This is a machine-generated transcript. Text is unformatted and may contain errors.
W N Y C Greece is pretty close to a tweet at this time we see Morency going to be used up with officials on their work today Mr Siegel's guest is Congressman John D. Lindsay of the seventeenth rational district in New York Mr SIEGEL How do you do ladies and gentlemen to welcome the silly close up with delighted to have as our guest Alyssa dishing the silly close up congressman joins me Lindsay of the seventeen congressional districts here in New York City Congressman let's start out immediately was something that we but he's concerned about as a member of this very very active House of Representatives I should say as a very active member of the House who appears on those which rotted in this bipartisan way for civil rights legislation how do you feel about the existing situation in the Senate do you think the ball is going to be passed as it is is it going to be watered down what's going to happen my guess is that the bell will be passed. It may be adjusted slightly. I would doubt however that they'll get rid of any major title The two most controversial sections of the bill as you well know as a job opportunity section which is sometimes called a few P.C. and public accommodations. There will be an effort made to get rid of one of those titles or both of them I don't think it will succeed. My guess is that the votes lined up for cloture or will be lined up so that the Senate filibuster will be cut off in due course when that will come it's hard to say maybe in the space of a month to six weeks. It'll be a long haul though what sort of mail of you've been getting on their civil rights legislation there's really been getting the kind of mail that some of the Keatings been talking about would represent some of them and we're going to lobby against the legislation yes we've been getting I've been getting quite a bit of mail against the legislation more than I've gotten in past years on civil rights legislation however it's important for people to understand that a lot of the information that's being distributed by the civil rights groups around the country and this includes New Yorkers who are receiving this mail contains a great deal of misinformation the bill does not do a lot of the things it is charged to doing is not contain a lot of the things that they say the bill contains and it's important that people understand this. Chiefly it's argued for example that this legislation would force somebody to sell his private home to someone he doesn't want to sell it to. The bill does nothing of the kind of doesn't even go into this subject. Some others argue they say that the federal legislation requires. Balancing of the races either in schools or and. Housing projects or any other thing it's completely false the bill has nothing to do with what is sometimes called racial balance do you think the mass media of failed in conveying the provisions of the. American people or do you think this is just a deliberate attempt on the part of a lobby to mislead That's good question so I don't think the mass media have failed no. This is true in the case of every complicated piece of legislation that I've ever seen people are not interested in the details of it they don't really care about it and therefore the press kind of falls into the pattern and the press does not outline in great detail what the bill does it doesn't do i noticed that the New York Times and some other papers did have analyses of the legislation shortly after the bill passed the House of Representatives that was carried maybe for two editions on a Sunday but that was the end of it from then on they talked in very general terms so it's very hard to tell. One point should be noted here sigh and that is that a lot of people climb the right of the high mountains on this bill in the house myself included. We we went through the fires and holding this bill together and getting it through intact in past years in the fifty seven and one hundred sixty civil rights bill it was the practice for the House to pass a reasonably comprehensive bill it would then go over to the Senate and the Senate would cut it into this time we serve notice on the floor and we serve notice in the press. That the House will not accept cutting into the bill that we know compromise is only possible conference when we don't think so we don't think so and that's up to the outside world as the outside world wants to stand by as well then we're in a position to say that when we come to conference that's the stage at which you put together a Senate version of a piece of legislation in the House version when we come to conference the House conferees will not accept a bill that has been watered down substantially. Will insist on the House bill in which case the Senate can take the matter back and they can filibuster the lookouts come home if necessary but the public and the people will be faced with a choice do they wish a substantially compromised bill one that gets rid of the important title in this legislation or no legislation at all it's a hard decision and. It would be a very interesting point when the time comes to see how people line up on that a new field there are sufficient votes for cloture and the Senate I do I think there's sufficient votes for cloture for the bill as it stands providing the Senate understands that the House isn't going to back down. If one does a certain understanding then it thinks that they House of Representatives is in a mood to compromise substantially then it will leak those forces in the Senate that are trying to stand for a comprehensive bill and you know deal with the House will not weaken the House will not weaken is my opinion aren't Kurz willing to do what you have you're a President Johnson's War on Poverty Well I'm glad that President Johnson has discovered that there is poverty we've had it very tough shape in New York City for a long time my own congressional district has a higher rate of unemployment today is that ever had chiefly in those areas where we have residents in the districts or needle workers and construction workers even though your district is there is a silk stocking. We have we've got survive just in the past few weeks I've been working with some youngsters in the district who can't