are entitled to know where they stand. I have listened to the thunders of silence of the overwhelming majority of the Senate in regard to McNamara's war in South Vietnam. The time has come for the American people to know where their elected representatives in the Congress stand. If Senators are for it, let them rise and say so. If Senators are against it, give those of us who have been willing to lead out on the shocking program of the Johnson administration in respect to McNamara's war in South Vietnam some

help to bring to an end this unjustifiable war in South Vietnam.

This is a war between the South Vietnamese. We have not been able to get a witness from the administration before the Foreign Relations Committee who can produce a scintilla of evidence that there are any foreign soldiers in South Vietnam other than U.S. soldiers. If U.S. soldiers were out of there, the evidence seems to be crystal clear that the war would be fought between the South Vietnamese, because whole families are split in civil war.

I yield to no man or woman in the Senate in my opposition to Communist totalitarianism, but I should like to see a little more evidence in the Senate that there is like opposition to Fascist totalitarianism or to military totalitarianism.

We prate about supporting freedom in the world. We are not supporting freedom in South Vietnam with American blood; we are supporting totalitarianism in South Vietnam with American blood. That is why we are losing prestige, standing, and face all over the world.

All around the world, hundreds of millions of people know that the United States talks a good game of freedom, but that its foreign policy, in too many particulars, does not practice it.

In a few days, there will be a meeting of SEATO in Manila, at long last-a good thing. I hope some good results will flow from it, because we are in South Vietnam as a result of the SEATO Treaty. That is the weak reed upon which we lean. In the SEA TO Treaty, the United States and the other signatories thereto entered into what is known in foreign relations as a protocol agreement. This protocol agreement provides that the signatories to the treaty consider the South Vietnamese area an area of mutual concern and mutual interest. A regional agreement, designed to protect and promote the peace of an area, falls within the framework of the objectives of the United Nations; that is, such regional agreements are authorized. But, if we enter into such a regional pact, we should carry out its purpose. That is not being done under SEATO. So, if the original pact does not carry out the purpose of preserving the peace, the signatories to the United Nations have a duty to step in.

I am sorry that the United States has not exercised the lead in calling for an extraordinary meeting of the foreign ministers of the SEATO pact, to see what could be done to settle that conflict over there by the application of the rule of law, instead of by the application of American military force.

We are a great country to talk about how we stand for the application of the rule of law. When are we to start practicing it? We almost have to be dragged into every incident where the opportunity exists to practice our professions about standing for the rule of law. We tried to evade the is.sue in the Cyprus issue. The United States, along with Great Britain, tried to have the Cyprus issue handled by NATO. How? By the use of military intervention. Cyprus is not

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6795 even a member of NA TO; neither is South Vietnam, our puppet state. We brought it into being in 1954. Inasmuch as we brought it into being, we say we are in there because the Government asked us to come in.

What do we say about Russian military forces being in the countries of Eastern Europe? We say that they are Russian puppets. Russia has always excused its shocking and unconscionable course of action in Hungary, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe on the ground that it is in there because those governments want it there. That is as much nonsense as the excuse the United States gives for being in South Vietnam. The reasons given are phony. They are intellectually dishonest reasons. We should not be a party to such a course of action.

If the SEA TO members do not wish to work out a program for bringing peace in South Vietnam short of killing people, we should take the case to the United Nations. The great danger is that the brush fire will be whipped into a prairie fire, and that there will be an international holocaust.

Unpopular as my position may be in some quarters within the administration and elsewhere, I shall continue to do what I can to keep faith with my basic tenet in the field of foreign policy, namely, my deep conviction that there is no hope for permanent peace, unless we are willing to substitute for the jungle law of military force the law of reason encompassed in the rule of law under international law.

Every time the OPPortunity comes to resort to the rule of reason as a substitute for the jungle law of force, we should do so. South Vietnam gives us our present opportunity.

As I have previously stated, I never criticize a foreign policy, or any other policy of my Government, without offering what I consider to be a constructive proposal or plan to take its place. Thus, for the past several weeks, I have been saying that we should try to use the peaceful procedures available to us through SEATO, to arrive at a peaceful accommodation for the ending of hostilities in South Vietnam. For want of a better descriptive term, I should like to see the foreign ministers representing the governments signatory to the SEA TO Treaty try to arrange a form of SEATO trusteeship on South Vietnam.

We are putting ourselves in a rather weak position if we take the view that we ought to support the present gang that controls South Vietnam for their policies are policies of totalitarianism, policies of tyranny, policies of the police state.

I do not like to see my country associated with the support of that kind of policy. That is what McNamara is supporting in his war in South Vietnam.

If what I propose cannot be doneand I am not sure that it cannot be, because we do not know until we try, although the President of the Philippines does not offer me much encouragement or hope--we should go to the United Nations.

I pointed out that the President of the Philippines announced in Manila a few days ago that the United States should remain in South Vietnam, and urged that the United States continue using military might in South Vietnam. I had asked the President of the Philippines, "Where are the Philippine soldiers in South Vietnam?" I asked to what extent the Philippines were making any contribution to the cost of the operation in South Vietnam.

The President of the Philippines took umbrage. I did not expect him to send me flowers. He did not answer me on the facts, however. He talked about how the Philippines would be glad to send in troops in a joint SEATO action. He used the old diversionary technique of telling about past relationships and the support that the Philippines had given to the United States. We are duly appreciative of that. The Philippine record is glorious. However, that has nothing to do with the failure of the Philippines to propose a joint SEA TO action, or a SEA TO settlement, or to undertake unilateral action of the kind it recommends for the United States. Because a country has performed well in regard to other obligations does not excuse it from performing well with respect to the instant obligation.

So I say, in reply to the suggestion of the President of the Philippines that we should intensify the war in South Vietnam, that he is missing a great opportunity. He apparently thinks the way to settle the South Vietnam issue is to settle it with bullets and not with reason.

The President of the United States, in a great speech downtown a few days ago, used one of his favorite Biblical quotations about sitting down and reasoning together. I agree with him. That is what we ought to do. I agree that this great teaching of the President ought to apply to South Vietnam.

The President of the United States ought to take the lead in trying to get the SEATO nations to apply the rule of law for the settlement of the holocaust in South Vietnam along any line that falls within the framework of the application of procedures of international law to the peaceful settlement of disputes which threaten the peace of an area and thereby threaten the peace of the world. If it cannot be done through SEATO, we must try to do it through the United Nations. We must let the United Nations try its hand at ending the hostilities in South Vietnam and stopping the killing of people. After all, no bloodletting will ever settle an issue. In the long run it can only entrench for the future intense hatred, when a vanquished party in a military program today will rise again, 10, 20, or 30 years from now. That is the history of so-called military victories.

Military victories seldom produce permanent peace. Military victories only entrench hatred. Sooner or later, like a volcano, that human hatred erupts. A military solution by the United States in South Vietnam can never bring about permanent peace, even though it would seem, after more sacrifice of life and

the expenditure of more millions of dollars, to provide but a temporary victory. We ought to take the lead, if SEATO fails, in the United Nations, to try to arrive at a program under which a United Nations trusteeship could be established.

This gives De Gaulle an opportunity to deliver. It gives him an opportunity to deliver in SEATO, also. Let us not forget who signed the SEATO Treaty: France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, and the United States. Only the United States is in there. The only foreign soldiers in there are U.S. soldiers. The only foreign soldiers who are dying there are U.S. soldiers.

Do not Members of the Senate consider it strange that all of our alleged allies in the SEATO. Treaty, who took the position in 1954 that this is an area of mutual concern and mutual interest, are doing nothing about it except egging the United States on-as the President of the Philippines is doing-to spend more blood and more money to bring to an end the bloodletting in the civil war in South Vietnam?

We ought to find out their reasons. We should know why that is so. I suggested in a speech on the floor of the Senate on the day before yesterday that perhaps they recognize that the white man is never going to be able to prevail in Asia, that the day of the white man in Asia is over.

Great Britain discovered it. France discovered it after killing thousands of the flower of its manhood in Indochina, even though, interestingly enough, we made available to France about a billion and a half dollars to help France conduct the war in Indochina. France was whipped. France was driven out. The people of France brought down a government in protest against the slaughter of the flower of French manhood in Indochina.

I would have my administration take note of the fact that that is an interesting pattern in the history of the world; when the mass of the people finally come to understand that a military course of action is resulting in the unjustifiable killing of their boys, they hold to an accountability the government that is responsible for the killing.

Mr. President, I have been in enough places in the United States in recent months, and I have heard from enough people in the United States in recent months in regard to the unjustifiable McNamara war in South Vietnam, to satisfy me that there is rising a tide of resentment among the American people in respect to the unilateral action of the United States in conducting McNamara's war in South Vietnam. A great many people seem to be concerned about face saving and prestige. What a great opportunity the United States has to strengthen its prestige around the world, to storm the heights of world public opinion and approval, by saying, "We feel that what should be done is for the countries that have signed pacts seeking to bring an end to the threat to the peace in various parts of the world


to join in trying to arrive at a peaceful accommodation of the war in South Vietnam." That is my plea. I am not talking about myths. I am talking about a blueprint proposal for bringing to an end what I consider a mistaken American policy.

I sincerely hope that my administration will reappraise, and quickly, McNamara's war in South Vietnam. I shall await the position of the President in regard to the statement of this tinhorn soldier, tyrant, dictator in South Vietnam charging a Member of the U.S. Senate with being a traitor. I want to know what the President's position is in regard to that conduct on the part of this tyrant in South Vietnam. I am going to give the Senate an opportunity to decide what their position is on it, too.

If we have reached the point now where we have gone so far down the road toward the support of totalitarianism in segments of American foreign policy that the totalitarians can proceed to attack and try to undermine the elected representatives of the free people of the United States and the Congress, those same people had better know it.

There is no doubt what their reaction will be if they find out that the administration of this Government will sit in silence while a tyrant whom they are supporting in an unjustifiable military action, proceeds to attack Members of the U.S. Senate as traitors simply because under our system of political freedom and constitutional rights, we Senators exercise the precious checking power which the Constitution gives · to the Senate against what we consider to be a mistaken foreign policy and call the hand of tyrants such as the Premier General of South Vietnam.

Then, too, perhaps we had better ponder again that great letter of Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in 1787:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

That great early President of the United States recognized the importance to a healthy democracy of honest and sincere dissent in the Halls of this Government. This Senator from Oregon dissents on many things, but he can always be counted upon to fight just as hard in support of a policy of his Government when he thinks that policy can be squared with the facts. I intend to continue to dissent in regard to the unjustifiable war in South Vietnam.

