Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
‘arpe+
‘When With rational discourse, with mutual trust,
rs, oF and, therefore, with joy and gratefulness for.
This ig the gift of life
and ny <b :
s and THE /ADMINISTRATION'S CIVIL
npels RIGHTS BILL
ssive ir, TALMADGE. Mr. President, never _
omi- before in the history of the United
nat States—indeed, not in the history of any —
iaily free and civilized people—has such vi-
The ious legislation been proposed as that
part of the administration’s so-called
Wl" civil rights bill which would enable tr
na Federal Government to excommunica
will sovereign. States, to in effect, bani
me’ them from the Union.
e
1 refer to title VI of the civil rights
bill now pending before this body, 8.
1731, which reads in part as follows:
Notwithstanding any provision to the con- /
ftrary in any law of the United States pro-
} viding or authorizing direct or indirect &-
}mancial assistance for or in connection with
Samy program or. activity by way of grant,
\contract, loan, insurance, guaranty, or other-
lwise, no such law shall be interpreted as re-
(quiring that such financial assistance shall
ibe furnished in clroumstances under which
(individuals participating in or benefiting
from the program or activity are discrimi-
{ nated against on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin or are denied par-
ticipation or benefits therein on the ground
of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Under this provision, Mr. President,
the executive branch of our Government
would be given carte blanche authority
to withhold Federal funds paid to the
States in grants-in-aid programs or to
cancel Federal financial participation in
contracts, loans, insurance, and guaran-
tees.
Without any notice, without any hear-
ing, without a judicial proceeding of any
kind, and without any appeal or other
safeguard against abuse, entire States
could be starved out of the Federal
Treasury.
By alleging discrimination in connec-
tion with any Federal aid program, the
Executive would have unrestrained con-
trol over the expenditure of funds appro-
priated by the Congress for direct or in-
direct assistance to the States.
No court test to determine whether
discrimination was actually being prac-
ticed would be required.
This proposal is so broad that whole
States could be punished for voting
wrong, if discrimination were alleged as
an excuse.
Title VI is aimed of course at the
States of the South, in a brazen attempt
to legislate social reform and to black-
mail law-abiding citizens to go against
that which they believe to be in the best
interests of everyone. ~
However, I would emphasize that no
State in the Union would be secure
against the wrath, whims or caprices of
a Federal bureaucrat armed with the un-
limited power of title VL
A person of oriental or Mexican de-
scent, for example, could apply for a bank
loan in California or a highway job in
Arizona, and be refused as a poor credit
risk or as not competent for the job.
On the basis of a claim of discrimina-
tion, a Federal official could cause the
‘cancellation of all FDIC insurance on all
California banks or the loss of all Fed-
eral highway funds for the entire State
of Arizona. .
By the same token, the citizens of
whole States receiving welfare benefits
could be denied their old-age assistance
or aid to the disabled.
Needy children could be deprived of
food they now receive under the school
lunch program.
Civil defense programs, so vital to the
security of our country, could be halted
in States which lost the favor of some
Federal bureaucrat.
States could be denied Federal aid in
hospital construction; funds for research
in such critical areas as heart disease,
3RESSIONAL RECORD — SENA*
cancer, and mental health could suddenly
be cut off.
The ultimate effect of this iniquitous
proposal would be to destroy our repub-
lican form of government.
Power to expend the funds it appropri-
ated would be wrested from the Congress
and handed over to the Executive.
Sovereign States would have to toe the
administration line.
I submit, Mr. President, that title VI
is totally unjustified and unwise, as the
esident himself said last April, when
the Civil Rights Commission suggested
that Federal funds be denied Mississippi.
He said:
I don't have any power to cut off the aid
in the way proposed by the Civil Rights Com-
mission, and I would think that it would
probably be unwise to give the President of
the United States that kind of power.
I favor the full enjoyment of every
American citizen of all-rights guaranteed
him by the Constitution, I know of no
one who has claimed a deprivation of
rights who has gone to court under exist-
ing statutes and has not had his rights
granted him in full.
But I do not believe that a certain priv-
ileged group should be granted special
rights and benefits to the extent that the
rights of others are lost.
And, it is my opinion, Mr. President,
that a majority of the citizens of the
United States share this view.
eae ee ee a tL a
~ aie em
-
Lt te
Pe
GOVERNMENT LOSSES OF AGRI-
CULTURAL COMMODITIES—RE-
FINED SALAD OIL
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
“President, on July 16, 1963, I called the
attention of the Senate to the fact that
under Public Law 480 our Government
had entered into a barter agreement with
Austria for the disposal of 40 million
bushels of feed grains but that out of
this 40 million bushels only approxi
-mately 16 million bushels ever arrived i
Austria, and the other 24 million bushe
were diverted while en route, destinati
unknown.
Just how our Government could °
track of 24 million bushels of grain
a 3-year period without someone k’
ing it, is as yet unexplained.
To determine who, if anyone, s
our Government officials or the ex’
may have been a part of the co
to arrange this illegal transact’
troduced Senate Resolution 17]
pose of which was to conduv
scale investigation of all t
under Public Law 480.
The Government of /
already indicted seven A’
viduals for their part in t¥
version of 24 million bush
did not see how this fr:
been perpetrated withou
this side of the Atlar
thus far the Senate A;
tee has not seen fit t
lution authorizing th
Today I wish to ¢
ample of a loose tra
disposal of agricul
This transaction liki
questions as to the pr
9 tea eine
‘When With rational discourse, with mutual trust,
rs, oF and, therefore, with joy and gratefulness for.
