October 22, 1966

public works on rivers and harbors for navi- gation, flood control, and for other purposes. On November 8, 1966:

H.R. 9167. An act to amend title 18 of the United States Code to enable the courts to deal more effectively with the problem of narcotic addiction, and for other purposes; H.R. 11555. An act to provide a border highway along the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande In connection with the settlement of the Chamizal boundary dispute between

the United States and Mexico; H.R. 13551. An act to amend the Law En- forcement Assistance Act of 1965, and for other purposes; H.R. 15111. An act to provide for continued

progress in the Nation's war on poverty; H-R. 15766. An act to establish a National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal

Laws; H.R. 17607. An act to suspend the investment credit and the allowance of accelerated depreciation in the case of certain real prop- erty; and

H.R. 18119. An act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agen- cies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for other purposes. On November 9, 1966: MR. 10151. An act for the relief of Dr. Luis Crespo.

. On November 10, 1966: H.R. 8436. An act to amend the Tariff Schedules of the United States with respect to the dutiable status of watches, clocks, and timing apparatus from insular possessions of the United States; and

H.R. 11216. An act relating to the tariff treatment of articles assembled abroad of products of the United States, and for other

purposes.

On November 11, 1966:

H.R. 14929. An act to promote Interna- tional trade in agricultural commodities, to combat hunger and malnutrition, to further economic development, and for other purposes.

On November 13, 1966: H.R. 13103. An act to provide equitable tax treatment for foreign investment in the United States, to establish a Presidential Election Campaign Fund to assist In financ- ing the costs of presidential election cam- paigns, and for other purposes; and H.R. 15857. An act to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to increase salaries of officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department, to amend the District of Columbia Teachers' salary Act of 1955 to Increase the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; and for other purposes.

HOUSE BILLS AND A SENATE BILL

DISAPPROVED AFTER SINE DIE

ADJOURNMENT

The message further announced that

the President had disapproved the fol- lowing House bills and Senate bill, of

the following titles: THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIME BILL

Crime in the Nation's Capital affects r every man, woman, and child who lives or visits here. Wealthy and poor, Negro e and white, slum and suburban dweller- d all suffer when our streets are not safe. f

For the sake of the whole community, we must do everything in our power to pro- t, tect innocent people from those who seek a to harm them. p I am acutely conscious of my respon- i sibility as President to do all In'my power p to prevent crime. I mean to take any e

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

and all actions, within my power, which

will help relieve today's unsatisfactory

conditions.

I have before me the District of Columbia crime bill, passed in the closing hours

of the Congress. It deals exclusively

with rules for police and the courts. It

does not touch the quality or quantity of

law enforcement resources: more, better

trained, better equipped and better paid

police and corrections workers.

In my opinion, the present bill would

create problems instead of solving them.

If I thought that this bill would diminish crime in the District of Columbia, I

would sign it. I believe, however, that

this legislation would add endless compli- cations and confusion to an already com- plex situation. It would provoke years of litigation. It would make the job of

the policeman on the beat and of the

public prosecutor much more difficult.

I cannot approve it.

This bill provides that a policeman

may pick up a person and question him

for 4 hours without making an arrest6 hours, exclusive of interrogation, after an arrest-perhaps 10 hours of question- ing-without taking him before a judi- cial officer. No one doubts the necessity of the police questioning persons on the

street with respect to criminal activities.

The law has always permitted this. The

law properly provides, however, that after a person is deprived of his freedomafter he is arrested-the police must take

him before a magistrate who will determine whether his arrest is arbitrary or based on probable cause. This must be

done without unnecessary delay.

I am advised that the periods of ques- tioning provided in this bill go far beyond the necessities of interrogation in

practically all cases.

In the case of a material witness, the

bill contains provisions even more ex- treme than those applicable to suspects themselves. Any citizen at the scene of a crime-including the victim-can be

taken into custody as a material witness.

It is not necessary either to obtain a subpena, or to take the witness before a magistrate, until 6 hours after he is

picked up. In effect, the person can disappear from sight merely on an individual policeman's judgment that he is a material witness. And that there is a reasonable probability that he will not be t

available to testify at the trial.

When the citizen is finally taken be- s fore a magistrate, he can be released only t

by posting bond or collateral as security. f

Re cannot be released on his own recog- c nizance. If he were under arrest as a a suspected criminal, however, the Bail

teform Act, passed by Congress this n tear, would permit his release on his t wn responsibility. These provisions are t

nuch more severe than existing law.

rhe U.S. attorney informs me that he f an recall no case in which inability to p letain material witnesses has resulted o rom the inadequacy of existing law. c The bill contains a provision intended B

stop the traffic in obscene pictures a nd literature. No one can have sym- It

athy for those who pander to degraded w nstincts in man. But this provision is c hrased so broadly that it clearly threat- ns freedom of the press. It authorizes ni

an official in the District of Columbiathe U.S. attorney-to seek the prior re- straint of publications. If he thinks that a newspaper, magazine, or book is Indecent, he may go to court and obtain,

without a full hearing on the merits, a preliminary injunction authorizing him

to restrain its publication or sale.