get work trying to get them jobs these particular groups are in the construction trades and we cannot get them jobs I don't know what will happen when the World's Fair comes to an end in this and don't forget that we've had this housing boom in Manhattan particularly in my congressional district the seventeenth up and down Yorkville area for example even notice it is for there and in the village in Greenwich Village and. The Lower East Side but this is peaking this is coming this is leveling off and this is of some concern to. Just last week. When he climbed in the World Telegram we're making an excursion through East Harlem and we're going through some of the tenements of some of the rat traps he's got a new book coming out I'm writing the forward and we're examining the specific block of one hundred street just a few blocks north of my district at the book is about it's on housing and. Here's extreme poverty and here's the kind of thing that was on poverty ought to get out. But I don't think this war on poverty has enough substance to it really to make a dent in this area what we need particularly is housing and education legislation we need big housing sales we need public housing we need all kinds of diverse to. Break loose from the vicious circle of get a living and we need strengthening in the areas of primary education chiefly and yet the Congress has done nothing on housing it's done nothing on education and the president's war on poverty the omnibus bill that he submitted doesn't even know anything about these two subjects so I fear that under the heading of a war on poverty that the public may be deluded into thinking this is going to solve the problems of our big cities and those are psychologically that this is certainly a good first step it may be a first step but don't forget that sixty percent of this is already been proposed it's already pending and has been pending for a long time the war on poverty measure. Is a nine hundred million dollars measure. Which is not a large sum of money in federal terms. About fifty percent of that I think four hundred eighty five million dollars is the amount pertains to. Use employment measures. It will it will do something in respect of young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty one. Chiefly males young men school dropouts and this kind of problem. However that has been proposed before. It is pending in the Congress it has been passed by the Senate. It is it has been reported out of a standing committee of the House of Representatives and is stuck in the Rules Committee and the reason it was stuck in the Rules Committee is that the leadership the speaker and the majority leader have not felt they had the votes to get it through so do you think they have the broke this is what I was going to say is that this recent proposal it's purely a restatement of what it already been submitted by President Kennedy shortly after he was inaugurated in one hundred sixty one so it is not new at this point ought to be stated so the public is clear on it that's why I maintain that. To some extent I think that the war on poverty out of the federal government is a kind of a Band-Aid approach when major surgery is needed now are the votes there for some of the U.S. bills that we're talking about I think so I think so I think the Youth Opportunities suggestion is a very good one very good one. And received. A certain amount of bipartisan support when it was reported out of the House committee and a great many a great deal of bipartisan support when it was passed in the Senate not too long ago so I think that the votes are in the house do you think we are actually are supporting the war on poverty with the plan. Well once again. When you talk about the war on poverty you must be careful that you don't slip into a cliche. Because from my point of view with a federal officer and a member of the United States Congress the war on poverty that we're talking about there is this nine hundred million dollars measure. Some much of which is already been discussed and some of it's already through the Senate and various aspects of it are not new. They are and if I was going to really talk about if I were king and we're going to talk about wars and poverty I would concentrate over and over again on the big city problems in housing and schools again and again and again because I think that unless you crack these two areas you're not going to break the ghetto and I have heard too little discussion of both of these subjects on the part of officials in various levels of government whatever happened to the plan for the establishment of a department of Urban Affairs in the federal government that was defeated in the House of Representatives by very close vote in a very difficult vote to I voted for the bill I've long favored the reorganization of the executive structure. To pull together scattered responsibility for city life and city measures into one area and also to upgrade it in government should be Cabinet representation for. The consumers of the big cities. However the bills failed it was defeated it was defeated by a very narrow vote in the house and neither the Kennedy administration nor the Johnson ministration apparently made any effort to revive it so there it is the general think there's any chance of new legislation being introduced not in this Congress it doesn't have to be introduced into that late so it's still there it could be brought up on the floor for an additional vote but my guess is that in this Congress that the matter is finished when I talk about this Congress of the eighty eighth Congress which is supposed to Senate's work in July in time for the first presidential nominating convention. Congressman how did you run on the foreign aid bill and what's your view of the present time we've had. Two big battles on foreign aid in this Congress so far one has been on the authorization and the other on the appropriations the appropriation was the last big fight we had which took place a couple of months ago and I voted for the bill and voted against amendments designed to cut it substantially and I also voted against amendments which would handcuff the chief executive in his conduct of of foreign policy discretionary powers as what it sometimes called in the use of aid funds. My theory being there