I do not think it is moral. I do not think that this war in South Vietnam, and American support of it, can be squared with American principles of ideals and morality. I intend to express that dissent.

President Jefferson in his historic notes on religion in 1776 wrote:

No wonder the oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise dis-

turbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations removed.

That is a fitting transition paragraph to the second item that I rise to discuss; namely, title Ill of the civil rights bill.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1963

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, no one can improve upan the great language of Thomas Jefferson in his historic notes. And I read the language again:

No wonder the oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions, and incapacitatlons removed.

That is the heart of the civil rights fight. That is what the civil rights fight is all about.

I said the other day-and it is a fitting introduction as a preface to my remarks this afternoon-that we must always square our governmental policy with our national ideals and our moral professings. I hold to the point of view that any time a government or a governmental policy cannot be squared with what we all know are sound, moral principles, that policy must be repudiated and changed. The great evil in the discrimination against Negroes in this country ever since the Emancipation Proclamation by reason of our failure to ever deliver the Constitution to them is discrimination that cannot be squared with the Golden Rule. I shall repeat it again and again. Those of us who are seeking to pass a civil rights bill are seeking, to apply the Golden Rule to the Negroes of this country.

We are seeking to keep faith with the principle of religious teaching that runs through all the religions of the world, based upon a belief in one God. Bring to me any of the great religious books which form the foundation teaching of all the major religions in the world-the Torah, the Koran, or the Bible--and I will point out the Golden Rule. It is the moral teaching that all mankind throughout the ages has recognized, to define the relationship of man to man. What do we mean when sometimes we speak of an incident as an illustration of man's inhumanity to man? When we analyze such an incident, we find that the inhumanity existed because the Golden Rule was violated.

Our great teacher Jefferson appreciated that, for it is imbedded in the notes on religion from which I read an excerpt a moment ago as an introduction to my speech on civil rights tonight.

Mr. President, when all is said and done, the 14th amendment merely guarantees to the Negroes that we shall do unto them as we would be done by.

That is the spiritual teaching of the 14th amendment; and what a reflection it is on the history of this Republic that it has been denied &nd ignored, insofar as the Negroes are concerned, ever since the 14th amendment was adopted.

Mr. President, I may disagree with the President of the United States in regard to a few things, such as the McNamara war in South Vietnam; but I agree with the President on most things, and I fully agree with him on his courageous position on civil rights. Sometime next week-or perhaps I shall wait until Memorial Day, if this debate is still going on then-I shall read, word for word, here on the floor of the Senate, what I consider the greatest speech on civil rights ever uttered in this country since President Lincoln's great Emancipation Proclamation. I referred to the speech by the then Vice President of the United States, now the President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, at Gettysburg, Pa., last Memorial Day. It needs to be read and read and read, over and over again, because when that speech is boiled down to its basic elements, one finds that it is about the Golden Rule-the rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is what the great Johnson speech of last Memorial Day really means.

In that speech he made perfectly clear that we must deliver the Constitution of the United States to the Negroes of this country, because, as Jefferson forewarned in the statement of his which I read a few moments ago, when these precious moral rights are denied to minorities, one must expect a reaction of rebellion, or at least of civil disturbance.

I believe that today there confronts the American people on the domestic scene the most serious domestic crisis since 1862, for I believe there are tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of Negroes-not all of them young, but the great majority of them young-who have become imbued with the spirit of martyrdom. We should reflect on what history teaches about martyrdom; we should examine those pages of the history books and should read of the episodes which caused great numbers of martyrs to lay down their lives. We have failed too long to deliver the Constitution of the United States to the Negroes of America; and this may be our last opportunity to deliver it to them without the flowing of great quantities of human blood, for I believe that the martyrs, or those who are holding the attitude of martyrs, among the colored population of this country are not going to wait any longer; they are ready to die for their constitutional rights; but they will not die alone. So I think that today the Senate has an obligation as solemn and as great as that which any Senate since 1862 has had.

All of us can recognize the host of complex problems that the belated deliverance of the Constitution of the United States to the Negroes will create in the next few years. I do not believe the

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6797 delivery of the Constitution to the Negroes of America will result in immediate tranquillity throughout the Nation. Of course, it will not; but the alternative would be so much more serious and costly to our Republic that we must not think of any proposal to give the Negroes of this country anything less than their full constitutional rights.

Today, all the newspapers publish articles which include statements in response to the questions, ''To what extent do you think the bill will be watered down? To what extent do you think compromises will be substituted for full deliverance of the Constitution?"

I say to the Members of the Senate that if they vote for the slightest watering down of the full constitutional rights of the Negroes of this country, such Senators will perform a great disservice to the Nation, and will have to assume their full share of the responsibility for the disturbances that will flow from a failure to give the Constitution in full to the Negroes of America.

Of course, Mr. President, all of us will have to make adjustments; but if we talk to the great Negro statesmen of the country, we find that they are well aware of the fact that there are many problems of a social, economic, and political nature that will arise in the next 10 or 20 years after the Constitution is delivered in 1964 to the Negroes of America. But that situation is a challenge to all of us to perform as citizen-statesmen; it is a challenge to all of us to recognize that, when all is said and done, all of our rights and liberties are, in the last analysis, dependent upon our keeping faith with the controlling principle of our system of self-government---namely, that ours is a government of laws, and that the laws must prevail.

It is neither easy nor pleasant to allude to what I consider to be the dangers involved in a failure to deliver the Constitution of the United States to the Negroes of America, for I still know that when one makes the statements I have made in the past 15 minutes on the floor of the Senate, those who wish to distort, misrepresent, and read intentions, meanings and implications into one's words that are not in fact there, one can be put in a light, in the eyes of some, that will cause him to be misunderstood. But we shall not serve our country well by running away from the ugly realities that are involved in this great problem and being unwilling to discuss them out in the open.

We hear a great deal of discussion in the cloakrooms of what I have been saying on the floor of the Senate for the past 15 minutes. I have never been able to understand politicians who apparently feel that it is all right to discuss in the cloakrooms, problems involving the welfare of our people that are very ugly, frightening, disturbing and involving human relationships, but are unwilling to face them on the floor of the Senate, where they have an opportunity really to inform the American people of what they, as legislators, believe are really basic problems confronting us on the civil rights bill.

We cannot give consideration to what has been happening in Florida in the

last couple of days without realizing that what I predict is true as to what will happen if we in the Senate try to duck passage of a bill that would give full deliverance of the Constitution to the Negroes. The warnings of Jefferson will be put into practice in the case of an aroused people who believe that wrongs are being done to them.

How much longer do Senators believe we can continue to use on the bodies of human beings hot shots that are ordinarily used on the bodies of cattle to help in loading them into trucks and corrals?

How much longer do Senators believe we can continue in various parts of the country to use police dogs on human beings who are exercising the precious tenet of Jefferson-the right to rebel when they think that tyranny has been substituted for freedom?

How much longer do Senators believe we can continue in our country using police brutality against Negroes when they demonstrate for the constitutional rights to which they are entitled as a matter of law, but which the Congress of the United States has never had the courage to guarantee to them by legislative implementation of the Constitution?

How much longer do Senators believe that that can go on without the bloodletting to which I earlier ref erred? I do not believe any longer. We have had it. Time is upon us. There is no time left. We shall either do it in the present session of the Congress or we must prepare for domestic disturbances that will shock not only the country, but the world.

We cannot set up in the United States a "Union of South Africa." The apartheid policy of the Union of South Africa no longer has a place in the United States. We have had it for too long.

Mr. President, I believe I have demonstrated over the years in my discussion of civil rights that I do not believe the civil rights problems is a problem of the Southern States alone. The civil rights problem is a problem of every State in the Republic.

Senators ought to read some of the mail that I have received from my own State. I am glad to say that I am satisfied that it represents a minority of public opinion. But even to have that minority of public opinion on the proposition of abdicating the denial of constitutional rights to the Negroes of our country grieves me. I find it difficult to understand.

I ask Senators to name a State-any State--and I will declare that in that State there is a substantial body of public opinion opposed to delivering the Constitution to the Negroes of America. Tho3e people are as subversive as the Communists. Those people would destroy government by law. Those people would destroy the precious guarantee of equality before law. If we really applied the biases, prejudice, and bigotry of those people, it would tear down our great system of constitutional self-governmentgovernment by law---on which all of our liberties and freedom are dependent.

Mr. President, those opposed to full constitutional rights for the Negroes of America are like the Communists-dan-

gerously subversive to our way of life. We must face the issue. Politicians must have the guts to stand up against them. Politicians must have the courage to recognize that it is not important that they stay in the Congress of the United States, but that it is important that so long as they sit in the Congress of the United States they keep faith with the oath of office that they took at the desk of the Presiding Officer each time they were sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is the issue, along with the issue of the Golden Rule.

With that introduction to my discussion of title III of the bill, I now turn to my legal argument in support of title m.

Title III of the pending bill is one of the most modest and limited titles of this entire measure. It is almost easier to talk about what is not in it than about what is in it.

The words "title III" arouse memories of the old part III of the original civil rights bill. But what we have before us is a pale and limited portion of the broad scope of part III of 1957.

The subhead of title m is "Desegregation of public facilities." That subhead is fully descriptive of what it contains, and what it authorizes. Its entire text reads as follows:

SEC. 301. (a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied access to or full and complete utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of ti tie IV hereof, and the Attorney General certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the public policy of the United States favoring the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section. The Attorney General may implead as defendants such additional parties as are or become necessary to the grant of effective relief hereunder.

(b) The Attorney General may deem a person or persons unable to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section when such person or persons are unable, either directly or through other interested persons or organizations, to bear the expense of the litigation or to obtain effective legal representation; or whenever he is satisfied that the institution of such litigation would jeopardize the employment or economic standing of, or might result in injury or economic damage to, such person or persons, their families, or their property.

SEC. 302. Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws on account of race, color, religion, or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action. In

6798 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE April 2 such an action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

SEC. 303. In any action or proceeding under this t itle the United States shall be liable for costs, including a reasonable at torney's fee, the same as a priva te person.

SEC. 304. Nothing in this title shall affect adversely the right of any person to sue for or obtain relief in any court against discrimination in any facility covered by this title.

Described briefly, section 301 of the title authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit to desegregate State facilities, other than educational institutions, where those suffering a discrimination are unable to bring suit themselves, and where public palicy will be served by such a suit.

They key words are "denied access to or full and complete utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college," the latter institutions being covered by title IV.