This section also provides for a permanent injunction, prohibiting the future use of any real or personal property involved in the publication or sale of ob- scene material.

This language is imprecise and confusing but at the very least, it would em- power a court, using its contempt au- thority, to imprison or fine a previously

convicted publisher of a book, magazine, or newspaper, if the court concluded that one of his new publications was also offensive-even though it had never been

judicially found obscene in a full trial on the merits.

The Acting Attorney General informs me that this sort of prior restraint has

been condemned by the courts as uncon- stitutional-in violation of the first

amendment upon which our freedom to

spread, to publish, to read and to ex- change ideas is dependent.

The bill also would establish mandatory minimum sentences on conviction

of certain crimes. This is a step backward in judicial and correction policy. Indeed it is directly contrary to previous action taken by the Congress. Under

the indeterminate sentencing laws, the

Congress has recognized that the poten- tial for rehabilitation is increased when

courts and correction systems are given flexibility to determine sentences on case-by-case basis. Moreover, there is no need for such mandatory minimum

sentences in the District of Columbia.

Sentences now being imposed in the District are among the highest in the

United States.

I have given long and careful thought

to this legislation.

I recognize that its sponsors believed

it would arm the police and the courts

with more effective tools in combating crime. Yet all agencies of goverrnment asked to comment on the bill-as well as the two civilian District Commissioners

who live in Washington, and a majority of the District of Columbia Bar Associaion-have urged me to veto it.

They are convinced that it does not

;trengthen law enforcement in the Disrict and does not meet the needs of the

ight against crime, but rather introduces

onfusion and uncertainties into police nd judicial practices.

The Acting Attorney General advises ne that fundamental constitutional ques- ions pervade the bill-four of its six

itles raise the most serious doubts.

We are engaged in a great national efort to lift the blight of bad housing, oor education, and unemployment from ur cities. This effort is attacking the onditions that nourish high crime rates.

3ut, in addition, State and local officials, nd the Federal Government in its lim-

,ed sphere, must devise more effective

ays of preventing crime and bringing riminals to account.

Better trained and better paid police- en are part of the answer to crime.

28903
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22, 1966

Last year Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, to finance pilot

projects in the most modem police techniques. Today, I am signing into law a

substantial-and well deserved-pay increase for District policemen.

Better police organization is part of the

answer. Last year I appointed a District

of Columbia Crime Commission and

asked its members to recommend better

ways of reducing crime in Washington.

Many of the Commission's recommendations are designed to make the organization of the District Police Department

a model for the Nation. Most are already

being carried out. And the District of

Columbia Commissioners have informed

me that they have signed and are putting into effect the reorganization plan

for the Police Department recommended

by the District of Columbia Crime Commission.

Better staffed courts axe part of the

answer. This year, five new judgeships

were added to the court of general sessions. They will help eliminate the delays which have impeded swift and effective Justice.

Each of these steps has the same goal:

more effective prevention, detection, and

punishment of crime in the District of

Columbia.

The problem of crime outside of the

District of Columbia must primarily be

dealt with by local officials. I havo promised them the complete cooperation of

the Federal Government within its proper

sphere. We have already begun that

cooperation with the Law Enforcement

Assistance Act. We are prepared to expand our cooperative efforts. I will act

promptly on the recommendations of the

National Crime Commission, which I appointed in July of 1965, when they are

received.

We know that criminal behavior, and

the conditions out of which it springs,

will not yield easily to our efforts. But

we have given the highest priority to an

intelligent, relentless fight to make the

streets of the District of Columbia safe

for law-abiding people-and we shall

make them so.

I renew my pledge to pursue every

avenue, use every tool, support any law

that holds promise of advancing us in

our drive against crime. In doing so I

will need the cooperation of every man

and woman whose commitment-as is

mine-is to a capital where civic order

and social justice prevail.

GEOTHERMAL STEAM ACT OF 1966

I am withholding my approval from

the Geothermal Steam Act of 1966.

I am taking this action because many

of the principles embodied in the bill

violate the public interest.

Geothermal steam is produced by the

internal heat of the earth. It is well

known to every schoolchild in America

under other names. Old Faithful at Yellowstone is one example of a geothermal

steam spring.

