CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE AMEND IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP69B00369R000100020021-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 30, 2003
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: August 10, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/01/16 CIA-RDP69B00369R000100020021-0
August 10, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as
amended.
6. You, as Director, failed to notify me, as
Governor of Alabama, within 'five days of
the receipt of the application in this case, as
required by Section 209(d) of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended.
6. You, as Director, failed to notify the
Community Action Agencies in Dallas and
Monroe counties within five days of the
receipt of the application, as required by
Section 209(d) of the Economic Opportunity
Act of. 1964, as amended.
7. The organizational structure of the
Board of Directors violates the guidelines
laid down by the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity itself and required by the Office of
Economic Opportunity in other programs or
grants within the State of Alabama.
8. There is abundant evidence available
which shows, the link between this group and
the violent "Black Power" organization-
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Commit-
tee, whose leaders called for the assasination
of me, my husband and my child here in
Montgomery on June 13, 1967.
9. This project represents a duplication of
efforts and services now being rendered by
the Cooperative Extension Service, United
States Department of Agriculture and the
Farmers Home Administration.
10. The project is doomed to fail because of
the lack of qualified personnel and recog-
nized methods.
11. A vegetable production and marketing
program is presently being conducted with
limited resource farmers in the ten-county
area covered by the grant.
12. There are no statements of qualifica-
tions of the personnel who will direct the
program and the salaries paid are completely
out of line with those paid for people
handling similar positions in both govern-
mental and private employment, who have
had years and years of specialized training,
13. A workable proposal was submitted to
the Office of Economic Opportunity which
would have accomplished the objectives of
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as
amended, if it had been approved.
14. I am reliably informed that funding of
this group was "guaranteed" by your office in
February before the organization was in-
corporated in March, just a few days before
the grant was approved.
These are general reasons, Mr. Shriver,
why this program was ill-conceived and why
you as Director of the Office of Economic
Opportunity should not waste the taxpay-
ers' money on a project some of your own
people have said is bound to fail.
Senators Lister Hill and John Sparkman
and several of the Congressmen from Ala-
bama personally appeared before person-
nelan your office to object to this particular
grant.
Ralph Swofford, Director of the Alabama
Advisory Committee for Economic Oppor-
tunity and former Commander of the Air
University and a retired Lieutenant General
of the United States Air Force,.also appeared
before your personnel and registered objec-
tions to this grant.
Several local elected public officials 41so
appeared in opposition to this grant.
Mr. Shriver, your Regional Director, Mr,
Frank Sloan, came by the office recently and
expresed a desire to cooperate with State of-
ficials in the carrying out of the objectives
of the Economic Opportunity Act. I have
received much correspondence from several
Federal Cabinet officials recently also along
the same line,
To foster good Federal-State relations, it
is necessary to consider the desires of local
governmental officials. I have consistently
waived my right to veto Office of Economic
Opportunity projects in those instances
where local officials make, such a request.
The local officials in the affected areas here
are very much opposed to this particular
grant. The overriding of my veto can only
help to tear down the spirit of cooperation
in carrying out the objectives of the Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act by these and other
State officials.
I consider this grant to be unwise and
shall use the power of my office to prevent
the waste of our money on the project and
to examine all Office of Economic Opportu-
nity projects in the State very carefully.
Needless to say, I will call the attention of
Congress to the whole matter and request
a full Congressional investigation. Our evi-
dence is too strong in this case to let our
country down by not presenting the truth
to Congress and the people.
To further substantiate my earlier reasons,
I am enclosing a progress report of the Co-
operative Extension Service of Auburn Uni-
versity which shows what has been and is
being done in this ten-county area.
Furthermore, in an effort to determine if
agricultural credit was available to small
farmers in these ten counties, I contacted
Mr. R. C. "Red" Bamberg, State Director,
Farmers Home Administration, since this
agency has a particular, responsibility to
farmers with limited resources who are un-
able to secure needed credit from banks,
PCA, advancing merchants, or other local
sources of credit.
Mr. Bamberg informs me that FHA has,
through the years, made loans to small farm-
ers in this area for producing okra, peas,
squash, corn and cucumbers. Most of these
crops have been grown under contract with
King Pharr Canning Company, Uniontown,
Alabama, and Whitfield Pickle Company,
Montgomery, Alabama. These processors
maintain buying and grading stations in
various communities in these counties for
the convenience of the grower and will add
other stations whenever the interest and
volume will justify. Also, a few of the more
aggressive and energetic producers have sold
their crops locally, and some have estab-
lished retail routes and sold these crops
along with potatoes, syrup, eggs and other
items they produced for fresh market con-
sumption.
Mr. Bamberg has also advised me that FHA
has again this year advanced funds for vege-
table production to applicants in the en-
tire SWAFCA area who }gave markets or con-
tracts for the disposition of their crops. In
addition to advancing credit, the FHA gives
their borrowers management assistance
which includes advice on recommended va-
rieties, planting dates, fertilizer require-
ments, insect and disease control, and other
help that many small farmers need.