It is evident that what is covered by this language is infinitely smaller than could, and probably should, be covered by it. It does not authorize original Federal legal action against private persons, nor against all State abuses of constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, nor even against all State violations and abuses of the 14th amendment alone. Its only application is to illegal, unconstitutional State action that denies equal access to facilities owned, operated, or managed by the States and their subdivisions. It does not go to all instances of State denial of equal protection of the law; only to instances of State denial of equal use of its State facilities.

What a modest and inadequate tool. What a statement of the obvious and self-evident. If there is any principle of constitutionalism that has been established and reemphasized, it is that racial discrimination in public institutions is illegal. There are no refinements here of private discriminations, or of whether the licensing of private property for public accommodation and service brings these private services under the prohibitions of the 14th amend-ment. '

The only authority granted the Attorney General to institute suits under title III is carried in secti-on 301 and relates only to denial of equal access to public facilities.

In section 302, the Attorney General is empowered to intervene in a wider selection of cases, but is circumscribed by the necessity of the suit to be commenced by another party. However, to quote the section:

In such an action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

These are the major features of this title. Sections 303 and 304 are brief. Section 303 states that in any action under the title the United States shall be liable for costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, the same as a private person. This provision was added on the House floor.

Section 304 emphasizes that nothing in the title shall adversely affect the right of any person to sue for or obtain relief in any court against discrimination in any facility covered by this title.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 301

In my opinion, this is the most significant section of this title. If any part of title III is going to work to advance equal protection of the law and enforcement of the Constitution, it is going to be this section.

First of all, the occasion of Federal initiation of a suit is "whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint signed by an individual." The Attorney General is not self-starting, even under section 301. He can act only upon receipt of a written complaint signed by one or more persons.

This means the action complained of must be real and must have happened to one or more individuals. Beyond that, it must have happened to someone with sufficient interest to write to the Justice Department about it. It cannot be merely an allegation, or a newspaper story, or a rumor. However, no burden of proof lies with the complaining party.

Next, the written complaint must be to the effect that the individual is being deprived of, or threatened with the loss of, his right to equal protection of the laws on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied access to or full utilization of any public facility.

Note that denial of equal protection of the laws does not stand alone here. In my opinion, it should. I believe that a moral and legal case can be made that would call upon the Attorney General to act whenever and wherever equal protection of the law is denied by a State, and beyond that, whenever and wherever any constitutional right is denied or infringed by a State or its subdivisions.

But this particular bill before us does not so provide. I wish to make it clear that I would be happier if it did. I wish to make it clear that I would support it, if it did. I wish to make it clear that in my judgment, in due course of time, 'we must enact a law that will provide for such protection. But the pending bill relates only to a denial of equal protection of the law which takes the form of denial of access to, or use of, public facilities, by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin.

One must almost weep to record that action by the Attorney General in these matters is still essential 10 years after Brown against Board of Education. There is nothing in these United States, there is no act or failure to act, that is more illegal than segregation of State and local facilities. It is illegal; it is unconstitutional. I believe it is also immoral, un-American, and clearly subversive.

What, after all, is equal protection of the law for, except to guarantee that no privilege of social standing, parentage, party, philosophy, race, religion, or friendships shall affect one's standing not only before the law, but in all public undertakings?

The 14th amendment, from which this title takes its legislative authority de-clares that: ' ·

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sad to say, title III does not go to more than one small phrase of the 14th amendment. It does not afford help to those whose privileges and immunities of Federal citizenship are being abridged by a State. It does not afford help to those whom a State is depriving of life liberty, or property without due proces~ of law. It does afford some limited help to those being denied equal protection of the law, insofar as they are being denied equal access to a State facility by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin. PRESENT TITLE III ONLY SMALL SEGMENT OF

1957 PART III

Part III in the 1957 civil rights bill was the part that was rejected, the part that ended, in effect, being repudiated by the Senate. Because it was repudiated, I refused to vote for the sham bill of 1957, which I have always considered to be a shameful, legislative exhibition of pure, political hypocrisy. Although the Negro organizations of this country lost their heads in criticizing me, I shall always be proud that in 1957 I did not vote for that compromise of principle, that substitution of political expediency for what was right.

This title III is quite a comedown from what we tried to do in part III of the 1957 bill, because in other titles of the bill we were doing a herculean job to try to deliver the Constitution to the Negroes. I hope that in due course of time we will continue to enact legislation which will carry out the deserved objectives of part III of the 1957 bill.

Part III authorized the Attorney General to institute suits for injunctive relief to prevent violations of 42 United States Code, section 1985. That section authorizes private suits by individuals against conspiracies (a) to interfere with Federal offices and as a result injure or deprive another of his rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen.

In this debate, let us never forget that Negroes are U.S. citizens. The color of their skin does not deprive them of U.S. citizenship. It deprives them only of the privilege of enjoying the benefits, in so many particulars, of being U.S. citizens.

So, I repeat: (a) to interfere with Federal offices and as a result injure or deprive another of his rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen; (b) to intimidate or injure parties, witnesses, or jurors involved in any court matter, or obstruct the due course of justice in any State court with intent to deny someone equal protection of the law; and (c) to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the law, or of the right to vote in Federal elections.

The then Attorney General in 1957 furnished a long list of rights that he

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6799 would be empowered to help protect. These were: The right to be free of mob violence while in Federal custody; the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures; the right to assemble peaceably, to be free from unreasonable restraints by State or local officials; the right not to be discriminated against in public employment on account of race or color; the right not to be denied the use of governmentally owned facilities on acount of race or color; the right not to be subjected to racial segregation under compulsion of State authority; the right not to be denied the process of law or equal protection of the law "in other regards," the right to a fair trial; and the right not to be held in peonage. In addition, he indicated that the proposed title would also protect freed om of religion, speech, and of the press.

Of all these rights we sought in 1957 to protect through this procedure, only one is to be protected through this procedure in the present title III-the right not to be denied the use of governmentally owned facilities on account of race or color.

The 1957 part III authorized suits against conspiracies public or private, where the whole gamut of Federal rights could be involved. The present version authorizes suits only against public actions that deny equal access to public facilities.

Clearly no new right is created or guaranteed. The Federal court cases on this point are literally as long as one's arm. All that is created is a new remedy to assure enjoyment of an established right, established by the Constitution and by court decision.

What are they? I shall omit reference to school cases, because they are provided for in title IV of the bill.

By 1963, in Johnson v. Virginia (373 U.S. 61) the Supreme Court was able to say:

It is no longer open to question that a State may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities.

Not for the benefit of the overwhelming audience before me, but for the benefit of the record and for students of lawand I hope for doctorate candidatesand for a public that may be interested to carry out some of the obligations of citizen statesmanship, I now go through the long list of U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have established beyond question of doubt the legal basis of title III.

I am disappointed-because I am always hopeful-that except for a very dear friend on the floor of the Senate, all my other friends who are in opposition to the bill and title III are absent. There is nothing personal about it, of course, of that I am sure. However I wonder if they are absent because they dislike to hear about the law. I wondeP if they are absent because they know there is no answer to the Supreme Court's decisions on this issue. Of course, if one does not have an answer, absence at least 1s less painful than presence. But for the record I wish to state the proposition again. It goes to the heart of title m. By 1963, in Johnson v. Virginia

(373 U.S. 61) the Supreme Court was able to say:

It is no longer open to question that a State may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities.

· I say hypothetically and rhetorically to the American people, who will read the statement of the Court, "When did you last travel through certain regions of the United States, where there continues to be an open defiance of this constitutional guarantee? In those travels were you filled with the same heart pangs of sadness that filled me every time I found wonderful people-for they are wonderful people-with this blind spot, continuing to flout openly and defiantly the constitutional guarantees so clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court in Johnson against Virginia?"

In that decision the Court said: It is no longer open to question that a

State may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities.

So I ask the question, How was the Court able to arrive at that flat, unequivocal statement? It could because of its long history of rulings on the issue, once Brown against Board of Education established the principle.

Court cases had already required desegregation of beaches and bathhouses in Baltimore-Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 220 F. 2d 386 (C. A. 4), affirmed, 350 U.S. 877; golf courses and other facilities of city park in New Orleans-New Orleans City Park Improvement Association v. Detiege, 252 F. 2d 122 (C.A. 5), affirmed, 358 U.S. 54; golf course in Atlanta-Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 124 F. Supp. 290 (N.D. Ga.), affirmed, 223 F. 2d 93 CC.A. 5), vacated, 350 U.S. 879; State parks in Virginia-Tate v. Department of Conservation, 133 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Va.), affirmed, 231 F. 2d 615 (C.A. 4), certiorari denied, 352 U.S. 838; golf course in Ft. LauderdaleMoorhead v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 152 F. Supp. 131 <S.D. Fla.), affirmed, 248 F. 2d 544 (C.A. 5)-my recollection is that certiorari was denied, which meant only that the Supreme Court sustained the lower court; golf course in Greensboro, N.C.-Simkins v. City of Greensboro, 149 F. Supp. 562 (M.D.N.C.), affirmed, 246 F. 2d 425 (C.A. 4)-apparently they let it rest there and did not appeal that affirmation; beach and swimming pool in St. Petersburg-City of Petersburg v. Alsup, 238 F. 2d 830 (C.A. 5)-they stopped at that level; they accepted the decision of affirmation; public recreational facilities in Birmingham and businesses operated in connection therewith-Shuttlesworth v. Gaylord, 202 F. Supp. 59 (N.D. Ala.) ; golf courses, swimming pools bathing beaches, parks, etc., in Ports~ mouth, Va.-Holley v. City of Portsmouth, 150 F. Supp. (E.D. Va.); golf course in Texas-Willie v. Harris County, 202 F. Supp. 549 (S.D. Texas) (Sylvan Beach Park); golf course in MiamiWard v. City of Miami, 151 F. Supp. 593 <S.D. Fla.) .

In all these latter cases the previous Supreme Court decisions were cited, and the lawyers decided that they had had enough and were willing to abide by the lower Federal court decision.

By 1963, it was "no longer open to question" that the contempt citation of a Negro who refused to sit in a colored section of a Virginia court must be reversed.

Thus, all we do with this section, and in fact with this title, is to provide a new remedy, a new enforcement of an existing constitutional right.

It might fairly be asked, Why not? How can it be argued that constitutional rights belong only to those who can afford them? Who wants to take the position in this debate that the Constitution and its promises are the sole property of people with the means to go to court?

What in the world are the courts the executive, and the Congress for, if' it is not to uphold and enforce the Constitution?

