00:00:08.610 - 00:00:38.570

these one take 162 matters that yeah, on today's report from Washington Senators Matters, discusses domestic and foreign problems of interest to the people of Florida and the nation. Now here is the first question. Well, senators matters. I understand that you're promoting a discontinuous entirely of the excise tax on telephone.

00:00:38.780 - 00:01:04.360

That's right. I think that the economy of our nation is now strong enough, and it's it's reacting very favorably to the previous tax cut, which we had. And because the excise taxes have to come up for renewal before joint June 30th of this year, I have proposed that we gradually removed the remaining excise tax on local telephone.

00:01:04.850 - 00:01:27.470

I think you're no longer a luxury. I think they're a necessity. I think that that would be that particular removal of that excise tax would be beneficial to those people and those income groups who most need tax relief. I think we can take the tax off telephones, but now you're asking that they increase the social security payments well again.

00:01:27.480 - 00:01:58.460

Uhh. I I am. And I don't want to appear totally irresponsible. But once again, I say our economy is reacting to the tax reduction bill so much more favorably than anybody had anticipated. As a matter of fact, in this first quarter, even with reduced tax rates, the income from business and from individuals, the corporate and individual income tax returns are running something the neighborhood of about $20 billion ahead of what was originally anticipated.

00:01:59.040 - 00:02:24.090

So with the economy burgeoning and going forward as it is, it seems to me that now is an opportune time first to further reduce taxes because the government is getting additional money anyway. And secondly, I think in the Social Security area, everybody is enjoying the benefits of our prosperity except the elderly people who are living on this set Social Security income.

00:02:24.210 - 00:02:46.520

And we all know, as a matter of fact that Social Security as it is today, standing myself is not a sufficient income to an elderly man or woman, or both to provide them a living of dignity and decency. And we have long felt that we needed to increase the social security payments to these elderly people.

00:02:46.550 - 00:03:34.110

But also senator, are we penalizing these people who are retired, so to speak, and stopping them from working by keeping the amount of money that they can earn at a very low scale. I have long felt this was bad and I'm the man who first offered amendments and finally got them past, which would allow certain people to continue working and still draw their Social Security payments if the limit now is about $2 a year that they can earn in addition to taking their Social Security payments, I believe and we should broaden that so that elderly people 65 over can get their social security payments and if they want, do part time work and not lose their Social Security payments.

00:03:34.110 - 00:04:16.360

And I think that the amount should be raised, that is the amount they can earn outside. Their Social Security should be raised up to at least $2500 a year or $3 a year. And that's something I've long advocated to. As you know, that comes before my Finance Committee, the Committee on Taxation and Finance, and I think that we can get these two measures through this year, even with the civil rights situation, what it is well, the civil rights situation being what it is, Yes, because I think that first as far as the telephone tax is concerned, we have to consider those excise taxes on June 30th or they automatically expire.

00:04:16.360 - 00:04:30.720

So we'll have to set the civil rights bill aside if we're still on it and take up the tax bill. As far as the Social Security program is concerned, it's my judgment that we will not pass this year, even though the presence insisting on it the so called King Anderson bill.

00:04:31.240 - 00:04:51.660

I think that we will, however, consider Social Security payments. They will consider health programs. And in that connection, when we start that consideration, I think that we will be able to have the Ways and Means Committee of the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to approve of an increased Social Security payment to our elderly people.

00:04:52.140 - 00:05:29.690

Thank you very much. Senator George Smathers. Ready now, please. On this question of civil rights, Senator, we've had a number of amendments on jury trials, and I understand that you have one. How does yours differ from the others? Well, mine is an amendment to the Talmadge Irwin amendment, which is, and mine is now the pending business of the Senate, I presume, by the time these people here, this radio broadcast, it will have been disposed of one way or another.

00:05:30.440 - 00:05:49.240

But I think first I must go back and say There's also another amendment, which is the major amendment that the Liberals won't vote for, and that's called the Dirksen Mansfield Amendment. Now what? That amendment says that in in any violation of any of the provisions of this so called civil rights bill.