We know very little about how extensive or valuable our geothermal resources

are. They may be an inexhaustible supply of energy. Today, for example, the

steam from a single geothermal spring

is generating enough electricity to serve

a community of 50,000 people. Geothermal springs may also hold untapped

mineral wealth-such as gold, lithium,

and silver.

These circumstances dictate a policy

of prudence and reason in the leasing of

Federal lands to develop this resource.

S. 1674 does just the opposite.

It ignores the basic lessons we have

learned much to our sorrow-that our

natural resources are priceless treasures

which must be developed with wisdom

and foresight.

The bill is flawed by six major provisions which run counter to sound public

policy:

First. It provides for unfair and unlimited "grandfather" rights. The holders of mineral or mining leases on Federal lands as of September 7, 1965, would

be automatically entitled to convert them

into geothermal leases. This amounts to

a free gift of valuable public property

rights to these developers, and gives them

an undue advantage over other prospective developers.

Second. It provides for maximum

leases of 51,200 acres-an area four times

greater than our experts say is needed for

economical development. This could result in a single developer monopolizing

the geothermal resources of entire States.

Third. It provides that royalties are

payable only on steam "sold or utilized."

This could encourage the wanton waste

of a precious natural asset.

Fourth. It fails to provide specific and

clear authority for the Government to

readjust the lease terms and conditions

at suitable intervals. The public deserves

this protection because we still know so

little about our geothermal resources.

Fifth. It provides for perpetual leases

to the developer if steam is produced in

commercial quantities. As a result, future generations of Americans will have

lost their stake in the formulation of

policies for a natural resource which

may be inexhaustible, and whose potential we are only beginning to appreciate.

Sixth. It gives the developer 20 years

in which to begin production. Our scientists and engineers say that this is too

long a period and will encourage speculation.

In short, I have withheld my approval

because this bill does not sufficiently

protect the interests of the American

people.

If these were only technical flaws in a

measure providing for the necessary development of geothermal energy, I would

gladly sign the bill. For I believe we

must move vigorously to make use of

this promising national asset.

But they are more than technical flaws.

They represent a serious failure to protect the people's interest.

When we consider landmark legislation of this sort, dealing with a vast and

little-known natural resource, we must

remember that we are acting-not just

for today or 5 years from today-but for

decades to come. Once we have given

away the people's interest in the wealth

of their land, we cannot easily retrieve

what has been lost. We must understand that we are trustees for 200 million

Americans. All that we do must protect

their interest-and the interest of their

children and grandchildren-in the rich

legacy with which nature has endowed

us.

This bill does not do that. And because it does not, I will not give it my

approval.

This- does not mean we should delay

the development and use of these resources. Wise and prudent trustees do

not lose opportunities to increase the

value of the estate they manage. But we

must assure ourselves that we have first

protected the people's interest before we

make our geothermal springs available

for productive development.

I have directed the Secretary of the

Interior and the Acting Attorney General to prepare a new proposal to accomplish our objectives-one that eliminates the pitfalls of the present bill.

Next year we will ask Congress for legislation to transform the potential of this

national treasure into a reality. We will

ask for legislation that will protect the

public interest, encourage economic and

efficient development with a fair and just

return to the developer, and conserve the

benefits of that development in coming

generations. When that legislation

comes before me, I shall sign it enthusiastically.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 14, 1966.

ESTABLISHING THE PAST AND PRESENT LOCATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COLORADO

RIVER

I have withheld my approval from H.R.

13955, "Establishing the past and present

location of a certain portion of the

Colorado River for certain purposes."

This bill would have the effect of conveying 2,100 acres of public lands to a

group of 19 individuals and corporations

without payment of compensation. This

bill comes at a time when the U.S. District Court in Arizona has, under active

consideration, the complex and legal

factual issues involving the ownership

of these very lands. The bill comes after

the Government's ownership has been

established with respect to almost 1,000

other occupants of land in this area.

In-the late 1950's investigation by the

Department of the Interior disclosed that

more than 1,000 persons were illegally

occupying public lands along the lower

Colorado River. Subsequently, the Department initiated actions under which

most of these occupants either vacated

the land or explicitly recognized Federal

ownership. Other occupants were removed following successful legal action

by the Government. Litigation in regard

to others is still pending.

The courts are the traditional forum

for determining legal questions relating

to landownership and I see.no reason for

making a special exception here and interfering with the orderly judicial process. If the case is resolved in favor of

the claimants, they will receive title to

the land without the present bill. If the

case is resolved against the claimants and

the Congress believes that the equities

were so compelling that relief should

have been granted, the Congress can act

after the factual issues have been fully

litigated and a complete record has been

assembled. LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 14, 1966.

28904