Do opponents of this section want to argue that illegal and unconstitutional State activities should continue unless and until some private citizen can get a case into court? Surely we hold our constitutional rights dearer than that.

It is 10 years past the time when this section, and much more in this area should have been enacted into law. That alone bespeaks its need. There is no "deliberate speed" qualification to desegregation of these nonschool facilities. The Supreme Court made that quite clear in the Watson case last year, involving public facilities of the city of Memphis. It ordered a prompt desegregation of the facilities in question, stating that the basic guarantees of our Constitution are warrants for the here and now and, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, they are to be promptly fulfilled-Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 1963.

Every day and every week, hundreds of thousands of American citizens are losing precious rights by the absence of enforcement provisions for the right to equal protection. The courts have met their responsibilities, but they can act only in cases brought before them. The executive and the Congress have dragged their heels for 10 years. I said in 1957 and in 1960 that it was time for us to act. In 1964, it is a national disgrace that we have not yet done so.

MEANING OF STATE FACILITIES

The denial of equal access to public facilities covered by the section is to those "owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV."

The import of this language is to bring in the Federal executive to help desegregate State and local hospitals, swimming pools, golf courses, beaches, parks, clinics, auditoriums, and stadiums, libraries, court rooms, National Guard armories, and all other facilities and institutions of a public nature. The context of the hearings makes it clear that what is contemplated by "public facilities" are tangible physical ones, as distinguished from State programs and activities. This, too, is a marked limitation on Federal action.


I disagree with it. I would that the bill were broader, but it is not in this section.

What is owned or operated by the State is fairly evident. What is managed by or on behalf of the State is not quite so evident.

Opponents have charged that this could include businesses licensed by the State or regulated by the State, or subject to price regulation by public authority.

In my judgment, that is a facetious charge that derives largely from the literature of the John Birch Society. It smacks of those who claim they are working for the Government for 3 months out of every year because they pay Federal taxes amounting to a quarter of their total income.

To complain that the State is "managing'' one's business because it sets forth certain statutory requirements and regulations is a frivolity that has no relationship to title m. As a matter of fact, to those who make this complaint I would say that we deal with discriminations by licensed and interstate businesses in title II. not in title m.

What a facility "managed on behalf of the State" would be under this section is primarily the one that is turned over by the State to a private operator in order to evade the 14th amendment. This has been done, and is being done. The courts have already dealt with it. They have not tolerated these evasions. Therefore, the Congress should not encourage or accelerate them by limiting these suits to the prima facie cases of State ownership and operation.

Here again, section 301 does not create any new right or any new legal principle. The language, too, seeks to deal with clear constitutional rights as outlined and defined by the Federal courts.

In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), the Supreme Court held that in view of all the circumstances of the case, including the facts that the restaurant in question was physically and financially an integral part of a public building, built and maintained by public funds, devoted to a public parking service, which building was owned and operated by an agency of the State for public purposes, the State was a joint participant in the operation of the restaurant and the refusal of the restaurant owner to serve a Negro on account of his race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Where the State leases public property in such a manner and for such a purpose the proscriptions of the 14th amendment must be complied with by the lessee as certainly as though they were binding covenants written into the agreement itself.

Cases on the same point are Muir v. Louisville Park Theatrical Association, 347 U.S. 971, vacating and remanding, 202 F. 2d 275 (C.A. 6) -leased open air theater; Aaron v. Cooper, 261 F. 2d 97 (C.A. 8)-leased school; City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 246 F. 2d 425 (C.A. 4), affirming 149 F. Supp. 562 (M.D.N.CJleased golf course; Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F. 2d 922 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 353 U.S. 924-leased cafeteria;

Coke v. City of Atlanta, 184 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ga.)-leased airport restaurant; Jones v. Marva Theatres, 180 F. Supp. 49 <D. MdJ-leased motion picture theater; Tate v. Department of Conservation, 133 F. Supp. 53 <E.D. Va.>, affirmed, 231 F. 2d 615 (C.A. 4), certiorari denied, 352 U.S. 838-leased beach; Nash v. Air Terminal Services, 85 F. Supp, 545 (E.D. Va.)-leased airport restaurant; Lawrence v. Hancock, 76 F. Supp. 1004 (S.D. W. VaJ-leased swimming pool. Although these decisions are rested on various grounds-in some, that the lease was a technique of evading State responsibility; in others, that the property, though privately operated, was being used for a public purpose-they have been uniform in reaching the conclusion that the discrimination effectuated by the lessee was constitutionally forbidden.

We are dealing with subterfuge, evasion, trickery, and downright cheating. That is what the courts have spoken out against and ruled against. The courts have said to those who would evade the 14th amendment: "You cannot do it by these improper and intellectually dishonest means."

I say again, as I said some weeks ago, that I wish that the executive branch of the Government and the Congress could point to such a glorious record of protecting the civil rights of the Negroes of the country as our courts can point to.

Our courts have been so far ahead of the Congress and of the executive branch of the Government that, as we approach our responsibility in connection with passing the civil rights bill, we should do it with both humility and shame. Our record has been a sorry record; but this is the time to correct it. The bill gives us a great opportunity to correct it.

In Derrington against Plummer, a restaurant was constructed in the basement of a new courthouse building. After completion, the space was leased to a private party, for operation. Following a refusal of service, several Negroes brought suit to enjoin the county from leasing to any tenant who practiced such discrimination. In sustaining an injunction issued by the district court, the fifth circuit held that the action of the lessee was not mere private conduct, but partook of State action. I read from the court's opinion (240 F. 2d at 925-926) :

Assuming no purpose of discrimination on the part of the county in the renewal of the lease, and further assuming no express reservation of control by the terms of the lease to prevent discrimination, • • • the basement of the courthouse can by no means be termed surplus property not used nor needed for county purposes. To the contrary, the courthouse had just been completed, built with public funds for the use of the citizens generally, and this part of the basement had been planned, equipped and furnished by the county for use as a cafeteria. Without more justification than ts shown in this case, no court could countenance the diversion of such property to a purely private use.

* * If the county had rendered such a service

directly, it could not be argued that discrimination on account of race would not be violative of the fourteenth amendment. The same result inevitably follows when the service is rendered through the instrumen-

tality of a lessee; and in rendering such service the lessee stands in the place of the county. His conduct is as much state action as would be the conduct of the county itself.

I have read that part of the Courtrs opinion because it describes the kind of intellectual dishonesty that those county officials resorted to, in their attempts to evade their clear obligations under the 14th amendment. A new courthouse had been built, and a cafeteria was installed in it. The cafeteria was installed by use of the taxpayers' money. Those officials did not want Negroes to eat in the cafeteria, but the officials knew that Negroes would have to be allowed to eat in it if it was operated as a public cafeteria. So they leased the cafeteria to others.

As we say, the Court pierced the veil of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. The Court did not even look at the motivations for the lease, but only at the facts. So, by the clear statement I have just read, the Court squashed that subterfuge, and ruled that the 14th amendment applied. Let the great decision in that case be a warning to those who think that following the enactment of the pending bill they may be able to undermine and to "termite" the bill with even a subterfuge. The courts are away head of them; the courts are not given to the sort of political hypocrisy that so many of our county officials and State officials and municipal officials have resorted to in their attempts to make the 14th amendment meaningless~ insofar as the Negroes of this country are concerned.

Similarly, in Nash against Air Terminal Services, Inc., supra, the plaintiff was refused service in a privately run concession at the Washington National Airport. I well remember that case. I knew something about its origins and about the steps which were taken to call attention to that subterfuge at the Washington National Airport, and I knew some of the Negroes who had the good citizenship to offer themselves as the necessary examples, so that suit could be brought to bring to an end the shocking discrimination against Negroes at the Washington National Airport, on the border of the Capital of the United States itself.

The Court found-85 F. Supp. at 549-that the plaintiff had been denied his rights under the 14th amendment since the restaurant was operated "too close, in origin, and purpose, to the functions of the public government to allow them the right to refuse service without good cause." And in Coke against City of Atlanta, Ga., the court appears to have discarded the exception suggested in the Derrington opinion, that is, that property not used or needed for governmental purposes may be operated free of the restrictions of the 14th amendment. Although it found that property at the Atlanta Airport Terminal leased as a restaurant was not used or needed for city purposes, the court held 084 F. Supp. at 585):

Under the facts in this case the Court holds that the conduct of Dobbs Houses, Inc. (the lessee) is as much State action as would be similar conduct of the city of

1.964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6801 Atlanta itself and that the discrimination practiced by Dobbs Houses, Inc. in refusing to serve Negroes except upon a segregated basis is violative of plaintiff's rights as a Negro citizen under the equal protection provision of the 14th amendment.

While the cases involving leases of Government property deal with variant factual situations, they have one element in common: All of them involved facilities which, although operated by nongovernmental lessees, were open to the public generally. Under such circumstances at least, where one segment of the general public is singled out and refused service solely because of race or color-

The right of citizens to use public property without discrimination on the ground of race may not be abridged by the mere leasing of the property.

City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 246 F. 2d 425, 426 (C.A. 4).

The words "managed by the State" and "managed on behalf of the State" are intended to apply to the same facility before and after it has been turned over to private management, especially when done in an effort to evade a constitutional obligation of the State.

A bona fide sale of a facility would not be affected by the language. The exact nature of the transaction and its terms would be subject to court findings on a case-by-case basis. Where the facility is believed to be managed or operated privately only as a facade for a public authority, then the Attorney General has authority to bring suit. Whether he is successful or not will, of course, depend upon the facts he is able to bring out in court.

FURTHER LIMITS ON BRINGING OF SUITS

Since I am going through the language of this section in order, it would appear up to now that the Attorney General may act promptly on receipt of a written complaint.

But not so. He first must find that the complainants are ''unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the public policy of the United States favoring the orderly desegregation in public facilities."

The pertinent guidelines to who is to be deemed unable to initiate and maintain suits are set forth in paragraph (b) of section 301. It states:

The Attorney General may deem a person or persons unable to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section when such person or persons are unable, either directly or through other interested persons or organizations, to bear the expense of the litigation or to obtain effective legal representation; or whenever he is satisfied that the institution of such litigation would jeopardize the employment or economic standing of, or might result in injury or economic damage to, such person or persons, their families, or their property.

I have already alluded to the necessity and desirability of bringing constitutional rights within the grasp of every American, rich or poor. This is especially important when the other party in the suit is a State or one of its subdivi-

sions. Here, after all, are extensive financial resources.

Sometimes we hear complaints that in Federal cases, the individual is overwhelmed by the forces of the Federal Government. But let us not forget that in these cases, the individual confronts the forces and resources of a State, which can be just as overwhelming to a person of modest means.

