MAKING IN ORDER CONFERENCE ON H.R. 11380 TO AMEND FURTHER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: October 1, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
22616 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
provisions of this paragraph shall apply as
if such first increase were in effect with re-
spect to computation of a child's annuity
under section 221(c) which commenced be-
tween January 2 of the year preceding the
first increase and the effective date of the
first increase.
"(c) No increase in annuity provided by
this section shall be computed on any addi-
tional annuity purchased at retirement by
voluntary contributions.
"(d) The monthly installment of annuity
after adjustment under this section shall be
fixed at the nearest dollar."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from South
Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment was con-
curred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
AMENDING SECTION 5 OF THE EM-
PLOYMENT ACT OF 1946
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the bill (S. 3174) to
amend _section 5 of the Employment Act
of 1946.
The Clerk read the title' of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
There was no objection. -
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 5(e) of the Employment Act of 1946,
as amended (15 U.S.C. 1024; 80 Stat. 23, Pub-
lic Law 304, Seventy-ninth Congress) is
amended to read as follows:
"(e) To enable the joint committee to
exercise its powers, functions, and duties
under this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year such sums
as may be necessary, to be disbursed by the
Secretary of the Senate on vouchers signed
by the chairman or vice chairman."
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
MODIFYING Rh, iiktEM:ENT BENE-
FITS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JUDGES
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the concurrent resolu-
tion, House Concurrent Resolution 370.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolu-
tion as follows:
t- Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That the Clerk of
the House of Representatives in the enroll-
ment of the bill (H.R. 5871) to amend sec-
tion 11 of the Act of April 1, 1942, in order
to modify the retirement benefits of the
judges of the District of Columbia Court
of General Sessions, the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals, and the Juvenile Court of
the District of Columbia, and for other pur-
poses, is authorized and directed?
(1) to strike out all after the enacting
clause down through and including "SEc. 11,
(a) (1) Any judge" and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
That section 11-1701 of the District of Co-
lumbia Code is amended to read as follows:
"I 11-1701. Retirement, resignation, and
nonreappointment of judges;
recall
"(a) (1) Any judge"
(2) to strike out in the title of the bill
"amend section 11 of the Act of April 1, 1942,
in order to".
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of this concurrent resolution is
to direct the Clerk of the House to make
a technical amendment in enrolling the
bill H.R. 5871:
To -amend section 11 of the act of April
1, 1942, in order to modify the retirement
benefits of the judges of the District of Co-
lumbia Court of General Sessions, the pis-
trict of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the
Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia,
and for other purposes.
Two days ago, the House concurred in
the Senate amendments to H.R. 5871, but
a technical, error remains therein and
should be corrected before the bill goes
to the President.
Briefly, H.R. 5871 passed the House
originally on October 14, 1963, and was
sent to the other body. Subsequently,
namely, on December 23, 1963, Public
Law 88=241 was approved which recodi-
fied certain sections of the District of
Columbia code, including the section per-
taining to the retirement of judges,
which H.R. 5871 amends.
Properly thereafter, the other body,
when considering H.R. 5871, should have
amended the same to refer to the codified
section, and that is what the resolution
now directs the Clerk of the House to
correct.
The concurrent resolution involves no
change whatever in substance.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from South
Carolina?
There was no objection. _
The concurrent resolution was agreed
to.
A motion to reco
table. ?
October 1
sented to the House today. This is a
rule to send to conference the foreign
aid bill. There are two provisions in
it which are quite controversial. One
is a Senate amendment with respect to
the civil service status of employees of
the foreign aid agency. The other is the
so-called Dirksen amendment, which
4as adopted in the other body, which I
shall discuss in a few minutes.
Let me say that I understood there
would be a motion to instruct the con-
ferees with respect to the first item
which I have mentioned. We had before
the Rules Committee yesterday the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, who gave us very definite as-
surances that the House conferees would
not agree to that in conference, and that
if it were insisted upon by the Senate
conferees the House conferees would
bring the matter back to the House so
that the House could have a vote and
either reaffirms or not reaffirms previ-
ous action on this matter. I believe it
was rejected by the House when the bill
was passed.
