ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS BY THE DISARMAMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000200090002-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 20, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 29, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

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