In view of the fact that FHA has made
loans to farmers in all these counties, and
still has funds available, it is obvious that
those farmers with a reasonably sound farm-
ing operation could get needed credit here or
from other sources in the area. Mr. Bamberg
stated that some applications had been re-
ceived from rural people living in these
counties who do not have land available to
them and, of course, operating loans could
not be approved or this type applicant.
For your information also I am enclosing
requests I have received to veto this grant.
In order to give the people of the United
States the right to know what has happened
in this case, I respectfully ask that you open
your books and records to the people and
the press. Our records are public and avail-
able to any member of the press desiring to
check out what we have done in connection
with this proposed grant.
With reference to your telegram of June
15, 1967, requiring that I give you my rea-
sons for veto by June 16, 1967, the next day,
I would like for you to know that these rea-
sons would have come. forward to you prior
H 210379
to this time it it had not been necessary for
my office to complete an extensive investiga-
tion which should have been handled by
you.
With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
LIIRLEEN B. WALLACE,
Governor of Alabama.
AMEND IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT
(Mr. GIAIMO (at the request of Mr.
PRYOR) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I have in-
troduced today a bill to amend section
203(a) (5) of the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act-8 United States Code
1153(a)-in order to allow any fifth-
preference aliens-brothers and sisters
of U.S. citizens and their spouses and
children-whose visa petition was filed
prior to July 1, 1966, to be deemed to be
immediate relatives within the meaning
of section 201(b) of that act.
Mr. Speaker, the Department Of State
has informed me that approximately
100,000 fifth-preference Italians are
awaiting visa issuance. Because of the
limitation on immigration from Italy
due to the quota system, the Depart-
ment is only able to process those who
have registered for visits under the fifth-
preference category on or before March
1, 1955. Italy is the only country experi-
encing such a large backlog, and it is
obvious that the majority of these peo-
ple will not be able to join their families
in this country for many years if the
present system is maintained.
Almost 2 years ago, I rose in support
of H.R. 2580, which became Public Law
89-236, the amended Immigration and
Nationality Act. At that time, I said:
The worst aspect of this (quota) system is
that it often prohibits the reuniting of fam-
ilies. Though Congress has been most gen-
erous and sympathetic in, enacting special
legislation to cor ect these problems, the
fact remains that the immigration policy of
the United States creates human pressures
and personal hardships which need not be
created.
Although that great piece of legisla-
tion became law, inequities still remain.
I urge that my bill, and that of my col-
league, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. RYAN], will receive favorable con-
sideration by the House.
(Mr. CONYERS (at the request of Mr.
PRYOR) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. CONYERS' remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. CONYERS (at the request of Mr.
PRYOR) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. CONYERS' remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000100020021-0
 H 10380 CONGRESSIONAL; RECORD HOUSE
THE AMENDED CRIME CONTROL cerned only with organized crime, but
BILL contain specific language which had to
(Mr. RANDALL, (at the request of be added to the measure to provide for
Mr. PRYOR) was granted permission to the strict and sharp enforcemntrof the
extend his remarks at this point in provisions in the bill designed to' curb
the RECORD and to include extraneous racial rioting. In the vex3 words of one
matter.) of the amendments, "Programs and proj-11 Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, after the ects dealing with riots and violent civil
passage of a day or two we can now con- disorders shall be given the highest
sides in retrospect the action of the priority."
House on the crime bill. Some of us who We were assured by some on the com-
supported the amending process now mittee that the original context of the
feel more than ever that a better result bill could apply to the prevention and
was achieved than if the bill had been control of riots. The word "could" was
passed in the exact content as it came not impressive enough for many of us.
e, .,r,o ,,h ~,. a 1e, i. ., a
V Recalling the wo}`ds in the crime mes- ment and those other amendments
t
i
i
t
t
l
I
h
ress
ng r
con
o
ro
,
am sure we
ave
sage of the President, sent to Congress s
last February, he stated at the very be- now a better act than if these specifies
ginning of his message that- had been omitted from the language of
the bill.
The principal responsibility th
,. for T .._...dealing
..,. While our mail was quite substantial
with cr does
t li
a
e
no
e
Ility,
local
Government, but with the States and local tuiiu UlUbb iu,vurauie vuwaru i,iie reeeiib
communities. , antiriot legislation, the concern of our
11
He went on to point out, however, that,
since the Federal Government had ili-
volved itself in the field of education and
public health, it should now pay incrQas-
ing attention to its role in the control of
Streets and Crime Control Act of 196?\ measure contains a Governor's veto over
the President emphasized the several', the bill's programs or allotments are both
separate themes contained in the Na-
tional Crime Commission report, in-
cluding:
Crime prevention.
Improvement of our system of criminal
justice leading to respect and coopera-
tion of all citizens.
Better trained people such as special
police, probation, and parole officers and
group counselors.
Better correctional systems applying to
offenders of all ages.