This ig the gift of life
and ny <b :
s and THE /ADMINISTRATION'S CIVIL
npels RIGHTS BILL
ssive ir, TALMADGE. Mr. President, never _
omi- before in the history of the United
nat States—indeed, not in the history of any —
iaily free and civilized people—has such vi-
The ious legislation been proposed as that
part of the administration’s so-called
Wl" civil rights bill which would enable tr
na Federal Government to excommunica
will sovereign. States, to in effect, bani
me’ them from the Union.
e
1 refer to title VI of the civil rights
bill now pending before this body, 8.
1731, which reads in part as follows:
Notwithstanding any provision to the con- /
ftrary in any law of the United States pro-
} viding or authorizing direct or indirect &-
}mancial assistance for or in connection with
Samy program or. activity by way of grant,
\contract, loan, insurance, guaranty, or other-
lwise, no such law shall be interpreted as re-
(quiring that such financial assistance shall
ibe furnished in clroumstances under which
(individuals participating in or benefiting
from the program or activity are discrimi-
{ nated against on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin or are denied par-
ticipation or benefits therein on the ground
of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Under this provision, Mr. President,
the executive branch of our Government
would be given carte blanche authority
to withhold Federal funds paid to the
States in grants-in-aid programs or to
cancel Federal financial participation in
contracts, loans, insurance, and guaran-
tees.
Without any notice, without any hear-
ing, without a judicial proceeding of any
kind, and without any appeal or other
safeguard against abuse, entire States
could be starved out of the Federal
Treasury.
By alleging discrimination in connec-
tion with any Federal aid program, the
Executive would have unrestrained con-
trol over the expenditure of funds appro-
priated by the Congress for direct or in-
direct assistance to the States.
No court test to determine whether
discrimination was actually being prac-
ticed would be required.
This proposal is so broad that whole
States could be punished for voting
wrong, if discrimination were alleged as
an excuse.
Title VI is aimed of course at the
States of the South, in a brazen attempt
to legislate social reform and to black-
mail law-abiding citizens to go against
that which they believe to be in the best
interests of everyone. ~
However, I would emphasize that no
State in the Union would be secure
against the wrath, whims or caprices of
a Federal bureaucrat armed with the un-
limited power of title VL
A person of oriental or Mexican de-
scent, for example, could apply for a bank
loan in California or a highway job in
Arizona, and be refused as a poor credit
risk or as not competent for the job.
On the basis of a claim of discrimina-
tion, a Federal official could cause the
‘cancellation of all FDIC insurance on all
California banks or the loss of all Fed-
eral highway funds for the entire State
of Arizona. .
By the same token, the citizens of
whole States receiving welfare benefits
could be denied their old-age assistance
or aid to the disabled.
Needy children could be deprived of
food they now receive under the school
lunch program.
Civil defense programs, so vital to the
security of our country, could be halted
in States which lost the favor of some
Federal bureaucrat.
States could be denied Federal aid in
hospital construction; funds for research
in such critical areas as heart disease,
3RESSIONAL RECORD — SENA*
cancer, and mental health could suddenly
be cut off.
The ultimate effect of this iniquitous
proposal would be to destroy our repub-
lican form of government.
Power to expend the funds it appropri-
ated would be wrested from the Congress
and handed over to the Executive.
Sovereign States would have to toe the
administration line.
I submit, Mr. President, that title VI
is totally unjustified and unwise, as the
esident himself said last April, when
the Civil Rights Commission suggested
that Federal funds be denied Mississippi.
He said:
I don't have any power to cut off the aid
in the way proposed by the Civil Rights Com-
mission, and I would think that it would
probably be unwise to give the President of
the United States that kind of power.
I favor the full enjoyment of every
American citizen of all-rights guaranteed
him by the Constitution, I know of no
one who has claimed a deprivation of
rights who has gone to court under exist-
ing statutes and has not had his rights
granted him in full.
But I do not believe that a certain priv-
ileged group should be granted special
rights and benefits to the extent that the
rights of others are lost.
And, it is my opinion, Mr. President,
that a majority of the citizens of the
United States share this view.
eae ee ee a tL a
~ aie em
-
Lt te
Pe
GOVERNMENT LOSSES OF AGRI-
CULTURAL COMMODITIES—RE-
FINED SALAD OIL
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
“President, on July 16, 1963, I called the
attention of the Senate to the fact that
under Public Law 480 our Government
had entered into a barter agreement with
Austria for the disposal of 40 million
bushels of feed grains but that out of
this 40 million bushels only approxi
-mately 16 million bushels ever arrived i
Austria, and the other 24 million bushe
were diverted while en route, destinati
unknown.
Just how our Government could °
track of 24 million bushels of grain
a 3-year period without someone k’
ing it, is as yet unexplained.
To determine who, if anyone, s
our Government officials or the ex’
may have been a part of the co
to arrange this illegal transact’
troduced Senate Resolution 17]
pose of which was to conduv
scale investigation of all t
under Public Law 480.
The Government of /
already indicted seven A’
viduals for their part in t¥
version of 24 million bush
did not see how this fr:
been perpetrated withou
this side of the Atlar
thus far the Senate A;
tee has not seen fit t
lution authorizing th
Today I wish to ¢
ample of a loose tra
disposal of agricul
This transaction liki
questions as to the pr
9 tea eine