Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 20, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 29, 1971
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP73B00296R000200090002-9.pdf374.74 KB
Approved For Release '2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73600296R000200090002-9 June 29, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE tember 21 and 22 on S. 921, a bill to make major revisions in public land laws. The hearings will start at 10 a.m. each day in room 3110 of the new Senate Of- fice Building. The bill is entitled "Public Domain Lands Organic Act of 1971" and was in- troduced by me in February. Title I of the bill would apply to the lands admin- istered by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment of the Department of the Interior. Title II of the bill would repeal the Mining Law of 1872 and substitute a mineral leasing system in place of the present patenting system. Other acts the bill would repeal are the Homestead, De- sert Land Entry, townsites, and parts of the Taylor Grazing ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS BY THE DISARMAMENT SUBCOMMIT- TEE Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on July 6 and July 8 the Foreign Relations Sub- committee on Arms Control will resume its hearings on the arms- control impli- cations of the defense budget. We have already inquired into the rationale for our nuclear triad of three invulnerable strategic weapons systems? land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and bombers. On June 16 and 17 we heard administration and outside witnesses discuss these strategic systems and begin to analyze the central question before the subcommittee: the sort of strategic posture that will guarantee our security and not at the same time fuel the arms race or waste billions of tax- payer dollars. On July 6 and July 8 we will focus on the ABM and MIRV components of the defense budget. We will be particularly concerned with whether the deployment of MIRV and ABM could have the effect of stimulating the arms race and render- ing more difficult an arms control agree- ment with the Soviet Union. We will want to explore the "bargain- ing chip" theory according to which the administration argues that continued deployment of these weapons will im- prove the American bargaining position vis-a-vis the Soviets and facilitate the chances of an agreement at SALT. We will also want to know more about the need for these weapons in meeting what the administration refers to as the "suffi- ciency" criterion of our strategic posture. In particular, we will want to explore the argument that ABM and MIRV will increase the stability of crisis situations when the nuclear powers come into direct confrontation. We will also want to know more con- cerning the latest estimates of Soviet MIRV capabilities and the accuracy of their giant 55-9 missile. The justification for our own ABM system depends upon reliable estimates of these Soviet capa- bilities, for it is the S-9 missile with its MIRV potential that threatens our Min- uteman force that the Safeguard ABM is designed to protect. Moreover, we will want to know more concerning the rationale for our own MIRV deployments?the Minuteman III, and Poseidon missiles. One possible argu- ment for these deployments is that the Soviets might have the capability of converting a portion of their numerous surface-to-air missile defense systems? designed to protect against bombers? into ABM systems?the so-called SAM- upgrade problem. Our MIRV's, it is argued, are necessary to counteract such a threat. Another rationale sometimes used for these MIRV deployments is that the President must have the option, after a Soviet first strike, of retaliating against remaining Soviet forces rather than destroying Soviet cities. This is the theory of a limited nuclear war, which holds that a nuclear war might actually be fought and terminated without destruc- tion of civilian centers. MIRV's, it is argued, are necessary to give the United. States a number of deliverable warheads to make such a limited counterforce war possible. We will want to know whether the administration holds to this partic- ular nuclear theory. We have invited administration and outside witnesses to appear at these hearings, and I will report to the Senate when a final list of witnesses is confirmed. ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON SPEEDY TRIAL Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, in the weeks ahead the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee will hold hearings on S. 895, a bill designed to give new vitality and meaning to the sixth amendment guarantee of speedy trial. We have ini- tially scheduled 4 days of hearings on July 13, 14, 20, and 21. These will be the first Senate hearings on any specific legislative proposal to bring about speedy trials for all Federal criminal suspects. The bill, which I orig- inally introduced a year ago in the 91st Congress as S. 3936, was widely circu- lated by the subcommittee in the last 6 months of 1970 to solicit views and sug- gestions from bar groups, judges, law professors, and others knowledgeable in the field of criminal law. It has received enthusiastic support from the bar, the bench, the press, and the general public. Support for our position has continued to grow steadily. I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks several recent editorials which manifest that growing support. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHILES) . Without objection, it is so or- dered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, although legislative deliberations on the bill are just beginning, it has already sparked interest and progress in making the con- stitutional right to speedy trial a prac- tical reality. The President and the Chief Justice in recent speeches have laid great stress on the need to equip our criminal justice system so that justice will be swift. The Second Circuit Court of Ap- peals has announced speedy trial rules which, among other provisions, carry dismissal as the consequence of inordi- nate delay by the prosecution. The New York State courts have also announced new speedy trial rules, and just the other day the Judicial Conference of the Unit- ed States circulated proposed rule S 10203 changes in the speedy trial provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce- dure. I welcome these first steps on the part of the Nation's judiciary. Ultimately it is to the courts that we must look for enforcement of the constitutional guar- antee, as well as strict application of the rules which may be laid down by Con- gress and State legislatures by statute. Despite the admirable progress made by the courts in recent months, it is clear that Congress must also act, for there is a limit to what the judiciary is able to do on its own. Clearly the legislature must provide the leadership. This leader- ship is now being demonstrated by Con- gress, both in the Senate and the House. On February 22 of this year 24 of my colleagues joined with me in introducing S. 895, which is substantially the same as S. 3936. By May 12, 1971, 17 addi- tional Senators had decided to cospon- sor the bill. Today I am pleased to an- nounce that four more Members of the Senate?Senators HATFIELD, MAGNUSON, MILLER, and PERCY have chosen to lend their names and support to this bill. That brings the total number of cospon- sors to 46. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that at the next printing of S. 895, the following Senators be shown as co- sponsors: BIRCH BAYII, WALLACE F. BEN- NETT, LLOYD M. BENTSEN, JR., ALAN BIBLE, QUENTIN N. BURDICK, HOWARD W. CAN- NON, CLIFFORD P. CASE, LAWTON CHILES, ALAN CRANSTON, CARL T. CURTIS, ROBERT DOLE, THOMAS F. EAGLETON, HIRAM L. FONG, DAVID H. GAMBRELL, EDWARD GUR- NEY, PHILIP A. HART, VANCE HARTKE, MARK 0. HATFIELD, ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, ROMAN L. HRUSKA, HAROLD E. HUGHES, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, DANIEL K. INO- UYE, HENRY M. JACKSON, JACOB K. JAV- ITS, EDWARD M. KENNEDY, WARREN G. MAGNUSON, CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, GALE W. MCGEE, GEORGE MCGOVERN, THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, JACK MILLER, WALTER F. MONDALE, FRANK E. MOSS, EDMUND S. MUSKIE, ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, CLAIBORNE PELL, CHARLES H. PERCY, JENNINGS RANDOLPH, TED STE- VENS, HERMAN E. TALMADGE, STROM THUR- MOND, JOHN G. TOWER, and HARRISON A. WILLIAMS. Progress in the Senate is being matched in the House as well. In the past 3 months, five bills have been introduced: H.R. 6045 by Mr. MATSUNAGA; H.R. 7107 by Mr. MiKvA with 16 other cosponsors. H.R. 7108, also by Mr. MncvA with 20 other cosponsors; H.R. 7524 by Mr. CHARLES WILSON and H.R. 7789 by Mr_ MIKVA with four other cosponsors. Mr. President, the primary objective of S. 895 is elimination of the long and unnecessary delay between arrests and trials which has been exacting and un- duly high price both from individuals accused of crime and from a society deprived of a swift, sure and fair system of criminal justice. Title I of S. 895 would require each Federal District Court to establish a plan for holding trials within 60 days of an indictment or information. Departures from the 60-day requirement would be al- lowed but only on limited grounds such as a defendant's unavailability or a judi- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73600296R000200090002-9 _4204 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73600296R000200090002-9 