. Broader research and improved anal-
ysis of statistics to determine the effec-
tiveness of various police and correc-
tional procedures.
Substantially greater resources, mean-
ing more funds for law enforcement.
- I noted particularly that following the
list the President emphasized again "the
Federal Government must not and will
not try to dominate the criminal justice
system." He went on to say that our
system of law enforcement is essentially
or personnel to tackle crime problems
miss 'the point when they insist all law
enforcpnent problems are local, by that
meaning., cities or counties with their
chiefs of 'Nolice and sheriffs. The strong
point of th major amendment that was
adopted wa to give the States the oppor-
tunity or th privilege to develob a plan
or program cif improved law enforcement.
Then, and o lly after their failure to de-
velop a plan or a program, could the At-
torney General make allotments directly
with the local areas. This is an altogether
different Oproach from permitting the
Attorney General to establish all of the
regulatigns or guidelines and proceed to
deal directly with the local areas, many
of wllieh might be excluded from con-
sidexation at the sole discretion of the
Attorney General, who after all is an
appointed official.
As the bill was passed, there is a pro-
local, based on local initiative and con- /vision for every State to receive a specific
trol by local officials. allotment. Only when that State fails or
Notwithstanding these reassurance? omits to develop a plan would it lose its
the House Judiciary Committee . pO- right to participate in the specific for-
ceeded to report out a bill that left s Die mula for allocation. Even so, under such
doubts and fears among many of us that a state of affairs the cities within the
the lofty pronouncements of the,Presi- State under the terms of an amendment
dent had not been spelled out With suf- would not lose, because the Attorney
ficient clarity in the bill. General could allocate funds to local
As the general debate proceeded, it areas after a State has shown that it did
became quite apparent in tfie minds of not intend to draft a plan or a program
many. Members, that there was a con- that would qualify it for allocation of
tern as to whether this bill was specific Federal funds. As finally, passed, the
enough upon the prevention and the con- grants would be distributed through the
trol of riots. As I loom back now in reto- State agencies to local communities, giv-
spect, there is no dpubt but that Newark ing the States the chance to develop a
and Detroit and. other riots made it program or plan, but if they fail the
mandatory that this measure not be con- grants would be distributed directly to
August 10, 1967
local. law enfprceinent departments. This
is asignificant as. well as a most welcome
improvement over the bill as originally
written.
Much fun was poked at the recent
antiriot bill. There was a lot of laughter
and some comedy made of its enactment
by the would-be funny men. But these
comics will have a hard time laughing
off a bill so specific and so meaningful
as the bill enacted on Tuesday of this
week. More than this, the authorization
was increased from $50 million to $75
million and $25 million earmarked to
assist State and local authorities in pre-
vention, detection, and control of riots.
Much has been written since the riots
in our several cities. One school of
thought is: These disturbances, as well
as organized crime, cannot be reduced
until we have found and corrected the
social ills which produce these disturb-
ances. Another and more severe minded
school of thought believes and asserts
that because of these riots and the great
wave of organized crime we have only
two choices between continuing as a law-
less nation on the one hand and being
willing to put up with a police state on
the other hand. Both of these views are
too extreme. A much more progressive
approach is the bill that the House en-
acted last Tuesday which will improve
the efficiency of law enforcement and
criminal justice through effective pro-
grams that not only will discourage
violations of the criminal law but re-
habilitate offenders. The main objective
is to improve training techniques
through development of new methods
and wider and better use of methods
already proved successful.
The fear for Federal control should
now be quieted because the bill speci-
fically provides that the Federal Gov-
ernment is prohibited from paying State
and local police salaries except persons
engaged in training and who perform
innovative functions. For the Federal
Government to pay any part of State and
local police salary is involvement that is
unwise and unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, among the correspond-
ence addressed to the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee are communica-
tions from police chiefs and sheriffs in
the area of the country I am privileged
to represent. The content of some of
their writing is that crime will not go
away merely because we might "tell it
to." We all know that law enforcement
needs a determined effort but we also
know it needs the proper tools for im-
plementation. The crime bill that was
passed last Tuesday can be for those who
supported the Antiriot Act an answer
to our critics that the House of Repre-
sentatives has spoken out of clearly and
plainly that it intends to give the tools
to our law enforcement agencies to do
a good job. For those who laughed
about the antiriot bill, let them now
try to be funny about the passage of this
bill.
The fact of the matter is the House
passed out a stiff package of anticrime
and riot control legislation. The best
way to describe it is to say it provides
for a State-controlled law enforcement
program with an emphasis on Federal
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 :.CIA-RDP69B00369R000100020021-0
constituents as to the crime bill was lim-
ited to the matter of potential Federal
control over the law enforcement au-
thorities of our cities and States. In other
words, they feared the creation of a Fed-
eral police force. It is for this very rea-
son the amendments that would give our
Governors a voice are so very important,
and even a necessity before many of us
could support the bill, as amended, on