I hope this meets with the approval of
the gentleman who is going to offer the
motion to instruct. It would seem to me
that would accomplish the object which
the gentleman desires to accomplish, of
giving the House the opportunity to vote
upon the matter. We have a very posi-
tive understanding with the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs that
that will be done and that the House will
-be given the opportunity to vote if the
conferees cannot strike it out in the con-
ference.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. JOHAIsTSEN. I wish to comment
that I appreciate the assurance the gen-
tleman makes with respect to the substi-
*der was gen-
1 'on the tute for the Dirksen amendment and
that it conforms to my understanding
and meets the purpose I had in objecting
yesterday.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. The other
matter Is the Dirksen amendment. We
have had our debates about that in the
House, on the so-called Tuck bill. -The
House has expressed itself by a very sub-
stantial majority in favor of the Tuck
bill, which would do something about the
reapportionment decision of the Supreme
Court.
The Dirksen amendment, let me say to
you, in my judgment and in the judg-
ment of all of those to whom I have'
talked, has certainly no binding effect.
If it had-any binding effect, the tail end
of the sentence which gives it its effect
would repeal that. However, I am
chiefly concerned about the Dirksen
amendment because of the concluding
MAKING IN ER CONFERENCE
ON H.R. 11380 TO AMEND
THER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
ACT OF 1961.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 895 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution the bill (Ha.
11380) to amend further the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendments
thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken
from the Speaker's table, to the end that the
Senate amendments be, and the same are
hereby, disagreed to and that the confer-
ence requested by the Senate on the dis- paragraph, which is paragraph (b) and
agreeing votes of the two Houses be, and the which is found on page 27 of the amended
same is hereby agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speak-
er, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Bitowisi], and pending
that I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather important
proposition which is going to be pre-
foreign aid bill as it comes back to the
House. NOw, the House has expressed
Itself very firmly I think on its refusal
to recognize the constitutional power of
the Supreme Court to enact legislation.
Everybody knows that no such thing was
contemplated by our Constitution or by
any amendment attached thereto. If
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
there is one vital principle about our sys-
tem of government, it is that we must
carefully preserve the basic principle of
three separate and distinct branches of
the Government?legislative, executive,
and judicial?laid down and prescribed
in the Constitution itself in very plain
words.
Some people may say that this does
not affirm by the Congress the right of
the Suprethe Court to enact legislation.
I specifically want to call the attention
of the House to the language of that sub-
paragraph (b) on page 27 of the
amended bill as it comes to us from the
other body because it specifically author-
izes and, in fact, it urges the Supreme
Court to enact a law. Now in an appor-
tionment bill apportioning the State leg-
islatures that is a law, that is legislation.
If some resident of my State or of your
State desires to know in what legislative
district he is, then- he looks at the law
enacted by the legislature in accordance
with the Constitution. However, if this
present policy is pursued, then you do
not look in your statute books to find out
what the law is. No. If you want to
know in what legislative district you live
and in what magisterial district of your
State you are, because that is what fol-
lows, and if you want to know what ward
in your city you live in, you do not look
at the law written in the law books, but
you have to go and get a lawyer or your-
self be able to ferret out and read the
decision of the Supreme Court in order
to know in what legislative or magisterial
district you are. There is not any ques-
-tion in the world but that this is plain,
simple, 100 percent, without any doubt
and without any argument, legislation
enacted by the Supreme Court of the
United States. This House has within
the past few weeks repudiated the idea
of the Supreme Court under any circum-
stances, under any conditions, or any
construction of the Constitution being
authorized to enact a law.
Now I want to read you this clause in
subparagraph (b) and if you agree to
this Senate amendment, then here is
what you have agreed to. It says:
(b) In the event that a State fails to ap-
portion representation in the legislature in
accordance with the Constitution within the
time granted by any order pursuant to this
section, the district court hiving jurisdiction
of the action shall apportion representation
In such legislature among appropriate dis-
tricts so as to conform to the constitution
and laws of such State Insofar as is possible
consistent with the requirements?
Now, it says so right there. There is
not any question about it. It says that
the courts shall apportion. In other
words, they must enact a law specifying
what the various and sundry districts
are. How can a conscientious legislator
who has taken the trouble to read?just
to read?that sentence ever vote for any
such thing as that? I am one of those
who would like very much, as most of
you know, to enact some legislation that
would have some effectiveness that would
stop this march of the Supreme Court
into the legislative field. Because if you
ever agree to this, be forewarned that
No.189-9
the Supreme Court of the United States
will be your chief legislative body from
this day on. And you do not know what
they might be legislating on in the next
phase of this march toward a foreign
system of government which we have
never had occasion to encounter before
in this country. ?
This is the first case in any study that
I have made of the subject, in which the
Federal courts, in all the history of this
Nation, have undertaken to write law
and take from the legislative bodies of
the Federal Government and of the State
governments their primary function to
enact laws. They may be declared un-
constitutional. They may issue an in-
junction, and they do. But this is the
first time, I assert, that they have ever
gone so far as to actually physically en-
act the law which shall be binding upon
the people which is the primary function
of the legislative body.