CONGRESSIONAL ' 71olline that the ends of justice can- etherwise be met. .1-1e if of the bill contains provisions JlSflec operation of the Bail Reform 1966 by establishing demonstra- "Pretrial Services Agencies" in five iaoluding the District of Co- te. -fire new agency would insure e: the defendant received the neces- octal employment, and other serv- /hien would minimize the tempta- to crime and future delinquency . pretrial period. With its recently ese ci responsibilities and added per- etre and resources, the District of Co- da riall Agency might well be ex- o ed one such model pretrial serv- e eeer cc, 1 believe the provisions of Si t-itle, together with the speedy trial ns of title I, will substantially ifi.a.te the problem of crime on bail. 3Lei offers us a concrete and work- broposal to bring about speedy trials ad of 7ust another tired, empty slo- bout that long-neglected constitue *hie Moreover, it provides a via- (' clearly constitutional alternative Justice Department's unwise and nilittil lanai scheme of preventive tetion. it is noteworthy that S. 895 among its supporters those who ete preventive detention as well as teese who, like myself, oppose it. While Let speak for all cosoonsors on this believe there are few who would tilsnenee with preventive detention alternative could be found. It is my fi that ta. 895 is just such an alterna- see or us who have cosponsored reee fully realize that it is not totally problems, but we are convinced . f those problems can be successfully overcome. Indeed, they must be overcome -17 are to have a speedy, fair and effec- ysteni of criminal justice in this ,nfry_ We all share the firm conviction S. 89t or similar legislation can -7iminal justice system more ,ieive to the needs of society in gen- t-id organist suspects in particular. ibetheeming hearings, the sub- will closely examine all con- ve for changes in the i7tiend to air all the issues and s tliorouebly and look 'forward uearing from the expert witnesses eteve aereed to assist us in this im- task. As views mature we will dtiival hearings in the future. tie overwhelming support cievei- - for this bill, I intend to give a 711 and deliberate examination to ? .ii?oblera. As I have said on occasions in the past. in the critical : ciao Liner iustice and coustitmi- e the temptation to gain quick iurrinhe, must be subordinated equirement of responsible legisle ed ire. feet:set:tent, the people whom we eit all across the country are look- tot deeds instead of mere words. the bearings we pan will be the sevetai major anc prompt steps Ci enactment of speedy trial legisla- ..It'fiter information about the hear- ne obtained by contacting the RECORD ? SENATE June 29, 1971 Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of- lire 102-B, Senate Office Building. EXHIS/T 1 Irrem the Albany (N.Y.) Times 'Union, May :30, 1971] CIRTIVIE AND PUNISHMENT Will the pioneering New York law eeiiIeg for release of criminal defendants 'after t?ix months if no action has been taken eget -1st them provide a lever for court re- form moves? Al. law enforcement officials agree on a vii L t ally self-evident truth?that there wc,ir:d be very little crime if punishment were rAirl n.nd swift. In this crime-ridden country. urfertunately, and especially in its big ci- ties the ideal of certain and speedy justice has been all but lost in the understaffed, outntoded, over-careful, molasses movement of its courts. The inexorable result is more and more crime. Ti i, possibly trite but deplorably valid cormeient was stimulated by a notable recent seedele written by Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. The Norte Carolina Democrat, who is one Of the Senate's most qualited and respected legal expe,..t8, pointed up the problem as follows in toe March 1971 issue of the "Harvard Civil Rights?Civil Liberties Law Review." " imminence of judgment for wrong- doing is probably Society's greatest deterrent to ptdential crime activity.... But the crim- inal class is well aware that in America justi te is neither swift nor certain, and that there are many opportunities between arrest and jail to slip through the net and avoid justi!e, 'ii arrest led inevitably and quickly to fal.ri. and trial to conviction and punishment of ti e guilty, the potential criminal 'Would no longer be confident he could beat the rap. Speedy trial must be the first goal of any Cern c: effort to deal with crime." No ordinary laymen can presume to tell the courts what must be done to make them more eificient, and thus snore effective. Even the 1.refessionals are divided on how to break up the present court ;ams, how to streamline procedures, how to cut down on unnecessary of often deliberately-provoked defense de- lays. Bat it must be done. -- Inuits the St. Louis (Mo.) Poet-Dispatch] 6LOW REP LY ON SPEEDY JUSTICE Although President Nixon and Attorney General John Mitchell are members of the same Administration, they apparently do not talk L, each other about some matters of moo'' ccncern. Both the President and Warr !:: E. Burger, the man be appointed ethett 'astice have spoken strongly in sup- nest speedier crimfnal trials. Yet Senator Sam J Ervin has said that the Justice De- partrient. under Mr. Mitchell, has still not respoodect to a request he made more than ave 1.1-,nths ago for its views on a bill that cur-. expedite criminal justice. The Ervin would, in general, require federal crir-- 1 defendants to be brought to trial 90 days. wrd.