that if foreign aid is not thought of in the context of foreign policy it's no good it's an instrument of foreign policy a very important instrument. There have been great weaknesses in the program it's a needed direction and priorities there's been too much military aid. Given sometimes to the wrong groups and wrong people and the military and the economic gain all wrapped up in one package or learned one day I should really it's one bill the Canadians they've been about fifty fifty it amounts. But it's one bill but subject to separate amendments on the floor now the president don't it's important your listeners not be confused on this President Johnson has just submitted to the Congress a foreign aid bill for Fiscal Year nine hundred sixty five. What are July that's what art's July want and this is a new bill for the next fiscal year and people will get confused because we just finished the appropriations on fiscal nine hundred sixty four the big headlines you read about foreign aid in trouble Congress slashes foreign aid and so forth pertain to that appropriation the new authorization for the next fiscal year that the president has asked for. Is a billion and a half less than the requested authorization for a one hundred sixty four. And it is what it works out to it's about even with the amount that Congress actually appropriated in sixty four would you think the Congress will appropriate what was asked for no probably cut it down even further. Mr Johnston's a stripped down version of the bill reflected I think his nervousness over the except ability of this program. Today in the country and also all the. Attacks that it received in the Congress which I suppose is a reflection of the way people feel do you get a comment from the people or something close to it with regard to find yes I do I have more against mail this year than ever before the question people are frustrated they don't feel that the foreign aid bill has delivered for the United States what over the years we had hoped. And it's always difficult to prove the negative it's true it's always impossible to say this might have happened but for. You can show a couple of areas like Guinea for example in Africa sensitive area that was teetering you can really make out your case had it not been for the assistance that we made available in this area chiefly in schools and some cases in roads that country would have gone to the Communists without any question at all but my district feels I think the way I do on this question the should be it should be pinpointed more often there should be higher as a selectivity priority. In this pin to pin point your aid programs. Reach towards multilateral programs or sharing with other countries that can share the burden with us reach to that converted to much as possible to loans rather than grants get away from these bilateral unilateral that is to say our country directly to some other country granted aid make them share. Recently a thing called I that was defeated in the National Development Association which was. A new thing that was conceived by the Eisenhower administration in fact. Which is a multilateral many country to that is lending process. And it is it's an effort to convert the aid program into a countrywide application and a lending institution is what it is done in the International Bank provides Yes but not to soft currency countries and I did was designed to do this in soft currency countries where they where the international bank will not lend. But the bill you may recall the bill was defeated in the House of Representatives. Congressman losing You've been quoted being highly critical of President Johnson's foreign policy what's your view of the way we've handled the situation let's say in Panama. Well my general feeling on aspects of the president's foreign policy is that there's an absence of policy I feel very strongly that there must be a high degree of bipartisanship in foreign affairs particularly in times of crisis but that doesn't mean that a member of the minority doesn't have an obligation to insist on policy being defined we must know what it is who's making it where it's going and in some areas like in Vietnam and Panama Q But Latin America our problem has been an absence of clear policy Panama's the is a fairly good example here when they when their great trouble occurred when the riots occurred. There was no ambassador Mr Johnson has still not appointed ambassador to Panama the prior one having been was withdrawn by the Kennedy administration first and Mr Kennedy's nominee was not acceptable to Mr Johnson and we still have no one there which is very serious even the governor of the Canal Zone was not in residence he was on the continent was on the mainland of the United States when the rioting occurred now we've had these series of conflicting statements by the president about where we stand in respect of the treaty we have with the Panamanians and this chiefly involves the future of the Canal Zone. The question arises as to whether or not there should be renegotiated or not whether the discussion should be held and the president has issued conflicting statements the State Department finding was required to write a very careful letter from the president which would outline black and white where we stood on this question and then unfortunately the president chose to adlib. Around the letter which destroyed its effect you may have seen it in the editorials in many newspapers The New York Times included which are very critical of the U.S. position on this. So what do you think our position should be on it or I think we've got to be prepared to talk to the Panamanians I think we've got to be. In a liberal mood on this it seems very clear to me that. We don't go to the conference table giving anything up but we do go to the conference table prepared to listen and prepared to discuss the future and that includes the. Status of legal arrangements around in the couch the panel now. Secondly I thought would you go with regard to the cannot I'd be willing to discuss the subject of an internationalization in this area of some kind I'd be willing to talk about that. As a a proper point of discussion and I'd certainly be willing to discuss with the Panamanians. The most important thing that I think bothers the country they're