It would also be virtually self-evident that consideration must be given to the vulnerability of the complaining party to local economic reprisal. This is why there is no requirement that the name of the complainant be revealed. In cases where the complainant brings suit in his own behalf, he is often subjected to economic harassment.

The final limitation upon the Attorney General in deciding whether to bring suit is whether the action will materially further public policy. It is the purpose of this qualification to limit the Federal actions to the general classes of State action that are most widespread and where a court decision can have the greatest impact. NO SIMILAR LIMITATIONS IN OTHER STATUTES

These limitations in title III are remarkable ones. They are not found in the other statutes authorizing the Attorney General to bring suit. These limitations are unique to these equal protection cases.

But they are in the bill. I am not in favor of them; I would not have them in it, if I had my way. I believe the Attorney General is the legal agent of the Federal Government, and that his powers and services should be brought to bear wherever the constitutional rights of a citizen have been violated or denied.

That ought to be the principle. Wherever it can be shown that the constitutional right of an American is abridged or denied, the Attorney General of the United States ought to have the legislatively implemented power to move in to protect the public interest, because he would be protecting the public interest as well as the individual concerned. That is an interest dear and valuable to each one of us.

I point out that although I would go much further than the bill would go, the fact that we have these limitations in regard to civil rights cases in the bill is a complete rebuttal to the opponents of the bill who say that we are seeking to give authority to the Attorney General that is supposed to be in some way and some how an unjustifiable authority, whereas he has such authority in connection with many other statutes, as I shall show, where property rights, not human rights, are involved.

What a commentary that in 1964 we are willing to give broader intervening authority to the Attorney General of the United States in protecting property rights under statutes than protecting human rights under statutes.

But I suppose with all the problems we have in connection with the bill, in view of the fact that at least we shall be protecting a great principle in implementing constitutional rights in title m by giving to the Attorney General the intervening authority, although limited

in scope, which the bill would give, we ought to be pleased that we have moved that far down the road toward delivering the Constitution to the Negroes of America.

So I shall support the bill, although I would pref er it to be even more comprehensive than it is on that particular legal point that I have discussed in the last 5 minutes. Perhaps it can be said with some justification that the Justice Department could not and should not handle so much litigation and that it should be confined to cases having broad national impact. That is supposed to be a standard of the Supreme Court in deciding which cases to accept.

But I am willing to quarrel with that point of view. I am willing to vote for authority for the Justice Department to bring proceedings against any action, public or private, on behalf of any citizen, rich or poor, where any constitutional right is involved. If not the Attorney General, then perhaps local Federal attorneys should be authorized to handle these cases. After all, we have lower Federal courts. They take what the Supreme Court cannot take.

One of the great tragedies of this whole subject is that the Justice Department is authorized to bring suit in statute after statute that involves property rights, and with no squeamish limitations on the wealth of the complaining party or the national impact of the case.

For all the well-heeled organizations that are propagandizing this Nation up one side and down the other about this bill being a "Federal power grab," I ask: Why is it only a power grab when it is personal, human rights that are sought?

A businessman with any interest in the fishing industry, in agricultural products, navigation of rivers, electric utilities, advertising, freight, fur products, marketing of securities, wool products, stockyards, sugar, water carriers, trademarks, natural gas, aviation, small business investment companies, and with any interest in labor relations and union activities, has many recourses to the Justice Department or to some other Federal agency to come to his relief with legal proceedings, usually against a competitor.

That is all right. I do not claim it is not. But we cannot reconcile it on any principle of granting equality of rights. It would grant to people involved in nonproperty cases-human-rights casesthe same right given to those involved in property-right cases. If it is all right to give such sweeping powers of intervention to the Attorney General or to counsel for other Federal agencies in connection with all of the property-right problems, what in the world is wrong with giving the same powers to protect the rights that are equally precious; namely, human rights?

Most of these are statutory rights and practices. They authorize Federal enforcement of a public policy laid down in a statute.

What is at stake here is enforcement of a constitutional right laid down in the 14th amendment--certainly not of inferior importance. Certainly a constitutional right is of as great importance as a statutory right.


One of the House opponents of the bill has furnished a list of statutes under which the Attorney General or some other Federal officer is authorized to commence injunctive proceedings.

I thank him for helping me prove my case. It so often happens in a lawsuit that we get our greatest help from our opponent. Very often he presents the very information that wins the case for the other side. So I thank that opponent of civil rights on the House side for supplying me with the list of proof. It bears out the thesis which I have been discussing in the last few minutes.

That list of statutes under which the Attorney General or some other Federal officer is authorized to commence injunctive proceedings against individuals in these cases reads as follows:

Antitrust laws, restraining violationby U.S. attorney under direction Attorney General 05 U.S.C. 4, July 3, 1890). - Associations engaged in catching and marketing aquatic products restrained from violating order to cease and desist monopolizing trade-by Department of Justice 05 U.S.C. 522, June 25, 1934).

Association of producers of agricultural products from restraining tradeby Department of Justice (7 U.S.C. 292, Feb. 18, 1922).

Atomic Energy Act, enjoining violation of act or regulation-by Atomic Energy Commission-by Attorney General (42 U.S.C. 1816, Aug. 1, 1946).

Bridges over navigable waters, injunction to enforce removal of bridges violating act as to alteration of bridgesby Attorney General (33 U.S.C. 519, June 21, 1950). ·

Clayton Act, violation of enjoinedU.S. attorney under direction of Attorney Geheral 05 U.S.C. 25, Oct. 15, 1914).

Electric utility companies, compliance with law enforced by injunctions-by Federal Power Commission 06 U.S.C. 825m, Aug. 26, 1935).

False advertisements, dissemination enjoined-by Federal Trade Commission (15 U.S.C. 53, Mar. 21, 1938).

Freight forwarders, enforcement of laws, orders, rules, and so forth, by injunctions-by Interstate Commerce Commission or Attorney General < 49 U.S.C. 1017, May 16, 1942).

Fur Products Labeling Act, to enjoin violation-by Federal Trade Commission (15 U.S.C. 69g, Aug. 8, 1951).

Enclosure of public lands, enjoining violation-by U.S. attorney ( 43 U .S.C. 1062,Feb.25,1885).

Investment advisers, violations of statute, rules and regulations governing, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission 05 U.S.C. 80b-9, Aug. 22, 1940).

Gross misconduct or gross abuse of trust by investment companies, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission (15 U.S.C. SOa-35, Aug. 22, 1940).

Use of misleading name or title by investment company, enjoined-by Securities and Exchange Commission 05 U.S.V. 80a-34, Aug. 22, 1940.)

Violation of statute governing, or rules, regulation, or orders of SEC by investment companies, enjoined-by Se-

curities and E.xchange Commission ( 15 U.S.C. 80a-41, Aug. 22, 1940).

Fair Labor Standards Act, enjoining of violations-by Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, under direction of Attorney General (see 29 U.S.C. 204b, 29 U.S.C. 216c, 217, June 25, 1938).

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, enforcement of order by injunction-by U.S. attorney (see 29 U.S.C. 921a, 33 U.S.C. 921, Mar. 4, 1927).

Import trade, prevention of restraint by injunction-by U.S. attorney, under direction of Attorney General 05 U.S.C. 9, Aug. 27, 1894).

Wool products, enjoining violation of Labeling Act-by Federal Trade Commission (15 U.S.C. 68e, Oct.14, 1940).

Securities Act, actions to restrain violations-by Securities and Exchange Commission-15 U.S.C. 77t, May 27, 1933).

Securities Exchange Act, restraint of violations-by Securities and Exchange Commission 05 U.S.C. 78u, June 6, 1934).

Stockyards, injunction to enforce order of Secretary of Agriculture-by Attorney General (7 U.S.C. 216, Aug. 15, 1921).

Submarine cables, to enjoin landing or operation-by the United States (47 U.S.C. 36, May 27, 1921).

Sugar quota, to restrain violations-by U.S. attorney under direction of Attorney General, see 7 U.S.C. 608(7), and 7 U.S.C. 608a-6, May 9, 1934.

Water carriers in interstate and foreign commerce, injunctions for violations of orders of ICC-by ICC or Attorney General (49 U.S.C. 916, Sept. 18, 1940). .

Flammable Fabrics Act, to enjoin violations-by Federal Trade Commission (15 U.S.C. 1195, June 30, 1953).

National Housing Act, injunction against violation-by Attorney General <12 U.S.C. 1731b). This code citation was repealed.

Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. appendix 2109, July 31, 1951).

National Labor Relations Act (TaftHartley Act) (29 U.S.C. 160 (L), June 23, 1947).

Rent control cases (50 U.S.C. 1896, Mar. 30, 1949).

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 232, June 25, 1938).

Trademark infringement <15 U.S.C. 1116, July 5, 1946).

Rubber Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. 1933, Mar. 31, 1948).

International Wheat Agreement Act (7 U.S.C. 1642, Oct. 27, 1949).

Natural Gas Act 05 U.S.C. 1717s, June 21,1938).

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499k, June 10, 1930).

Shipping Act of 1916 (46 U.S.C. 828, Sept. 7, 1916).

Federal Plant Pest Act: Secretary of Agriculture may seek injunctive relief to enforce orders relating to treatment and disposal (7 U.S.C. 150dd(b); Public Law 85-36 (71 Stat. 33), May 23, 1957).

CiVil Rights Act of 1957: Attorney General may ask for injunctive relief to prevent illegal practices relating to voting rights (42 U.S.C. 1971 (c); Public

Law 85-315 (71 Stat. 637), September 9, 1957). That was a highly limited power.

Federal Aviation Act of 1958: Board or Administrator may seek injunctive relief to enforce rules, regulations, et cetera, (49 U.S.C. 1487; Public Law 85-726 (72 Stat. 796) , August 23, 1958).

Textile Fiber Products Identification Act: Federal Trade Commission may seek injunctive relief to restrain unlawful acts (15 U.S.C. 70f; Public Law 85-897 (72 Stat. 1721), September 2, 1958).

Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act: Permits injunctive relief to restrain violations of the act (15 U.S.C. 1267, 1268; Public Law 86-613 (74 Stat. 378), July 12, 1960).

Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961: Permits injunctive relief of any withholding of payment of minimum wages or overtime found by the court to be due employees (29 U.S.C. 217; Public Law 87-60 (75 Stat. 74), May 5, 1961).

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961: Attorney General may bring suit for abatement of pollution (33 U.S.C. 466g(f); Public Law 87-88 (75 Stat. 209), July 20, 1961).