00:05:49.240 - 00:06:10.960

If a man has violated an injunction or school board has not done what the judges told him to do, why, then the judge can bring them in and charge him with an effect criminal contempt. And he has the authority thereby, too. Find them $300 or put them in jail up to 30 days without a trial by jury.

00:06:11.440 - 00:06:31.420

And the discretion is left with the judges to whether or not he wants to just automatically find them this amount, or if he wants to go beyond that, then he's got to give him a trial by jury. Now what I do, Rather than leave the discretion with the judge, I'd put the discretion the defendant and say to the defendant that if you want a trial by jury.

00:06:31.920 - 00:06:54.360

Then you can be tried by a jury. But you are, of course, then liable to $1000 fine and three months in jail. If the jury finds you guilty, or if you choose to just be tried by the judge, then the limit of 30 days in jail and and $300 is in effect.

00:06:54.740 - 00:07:15.230

So what I do and where I think my amendment is much superior to theirs is and then the basic philosophy that every man who's charged with a crime, who has to appear before judge and certainly criminal contempt as a crime, that man and according to our Constitution and, according to our forefathers, was entitled to a trial by jury of his peers.

00:07:15.840 - 00:07:44.020

Now my amendment makes it possible for those people who might be tried before a judge to request a trial by jury of their peers. Senator, I'd like to clarify one point. Assuming he does select the judge. Is there any possibility of appeal if he doesn't like the judge's verdict, not unasked, for not on the basis of fact, they cannot appeal in these type cases that you never can appeal on the basis of whether or not the man actually is in contempt or not.

00:07:44.020 - 00:08:08.560

On the basis of fact, you can only appeal on the ground that there has been a miscarriage of actually the procedure. Oh, that's a very technical sounding term, but it's one understood by lawyers, and that particular law would always remain. I'd like to ask you for your comment on the president's recent message relative to increasing our efforts towards the Alliance for Progress.

00:08:08.790 - 00:08:38.920

Well, I I think that the president's speech was essentially directed at the Latin Americans. He had not made a real strong speech with respect to a Latin American program in the Alliance for Progress Program since he's been president, with the result that these various countries in these various areas, if they don't get talked about with considerable regularity and yet encourage that to the fact that we're not forgetting them and that they are in our minds all the time, well, then they get a little jittery.

00:08:39.220 - 00:08:55.950

And I think that the president was forced in some respects to make this speech because so many of the Latin American countries were complaining that too much attention was being given to Southeast Asia and to Europe and so on and not enough to them. And as a matter of fact, I frankly sort of agree with them.

00:08:56.440 - 00:09:14.710

But I did think that the president's speech he merely reemphasized this country's great interest in Central and South America. He said that the Alliance for Progress, those things that were agreed to at the time the Alliance for Progress was entered into are still in effect and the goals which we sought then we still seek now and so on.

00:09:14.780 - 00:09:29.790

And then he was a great flourish. Uh, he signed. I see 10 agreements at the time he made this speech granting certain types of credit and loans to 10 different countries of Central and South America. So I think it was needed. I'm glad he did it.

00:09:29.800 - 00:09:51.680

Uh, actually, I think it was more formed than anything else because I think our program has been right can continuously since President Johnson been in one of continued interest in concern about Latin America. Are you yourself concerned about the possibility of the Russians pulling out all their troops and leaving missiles and things of that sort for the use of Castro?

00:09:51.690 - 00:10:13.600

I'm greatly concerned about it. I think in some respects there is greater danger of conflagration. Probably a confrontation with the Soviet Union. By leaving these missiles in the hands of the volatile and excitable and unpredictable Castro brothers. I think that constitutes much greater danger than having them in the hands of the Russians.

00:10:13.790 - 00:10:17.830

Thank you, Senator Joyce matters until next week I return you to your station announcer.