not. A lot of the people who want anything else which is the double standard the conventional view have been canals and so sure Shockey of the the housing and and general conditions of living all around. The American colony. Is not permissible in the modern day and age and a great deal could and should have been done over the years in this area. Additional aid should have been given to Panama to raise the spin rate was standing was living you can't in this day and age you can't people will not abide by. Circumstances which which this depressed and when you have a colony which is just over the fence. That is living with a. Very high standard of living very comfortable way of life and meeting that you're going to have a sore you're going to have a problem and this this cannot be continued all kinds of things could have been done in the area of education particularly. In the Canal Zone which is not been done for too long and I think that we are reaping some of the rewards no one suggests that you bargain under the gun nobody suggests that you. That you negotiate because you're big threat you never do this but on the other hand you have to recognise that. International affairs this day and age particularly in poverty stricken countries is a very complicated and delicate business and people who lay down fixed rules for themselves will never surrender we won't give up white supremacy or whatever total victory whatever these slogans are. Really making a. Bet of thorns for themselves in the long run because this is a fast moving world it won't do what you view what we want to be doing in Vietnam. I swear in such a bind there that you can't you can't move out. I don't think the administration knows whether to go forward backward sideways up or down. If you ask them what they would do for example if the. South Vietnamese moved in a substantial way into the northern communities whether the United States would stand militarily right behind them walking up behind them all the way they can't give you an answer they don't know I was a member of the opposition party would. I think it's fair comment to say that that it was a terrible mistake for us to. To associate ourselves and to get behind a highly unpopular government at the time that we did government which did not sit well with the people over their heads here in the United States here the United States was in a position where. The people of Vietnam were saying well we don't know which is worse this right wing balance running the country backed by the US or the communists in the north that was the box we were in and then the thing was upset and they and they a revolution and you had two governments since then and we're in the position of course of having to stand against communist pressures from the north to stop and if we pulled out at the moment I think we'd lose the whole peninsula which would be a disaster. It would be demolishing and the whole southeastern picture if that should occur. But rather whether the United States can be in the military posture of spending a million dollars a day and more and more committing itself with United States troops and as a Defense Department operation now McNamara and the rest of the defense officials are out there every other week. So that you've got a got a minor war on your hands. And any time you get involved in a hot one like this you can't walk out if you've got a tiger by the tail or you let go or bites you well do you have any solutions really suggestions Well I'm certainly no simple so want to live again there is no simple solution but here again. If there is any hope of and internationalization in this area of tripartite agreement being an enforceable one like we had in Laos or whether. Or whether you can bring in. NATO powers for example which have a lot at stake believe it or not it's hard to say we've gotten in such trouble with to go and the lines apparently so become so hardened and our relationships with the French government that there doesn't seem to be any possibility of discussing with them the recent Balsall that was made by General to go for a settlement of the Vietnamese problem. At the moment I think that the goal proposal should be considered soon as you can at the moment you can't because you've got to you've got a you've got such a difficult situation for the United States because the French would recognize Red China they've opened up channels of trade and the goal. Sees him self as the fulcrum and the focal point for a whole new shift in the power structure around the world and. This is put the United States in a box and the administration has an anticipated it either because here we are better Li opposed to Red China and its mission in the United Nations were to reveal or ball going the other way and he may swing a few votes. And I think that foreign policy wise the United States is heading for very serious trouble What's your view about the possible mission of Red China to the United Nations it's not permissable at the moment. It would it would be very damaging to what's in the ends and South Asia at the moment Vietnam is a clear case where it would be demoralizing I fear it would be troublesome in the whole chain there running from the Philippines on up right up to Japan. If it should occur and it would be a major prestige setback for the US If that vote was lost in the United Nations but it's going to be closer and. I do think that the United States must should have a long time ago got in on the positive instead of the negative you know four years ago when I was running for Congress I then took the position that the US ought to say all right short where for bringing in. A country which is or a government which is which which represents seven hundred million people will. Recognizing it will encourage their admission to the UN providing they greed live up to the charter providing a release prisoners renounce force and all the rest of the night when all do I was aware what I when I had to bring this interview to a close we hope you'll come and visit with us again and we'll see well next week hey. You know what a close up weekly series of interviews in depth on our government is a series of doctors by Seymour and Siegel with just yesterday was done just when John dealings eight of the seventeenth the rational districts in the New York.