Small Business Investment Act Amendments of 1961. Injunctive relief is authorized to restrain violations 05 U.S.C. 687c(a); Public Law 87-341 (75 Stat. 755), October 3, 1961).

Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act Amendments of 1961. Injunctive relief to enjoin improper acts or practices (29 U.S.C. 308(f); Public Law 87-420 (76 Stat. 38), March 20, 1962).

What a recital of our concern for property and economic rights. Only 1 of these 45 laws deals plainly with a personal, constitutional right.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. CASE. The Senator is making a

fine exposition of the law. I wonder if he would mind if I punctuated it at this point.

Mr. MORSE. I shall be delighted to have the Senator do so.

Mr. CASE. Does the Sena tor recall where in all those acts except the 1957 act, in relation to voting, the safeguards around the defendant were so great as in that case-as, for example, the requirement of trial by jury for enforcement, by contempt, of a court's decree, and so forth? Is that not also an anomaly?

Mr. MORSE. That is quite true. Mr. CASE. I was struck by the list of

instances in which the Federal power, by way of enforcement through injunction, brought by the Attorney General or other Government agent, has been granted with great freedom, but, in the particular area of civil rights, with very great restraint.

Mr. MORSE. I am glad the Senator from New Jersey has made the point. As the Senator knows,· I led the fight in 1957 on the floor of the Senate against the trial-by-jury requirement for contempts of the injunctions. I voted against the bill because that provision was in it. In that speech of 1957, I traced the history of the common law in respect of the inherent right of a court to protect its own integrity by the contempt power, with no jury trial guarantee. The

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 6803 courts cannot maintain themselves · otherwise.

The people have a check against the courts. They have the check of impeachment. In many jurisdictions they have the check of recall. In many States there is the check of elections with regard to State judges.

It is unthinkable that the court should give away its inherent power to protect itself when bigotry and prejudice and mob psychology stalk a jurisdiction. How can a system of government by law be maintained when the courts are not protected in their inherent right to protect themselves?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. MORSE. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CASE. Again to emphasize the point--only in those instances to which the Senator has referred is that limitation required.

Mr. MORSE. Only in those instances is that limitation required.

Whom do we think we are fooling by that limitation? I was so disturbed by it that, as a lawyer, I could be no party to it. As a teacher of the common law for years, I refused to walk out on what I know is one of the great guarantees of our freedom-namely, the preservation of the inherent right of a court to protect its own integrity.

We all knew at that time that in jurisdiction after jurisdiction· we threw away, .by the adoption of that provision, all protection for the Negro. Do not forget that

. these are Federal courts. They have been courageous in the North and in the South. They have held firm and fast to constitutional guarantees. And yet it was sought to give mob psychology, dressed up with a jury, power to destroy the integrity of a court by refusing to support the enforcement of its contempt powers.

Mr. President (Mr. McGOVERN in the Chair) , do we hear that the rights of individuals are disappearing? Is there a ·feeling abroad in this land that personal rights are being curtailed and infringed? That the human being is lost in a world of big business, big labor, and big government?

If so, here is one of the reasons for it. Government is being used to arbitrate and enforce property rights, but it is not being used to arbitrate and enforce personal freedoms derived from the Constitution.

There is a great, huge, and ominous gap between the individual, especially the colored individual, and the Federal court which is the personification of the Constitution. That is why we are living in a decade of sit-in and other demonstrations. The legal means of obtaining and enjoying personal rights are missing. They are absent. That is in part the fault of the executive branch; but even more, it is the fault of Congress.

We have failed to enact appropriate legislation for the enforcement of the 14th amendment. Until we do, the results of our failure must be on our own heads.

APPROPRIATE RELIEF

Finally, in section 301, the Attorney General may institute a civil action

in any appropriate district court of the United states against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate.

This language does not permit the Attorney General to "shop around." He is required to bring the proceedings in the Federal court of the district where ·the violation was alleged to have occurred, in accordance with the general rules of jurisdiction.

The "appropriate relief" could take the form of a preventive relief, such as an injunction, or any other order needed to remedy the violation. Or it could take the form of a court plan for an orderly and progressive desegregation of the facility in question.

I expressed some apprehension several days ago about the presence of the words "preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other or'der," which may be sought by the Attorney General under title II. These words do not appear in title III . nor in the other titles. They call instead for "appropriate relief." It would be my opinion that "appropriate relief" would be preventive relief of the kind described in title II, and not damages or criminal penalties. ·

However, when it comes time · to consider amendments to H.R. 7152, this is one area that could be spelled out more consistently.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 302

Section 302 of title m permits the Attorney General to intervene in , cases already commenced by others claiming denial of equal protection.

It states: Whenever an action has been commenced

in any court m the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal .protection of the laws on account of race, oolor, religion, or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in suoh action.

Here again, the action of the United States is limited to cases involving equal protection of the law, and that only on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It is not a blank check for the United States to involve itself in suits claiming denial of free speech, free assembly, free press, picketing, due process, or · unreasonable searches and seizures, except where it is alleged that these denials were due to the race, color, or national origin of the party.

This, too, I regard as an unfortunate limitation. If a suit is broad enough to include denial of equal protection among other things, then the United States will have its invitation to intervene, and it will not matter whether the equal protection charge stands or falls.

But I consider the abuse and harassment of peaceful demonstrators that has occurred in many places to be violations of the due process rights of citizens without regard to the color or the purpose of the demonstrators. If I have the chance, I shall vote to broaden this language of the bill.

I say this because one of the commonly cited cases in this area is Edwards v. South Carolina (372 U.S. 229, 1963). In this case, Negro demonstrators were

arrested and convicted for breach of the peace. The Court, finding that the demonstrators had been orderly, reversed their convictions, with these words:

In arresting, convicting, and punishing the petitioners under the circumstances disclosed by this record, South Carolina infringed the petitioner's constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of grievances.

It does not seem to me that denial of equal protection should also have to be charged before the United States interests itself in these illegal actions.

But I am explaining the · conditions and limitations that are contained in the present version of H.R. 7152. The equal protection consideration is not a minor or insignificant one. As long ago as 1951, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Lynch v. U.S., 189 F. 2d 476 (C.A. 5, 1951), certiorari denied 342 U.S. 831 (1951) 'that persons under arrest have a right to be tried and punished in the same manner as others accused of crime, and they have an equal right to protection from injury by officers having them in their charge. An injustice · done to one person is an injustice to .all. In this case, Negroes in custody of a Georgia sheriff had been turned over to the Ku Klux Klan.

Ten years later, when local police failed to protect freedom riders in Montgomery, Ala., a Federal district court said:

The failure of the defendant law enforcement officers to enforce the law in this case clearly amounts to unlawful State action in violation of the equal protection clause of the, 14th amendment.

(United States v. U. S. Klans, 194 F. Supp. 897 (H.0. Ala., 1961).)

AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE

The importance of section 302 is that it authorizes Federal participation in suits brought by others in these cases. There is no present statutory authority for such intervention. Existing statutes permit intervention where the constitutionality of a Federal statute is in question. It was under this authority that the United States became party to the case which struck down the legality of the "separate but equal" clause in the Hill-Burton hospitals.

The United States may always file a brief as amicus curiae; but this does not give it standing as a party, able to secure the same relief as a party.

The words "may intervene" are permissive to the Attorney General, but they are a directive to the court. When the motion is entered, it is not discretionary with the court to accept or reject the United States as a party. Intervention is accomplished with the filing of the appropriate motion. Thereafter, the United States is entitled to the same relief as the original party on whose behalf it intervened.

It is obvious that there are inherent limits on what can be done under this section. A police brutality, assuming it stems from the purpose or the color of the victims, cannot be rectified after the fact by any preventive relief.

In most cases, the Federal interest can only be acted on when suit is brought


in a Federal court for relief from a continuing State action, or from the legal consequences of an act that has previously occurred. The State action, however, need not have been involved in the original incident; it may be merely the State's administration of justice from which relief is sought. Most of the cases in which intervention would occur would be those asking that a State prosecution be dismissed or a State legal action enjoined.

LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTION NEEDED

It is evident from what I have said that the provisions of title Ill are extremely modest. If I have any complaint about them, it is that they are too modest.

So, in my opinion, have the actions of the Justice Department been inadequate in civil rights cases. It has exercised powers without legislative authority in certain areas of national interest that it denies it can exercise in protection of personal rights.

The well-known opinion of Judge Wisdom in United States against City of Jackson, Miss., has often been mentioned as an invitation to the Justice Department to initiate proceedings to protect constitutional rights, with or without statutory authority. Speaking for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Wisdom pointed to cases going back to In re Debs of 1895, to show that the Federal Government has standing, even without legislative authorization, to initiate injunctive proceedings to remove burdens on interstate commerce.

The Justice Department itself has relied upon the Debs case to institute proceedings against Louisiana and Alabama municipalities when segregation of interstate facilities was challenged, when failure to protect interstate freedom riders was involved, and when segregation of airline terminals was involved.

To quote Judge Wisdom's recital of these cases :

Debs has been relied on as a basis for standing in three recent cases in this circuit: United States v. Lassi ter, W.D. La. 1962, 203 F. Supp. 20, aff'd 371 U.S. 10, 83 S. Ct. 21, 9 L . Ed. 2d 47; Uni ted States v. Klans, M.D. Ala. 1961, 194 F . Supp. 897; and United States v. City of Montgomery, M.D. Ala. 1962, 201 F. Supp. 590.

In Lassiter, as in the instant case, the defendants were bus and rail carriers as well as State officials. Also as in this case, the burden on commerce was the segregation of passengers in terminals having separate waiting rooms with segregation signs. The three-judge court, among other bases for the Attorney General's standing, relied upon the Debs principle that the executive branch had the power to seek an injunction against "unconstitutional interference with and burden upon interstate commerce." The court cited Klans with approval.

Klans was a suit by the United States to enjoin various Ku Klux Klans and certain State officials, including the Alabama Attorney General and local officials, from comm itting acts of violence against freedom riders and from permitting others to interfere with interstate travelers. The Court held that the failure of the defendant law enforcement officers to enforce the law amounted to unlawful state action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

unlawful state action therefore was analogous to violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in Lassiter and in the instant case. Judge Johnson [concluded] that this action [was] brought by the United States to protect the interest of citizens of the United States in the free and unobstructed movement of interstate commerce and in the exercise of the constitutional power of the United States over such coininerce. The court, relying on Debs, recognized the standing of the United States:

"The national government • • • is charged, therefore, with the duty of keeping those highways of interstate commerce free from obstruction, for it has always been recognized as one of the powers and duties of a government to remove obstructions from the highways under its control." 194 F. Supp. at 902.