-ral courts in the southern district of New YIrk have already nrovided by rule of Golan 'oat if, through no fault of a defend- ant, ,tas prosecution fails to bring him to shin six months of his arrest, it must A similar rule has been adopted by ,k's State COU/L of Appeals, which has - reed that even after three months the stale must release a Jailed defendant on pa- role or reasonable bs.11, except in cases of hord,a,,de. These rules, and Senator Ervin's bill, ar(, designed to correct the injustice done k:.ut .,ed persons, who are still presumed in- .nmsei '? under the law and who are con- tinily guaranteed a speedy trial, es- peel . in federal cas,?s, and yet are impris- oned for long terms while awaiting trial. It is true that additional expenditures will be required for the extra judges, prosecu- tors and publicly-paid defense counsel needed to handle the cases of imprisoned puor defendants. But the higher cost would be offset in part at least by the saving of in- ce sceration costs, to say nothing of the in- tangible savings achieved by enhancing re- spect for a system of justice which does not force the accused to rot behind bars while it procrastinates over their fate. Sen. Ervin is rignt when he says the Justice Department should put aside its "vain and false pana- cea of preyntiye detention" and support legislation to speed trials. IFeesm the San Francisco (Calif.) Chronicle, May 23, 1971] PRVITTAL JAIL I NG Once again, the Administration is asking C, ogress to give federal judges the right to hold certain accused criminals in hail for 60 days without bail before they have been tried. The new proposal is modified only slightly in form from one that was in- troduced two years ago and died a proper death in the Senate Constitutional Rights so loco m mittee. :Senator Hru,,ka (Rep-Neb.), acting for the Justice Department in sponsoring the at- tempted revival, admits pretrial detention has a constitutional cloud over it. A form of pretrial detention was authorized for the District of Columbia in February to meet that community's problem of bail skippers, hut very few persons have been held under it and its constitutionality is yet to be deter- mined. A defendant charged with "a dangerous or organized crime act" could be held with- out bail if a judge determined that he con- stituted "a threat to the safety of the com- munity." In short, lie could be held for what he might do rather than for what he had done. Leading congressional opposirion is Sena- tor Ervin. (Dem-N.C.), a man of generally conservative views. He calls pretrial deten- tion a vain and false panacea. He suggests that the Administration might better deal with recidivists by providing machinery for speedier trials on charges already filed than ey holding thwrn In Jail f',.?:r f,ms they will commit a new offense. A free society runs certain risks to re- on, in free. The-;e risks include the nossibility a an accused person may skip bail or com- nal;, another crime. Senator Sm in adds: ' In my judgment it is bettor or oar-cows- _ to take these risks and remain a free ':.:n,riety than it 13 for it to adopt a tyrannical practice of imprisoning teen for crimes which they have not committed and may never commit, merely because some court may peer into the future and surmise that may comrait crimes if allewed freedom ;rir :,?,* to trial." -Tirlr ibis, we ?:occur. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS TRIBUTE TO SENATOR STENNIS TOWER. Mr. President, rarely in ins 10 years as a Senator have I witnessed rush a masterful job of statesmanship and floor management to compare with the performance of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) . Senator STINNIS commanded the at- ter tion of this entire body throughout the entire 7-week debate on the Draft Extension Act. He did not seek to rail- road this bill through the Senate, but, rather gave every Senator the oppor- tunity to call up his amendment and have it fully debated. It was only after 6 weeks of extended debate that Senator STENNIS Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP73600296R000200090002-9