In United States v. City of Montgomery, the Government sued to desegregate airline terminals. Judge Johnson held that the Government had both statutory standing to enforce the nondiscrimination clause of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1487(b), 11,lthough it refers only to "air carrier" and standing under the Debs principle "to maintain an action to relieve burdens on interstate commerce."

Later, Judge Wisdom said: In an important case, United States v.

San Jacinto Tin Co., 1888, 125 U.S. 273, 8 S. Ct. 850, 30 L. Ed. 747, the Attorney General brought suit to set aside a land patent obtained by fraud. The Supreme Court held:

"[N]otwithstanding the want of any specific authority to bring an action in the name of the United States to set aside and declare void an instrument issued under its apparent authority, we cannot believe that where a case exists in which this ought to ·be done it is not within the authority of that officer to cause such action to be instituted and prosecuted." 125 U.S. at 279, 8 S. Ot. at 852.

In United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 1888, 128 U.S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. Ed. 450, the Court upheld the right of the United States to maintain without statutory authorization a bill in equity to cancel a patent for an invention fraudulently obtained. Referring to San Jacinto Tin, the Court said:

"This language is construed by counsel for the appellee in this case to limit the relief granted at the instance of the United States to cases in which it has a direct pecuniary interest. But it is not susceptible of such construction. • • • The essence of the right of the United States to interfere in the present case is its obligation to protect the public from the monopoly of the patent which was procured by fraud, and it would be difficult to find language more aptly used to include this in the class of cases which are not excluded from the jurisdiction of the court by want of interest in the Government of the United States." 128 U.S. at 367, 9 S. Ct. a t 97.

In Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 1925, 266 U.S. 405, 45 S. Ct., 176, 69 L. Ed. 352 the Court sustained a suit for the removal of obstructions to interstate commerce in navigable waters. Justice Holmes said :

"This is not a controversy between equals. The United States is asserting its sovereign power to regulate commerce and to control the navigable waters within its jurisdiction. • • * The main ground is the authority of the United States to remove obstructions to interstate and foreign commerce. There is no question that this power is superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants. In matters where the States may act the action of Congress overrides what they have done. • • • But in matters where the national importance is imminent and direct even

where Congress has been silent the States may not act at all." 266 U.S. at 425--426, 45 S. Ct. at 178.

We sUininarize. At a time when Plessy v. Ferguson made resort to the Fourteenth Amendment futile, the Supreme Court, in Morgan v. Virginia, barred State-imposed segregation in transportation because it offended the Commerce Clause. Lassiter, Klans, and City of Montgomery, now reinforced by dicta in Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Air Lines, hold that segregation in interstate transportation violative of the Fourteenth Amendment offends the Commerce Clause. Debs, Morgan, Boynton, Lassiter, and Klaus together recognize the substantive interest of the United States in the exclusive control over interstate commerce and in protesting the flow of interstate commerce free from interruption and burdensome interference by segregation imposed on travelers whether it be by the States, carriers, or private persons. Debs, Lassiter, Klans, and the City of Montgomery support the direct standing of the United States to protect that substantive interest under the Commerce Clause without benefit of statutory authorizaion.

Judge Wisdom did not go into the possible standing of the United States under the 14th amendment. But there is no doubt in my mind that over the last 50 years, the Justice Department has shown a far more vigorous defense and enforcement of the Constitution where property rights are at stake than it has shown where personal rights are at stake.

As a Member of Congress, which has failed far more completely, I probably am not in a position to point the finger at the Justice Department. It claims it cannot act in the absence of a law, in spite of what Judge Wisdom has said. Congress has failed to enact a law. Both branches of our National Government have failed to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens of this country,

I believe that the Department of Justice is entitled to have language written into the bill so that it will be sure it can act. That is all it is asking for. We should give it to the Department in title III.

Both branches have put political considerations ahead of moral and legal duties. When I say both, I mean this Congress and past Congresses; I mean this executive branch of the Government and past executive branches of the Government. I mean that the executive branch of the Government in recent years and Congress in recent years have lagged far behind the courts. The courts have written a glorious history in protecting constitutional rights.

However, all the courts can do is hand down decisions. We must supply the legislation to implement the Constitution. That is elementary. People are prone to overlook elementary principles. It is elementary that the Constitution of the United States is not self-executing. The courts can decree what the Constitution means. But Congress and the executive branch of the Government must implement the enforcement of the Constitution by Congress enacting legislation, the executive branch enforcing it, and the executive branch proceeding with necessary litigation to carry out the decrees of the courts, and to carry out the guarantees of the Constitution.

1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6805 Every politician and every citizen who

deplores public disorder, and even public demonstrations that are not disorderly, must ask himself these days: What legal avenues are open to these Negro people? The answer is that they have precious few legal avenues except those they can afford by hiring lawyers.

It is not right that our Constitution should be enforceable only by private action. It is not right that its guarantees should exist in limbo until someone can bring a private suit to obtain them. Is that what Americans mean by constitutional government? I do not believe it.

It has been the burden of my presentation that title mis narrow and limited. I think it is too narrow and too limited. I wish it were not so narrow and limited. But it is still important. It is the foundation for enforcement of basic hwnan rights of American citizens, and it deserves oo be adopted by this Congress, this year.

Mr. President, in this speech I have tried to lay down the legal foundations for title m. I have also tried to call attention to the moral foundation of title III. I have also tried to forewarn the people of this Republic that the time has already passed us by so far as guaranteeing constitutional rights of the Negroes is concerned.

All we can try to do now is to catch up with our failure to deliver the Constitution, and avoid what I said at the beginning of my speech I am sure will be the greatest domestic crisis since 1860, if we do not enact the implementing legislation to carry out the great promises of the Constitution.

I hope that this Congress, at long last, will keep faith with the oath that each Member thereof took when he was sworn into office to uphold the Constitution.

We default that oath if we fail to pass this legislation.

RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M. TOMORROW Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in ac

cordance with the order entered April 1, 1964, I move that the Senate stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess, under the order of April 1, 1964, until tomorrow, Friday, April 3, 1964, at 11 o'clock a.m.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the

Senate April 2 (legislative day of March 30),1964:

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Dr. Mary I. Bunting, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Atomic Energy Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 1965, vice Robert E. Wilson, resigned.

ExPORT-IMPORT BANK

Elizabeth S. May, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of Washington, vice James Smith Bush, resigned.

CX--428

POSTMASTERS

The following-named persons to be post.masters:

ALABAMA

Kathryn W. Goff, Maplesville, Ala., in place of B. N. Hayes, retired.

ALASKA

William P. Koso, King Cove, Alaska, in place of H. D. Larsen, removed.

ARIZONA

Velma R. Billingsley, Cameron, Ariz., in place of L. S. Donaldson, resigned.

Kenneth J. Repp, Glendale, Ariz., in place of R. H. Trueblood, retired.

Clarence J. de Corse, Yuma, Ariz., in place of Eleanor McCoy, deceased.

ARKANSAS

Bernie S. Hargis, Jr., Warren, Ark., in place of V. V. Godwin, retired.

Mable L. Harris, Wilmar, Ark., in place of Homer Pace, transferred.

Burl King, Yellville, Ark., in place of L. H. Cavaness, deceased.

CALIFORNIA

Jack L. Freeman, Bell, Calif., 1n place of Harry Bergseid, retired.

George B. Kohler, Jr., Berkeley, Calif., in place of F. S. Spires, retired.

Phyllis Z. Watkins, Bieber, Calif., in place . of E. A. Harvey, retired.

Kenneth L. Toney, Capistrano Beach, Calif., M. H. Gallagher, retired.

Beula B. Scates, Clements, Calif., in place of F. V. Butler, retired.

Orv1lle K. Jolly, Corning, Calif., in place of R. D. Siler, retired.

Elvery F. Lott, Douglas City, Calif., in place of A. F. Kinne, resigned.

Stanley N. Carkeek, Hesperia, Calif., in place of R. E. Wheeland, retired.

CONNECTICUT

Joseph F. Glynn, Clinton, Conn., in place of F. D. Parker, retired.

Theresa A. Morway, Thompson, Conn., in place of J. J. Morway, deceased.

FLORIDA

Edna B. Hunter, Hastings, Fla., in place of B. S. Allen, retired.

Thomas C. Hazen, Jr., Starke, Fla., in place of G. J. McGriff, Jr., removed.

GF.ORGIA

Lewis T. Lindsey, Silver Creek, Ga., in place of P. P. Hunt, deceased.

mAHO

Carol J. Nitz, Elk City, Idaho, in place of D. L. Nitz, resigned.

ILLINOIS

Carl E. Thomas, Clay City, Ill., in place of M. A. Lawson, transferred.

Harold L. Morrison, Hoopeston, Ill., in place of John Petry, retired.

Darlene H. Shidaker, Kenilworth, Ill., in place of M. E. Donahue, retired.

Roland 0. Britt, Smithboro, Ill., in place of R. F. Tevis, deceased.

Murrell E. Carter, Springerton, Ill., in place of Avanelle Martin, deceased.

Harry M. Moore, Virden, Ill., in place of F. N. Mayer, retired.

INDIANA

Howard L. Ring, Anderson, Ind., in place of I. G. Davis, retired.

Herschel R. Ell, Cory, Ind., in place of E. E. Kester, retired.

Raymond L. Hopwood, Memphis, Ind., in place of 0. S. Mayfield, retired.

Gordon N. Strange, Plainville, Ind., in place of R. L. Strange, retired.

Wayne M. Renbarger, Sweetse,rs, Ind., in place of E. E. Mitchell, retired.

Lloyd S. Schafer, Winchester, Ind., in place of H. B. Harrison, retired.

IOWA

Merland E. Buttolph, Bennett, Iowa, in place of L. C. Goettsch, retired.

Earl F. McGrane, Ionia, Iowa, in place of E. B. Krause, retired.

Dale W. Erickson, Lorimor, Iowa, in place of F. E. Orwan, transferred.

Eugene A. McCarvme, Perry, Iowa, in place of F. W. Aubry, retired.

KANSAS

Robert N. Woodson, Leavenworth, Kans., in place of A. L. Purcell, retired.

Lola E. Brighton, Milford, Kans., in place of H.F. Brighton, deceased.

Carroll E. Kerley, Peck, Kans., in place of M. E. Vossen, retired.

Carl R. Meek, Windom, Kans., in place of N. M. Spohn, retired.

KENTUCKY

Samuel B. Norfleet, Jr., Nancy, Ky., in place of S. A. Weaver, transferred.

William A. Jarrell, Nebo, Ky., in place of U. s. Morgan, retired.

W111iam A. Miller, Shelbyville, Ky., in place of W. E. Amyx, Jr., transferred.

LOUISIANA

Edith E. Fairchild, Greenwell Springs, La., in place of H. P. Bullock, retired.

Roy J. Montz, Laplace, La., in place of L. M. Wilton, retired.

Marcellus A. Thompson, vme Platte, La., in place of P. F. Morein, retired.

MAINE

Clayton M. Dolloff, Mount Vernon, Maine, L. J. Chase, retired.

MARYLAND

Evelyn B. Haywood, Cardiff, Md., in place of J. H. Johnson, retired.

Mildred I. Mauck, Clarksville, Md., in place of M. R. Phelps, retired.

Irene E. Cannon, Glen Echo, Md., in place of M. R. Randall, resigned.

Mildred B. Jurovaty, Saint Marys City, Md., in place of Ethel Goddard, retired.

MASSACHUSETTS

Mildred E. Hazel, Harvard, Mass., in place of R. P. Sheehan, retired.

John E. Connor, Leominster, Mass., in place of C. I. Dennis, retired.

Raymond L. Merrigan, North Adams, Mass., in place of H. V. Gunnason, deceased.

Ann s. Hammatt, South Orleans, Mass., in place of F. R. Bessom, retired.

MICHIGAN

James F. Schweitzer, Comstock Park, Mich., 1n place of J.E. Morris, retired.

Delia A. Bickham, Hessel, Mich., in place of Frances Lindberg, retired.

Mark A. Wernette, Remus, Mich., 1n place of W. M. Flachs, retired.

Francis G. Trombly, Rock, Mich., in place of E. B. Kleiber, retired.

Lawrence A. Frith, Vermontville, Mich., in place of R. K. Kilpatrick, transferred.

MINNESOTA

Alton H. Osgood, Cloverton, Minn., in place of I. M. Austin, retired.

Jack R. Maddy, McGregor, Minn., in place of W. 0. Johnson, resigned.

:MISSISSIPPI

James F. Bullock, Bogue Chitto, Miss., in place of S. B. Spencer, retired.

Sammie R. Buchanan, ,Ph111pp, Miss., in place of B. C. Feigler, retired.

Maude u. Atkinson, Vance, Miss., in place of F. w. Blaine, retired.

MISSOURI

Arthur J. Fiene, Alma, Mo., in place of F. T. McClure, deceased.

Ivan L. Kenney, Appleton City, Mo., in place of C. E. McColl, retired.

6806 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 3 Alvin M. Townley, Chamois, Mo., in place

of V. F. Engelage, retired. Robert F. Collins, Shelbina, Mo., in place

of E. J. Dempsey, retired. Martin B. Winger, Stewartsville, Mo., in

place of E. E. Saunders, retired. J. Walter Jones, Sweet Springs, Mo., in

place of C.R. Muller, resigned. Leslie A. Phillips, Wheaton, Mo., in place

of E. E. Lamberson, deceased. MONTANA

Helen L. Lucier, Frenchtown, Mont., in place of M. W. Bowman, resigned.

NEBRASKA

Myron A. Christensen, Oakland, Nebr., in place of K. C. Baugh, retired.

NEW JERSEY

Robert W. Kidd, Jr., Penns Grove, N.J., in place of R. W. Kidd, retired.

NEW MEXICO

Norman M. Booker, Hobbs, N. Mex., in place of L. L. Gholson, removed.

NEW YORK

Gavin R. Argue, Apalachin, N.Y., in place of J. D. Megivern, Jr., resigned.

Edwin J. Faber, Caroga Lake, N.Y., in place of Burton Yates, retired.

Francis L. Marshall, Clayton, N.Y., in place of W. S. Amo, retired.

Louise E. Seville, Congers, N.Y., in place of R. B. Henry, retired.

George W. Stevens, Hobart, N .Y ., in p~ace of O. B. Brockway, retired.

Henry C. Schreiber, Long Island City, N.Y., in place of G. A. Albrecht, retired.

George J. Posner, Mamaroneck, N.Y., in place of I. F. Linehan, retired.

Grant D. Morrison, Northville, N.Y., in place of P. H. Griffing, retired.

Gary c. Babjeck, Philmont, N.Y., in place of F. L. Ritchie, deceased.

William A. Potskowski, Port Henry, N.Y., in place of L. J. Holl1ster, Jr., retired.

Timothy D. Sullivan, Scarsdale, N .Y., in place of M. o. Drury, retired.

Herbert Strumpf, Selkirk, N.Y., in place of William Winne, retired.

James F. Murray, Valatie, N.Y., in place of H. S. New, retired.

NORTH CAROLINA

Nell W. Walton, Ash, N.C., in place of J. R. Simmons, retired. -

E. Wade Ledbetter, Gibsonville, N.O., in place of M. W. Jordan, deceased.

NORTH DAKOTA

Stephen J. Urie, Cogswell, N. Dak., in place of o. M. Bartlett, retired.

Kenneth I. Jones, Parshall, N. Dak., in place of B. G. Shubert, deceased.

omo Margaret s. Bennett, Alexandria, Ohio, in

place of B. E. Barrick, retired. OKLAHOMA

Donald R. Kardokus, Eakly, Okla., in place of Elton Sullavan, retired.

Donald L. McKinney, Inola, Okla., in place of A. B. Mullen, transferred.

Sexson C. Longest, Ringling, Okla., in place of T. E. Cavins, deceased.

Parks E. Harlan, Spiro, Okla., 1n place of J. R.. Redwine, Jr., transferred.

PENNSYLVANIA

Abram B. Lauver, Dalmatia, Pa., In place of P. L. Tressler, retired.

Edward W. Snyder, Beach Lake, Pa., in place ot B. A. Snyder, retired.

Joseph Windish, Jr., Denver, Pa., in place of W. M. Crouse, retired.

Martin T. Brittingham, Jr., Exton, Pa., 1n place of L. C. Reese, retired.

Nick Roscoe, Farrell, Pa., in place of James Neva.nt, retired.

E. Glenn Kauffman, Gap, Pa., place of C. T. Foulk, retired.

Andrew P. Stallsmith, Hadley, Pa., in place of R. S. Feather, deceased.

Harry R. Collins, McDonald, Pa., in place of J. H. Galbraith, retired.

Chester L. Shirk, Rothsville, Pa., in place of E. A. Carvell, removed.

Walter R. Barron, Slippery Rock, Pa., in place of M. H. Bard, deceased.

James L. Roney, Unionville, Pa., in place of E. P. Eastburn, retired.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Eugenia C. Williams, Heath Springs, S.O., in place of T. B. Horton, retired.

Wilford C. Hoffman, Patrick, S.C., in place of V. S. Buie, deceased.

TENNESSEE

Donald B. McMillan, Erin, Tenn., in place of Elvira Boone, retired.

Delmer C. Norman, Kelso, Tenn., in place of F. W. Golden, transferred.

TEXAS

Rosale M. Trammell, Big Wells, Tex., in place of P. A. Picket, deceased.

Jo Harry DeRamus, Hillister, Tex., in place of F. E. Maddox, deceased.

Dixie S. Odom, Karnack, Tex., in place of L.A. Baker, retired.

Samuel T. Toney, La Vernia, ~ex., in place of E. B. Smith, retired.

Everett A. Bierds, Sr., Rosebud, Tex., in place of J. R. Killgore, deceased. '

Archie V. Boyd, Trent, Tex., in place of F. B. Steadman, transferred.

Ora A. Smith, Wellman, Tex., in place of W. H. Jackson, retired.

VIRGINIA

Freeman H. Stewart, , Crewe, Va., in place of K. H. Woody, retired.

WASHINGTON

Samuel Manus, Everett, Wash., in place of E. P. Hennessey, retired.

Bessie L. Van Slyke, Nespelem, Wash., in place of G. V. Gray, deceased.

WEST VIRGINIA

Howard W. Smith, Barrackville, W. Va., in place of J.M. Stevens, retired.

Thomas K. Cole, Grafton, W. Va., in place of L. A. Hoffman, retired.

Virginia S. Everhart, Kearneysvllle, W, Va., in place of W. B. Hammond, retired.

Ralph M. Gibson, Smithville, W. Va., in place of I. M. Gibson, retired.

WISCONSIN

Clifford J. Pfeifer, Allenton, Wis., in place of R. W. Stoffel, retired.

Samuel F. Kuykendall, Fort Atkinson, Wis., in place of P. W. Cornish, retired.

CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by

the Senate April 2 (legislative day of March 30), 1964:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Pursuant to the provision of section 4(a) of Public Law 592, 79th Congress, approved August 2, 1946, as amended, the followingnamed person for appointment as indicated:

John S. Crocker, to be a member of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency for a term of 5 years, effective on and after March 4, 1964.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dorothy H. Jacobson, of Minnesota, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

Dorothy H. Jacobson, of Minnesota, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

SENATE FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1964

<Legislative day of Monday, March 30, 1964)

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Acting President pro tempo re (Mr. METC.,.LF) .

Rev. Lester K. Welch, minister, Christ Methodist Church, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:

Amid the perplexities of a changing order, our Father, our hearts instinctively turn to Thee, like weary travelers returning home at eventide. Thou art our refuge in time of trouble; Thou art our strength; Thou art our only hope.

Enable us so to put our trust in Thee that our ·spirits will grow calm and our hearts be comforted. ·

Thy· word of old hath declared, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord"; we humbly acknowledge our need of Thee. It is imperative.for us today to disti:pguish truth from error or from the seemingly right; and to have clear insight and perception, instead of listening to the babbling of many voices. May the recognition of this responsibility spur us to accept the ad.monition of the wisest of the wise who said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Relying upon Thy grace, which is always sufficient, may we transcend our differences and rise to the higher unity of the spirit. Enable us to face this day with courage, and the challenge of our tasks in the good providence that Thou hath called us, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, April 2, 1964, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing froin the President

of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480, 83D CONGRESSMESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which, with the accompanying report, was ref erred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

To the Congress of the United States: I am sending to the Congress the 19th

semiannual report on activities carried on under Public Law 480, 83d Congress, as amended, outlining operations under the act during the period July 1 through December 31, 1963.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON, THE WHITE HOUSE, April 3, 1964.

SENATE - Govinfo.gov

Documents

Transcript of SENATE - Govinfo.gov