So I trust that the conference com-
mittee will?and I have the assurance Of
the chairman of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs that the House conferees
will reject this Senate amendment
which means nothing with respect to the
purposes for which it was presumably de-
signed, because it is utterly futile; but
means very much, and represents a very
deep road into the functions, and the ex-
clusive functions of the legislative bodies
of this country, both in the States and
the Federal Government.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to yield to the gentleman
from New York, the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CELLER. Do you think it would
be possible for the Senate conferees, in
light of the history of the Dirksen
?amendment, to agree to that rejection?
You remember, there was a filibuster of
some 35 days, and we have a sort of a
stalemate. We are all anxious to go
home. I know this is a rather long ques-
tion, but_does the gentleman agree that
the so-called Dirksen amendment is
really of no real consequence in the sense
that it only expresses the sense of Con-
gress?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
may I suggest to the gentleman that we
cannot hear him on this side..
Mr. CELLER. I thought that the Sen-
ate conferees might not, in light of the
history of the Dirksen amendment, ac-
cept the rejection suggested by the
gentleman from Virginia of the Dirksen
amendment. There was, as we all know,
a very prolonged and acrimonious debate
in the Senate which resulted in a so-
called compromise, which is the last
form of the Dirksen amendment. Of
course, if the Senate conferees would not
accept the rejection of the House con-
ferees, there would be a stalemate and
there would exist another reason why we
could not possibly get home and do our
necessary campaigning.
I am curious to know the gentleman's
reaction in that respect.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Well, the
gentleman from New York and I usually
22617
get along pretty good. But I might say
to him in reply that my first reaction to
it is that if the gentleman would get busy
over in his committee and bring us out a
constitutional amendment or bring us
out something with some teeth in it, we
would not be in this situation. I still
hope that he might do that. I know he
is conscientious in his view, just as the
rest of us are. But this is a serious and
vital situation.
I wonder if the gentleman agrees with
me that these decisions of the Supreme
Court and the decisions of the lower
courts in which they undertake to ac-
tually write and put upon the people a
reapportionment act?the gentleman
surely does not disagree with me that
that is legislation? -
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman will yield further, I do not be-
lieve that the gentleman from Virginia
puts the proper interpretation upon what
the Supreme Court or the lower Federal
courts can do with reference to marking
out the lines of the various boroughs in
the various States for seats in the legisla-
tures of the States. ,
The courts have equity powers; They
simply say to the officials of the States,
we feel that these lines should be drawn
thus and so.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Oh, no, no,
no, they do not. -
Mr. CELLER. An order to draw lines
thus and so, and if you do not do it, you
will be in contempt of the court.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Oh, no, no,
no.
Mr. CELLER. It does not follow that
the lines must be exactly as the Supreme
Court laid them out. They can be ap-
preciably in that manner.
Th-Te are a number of decisions in
that respect. All the courts do is to say
to the State legislature, do away with the
so-called rotten boroughs, do away with
the malajustments and establish the
principle of one person, one vote. If you
do not do it, we will say that you must do
it thus and so. But it simply says, in
effect, if you do not do it then you are
fined for contempt of court.
I do not see that the exercise of the
equity powers of the court in that respect
is legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Now the gen-
tleman from New York has one of the
busiest if not the busiest committee in
this House of Representatives. It is cer-
tainly one of the busiest committees. I
cannot reprimand him for not being able
to read all of these Supreme Court deci-
sions, because that would require a good
deal of time. But, certainly, the gentle-
man is wrong. If he will just read the
_decisions he will find they do not say
that we believe you ought to do so and
so and we believe you ought to follow
such and such lines. If you do not fol-
low such and such lines, you will be in
?contempt. What they do in these deci-
sions is this:
_ The Supreme Court has within the past
10 days directed the circuit court in Vir-
ginia to the effect that if the State of
Virginia did not enact a satisfactory
,bill to the court within a certain num-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and. Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
22618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
ber of days?and they are very few days,
by the way?then the court shall reap-
portion the State in accordance with how
they think it ought to be reapportioned.
There is not a question of a doubt about
that. I am sorry that the gentleman
from New York has not had the time to
read the decisions.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I do not yield
further, because my time is limited.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. BROWN].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speakerfl
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I rise in support of this resolution -be-
cause I feel very strongly that this bill
should go to conference, in the hope that
the conferees will be able to bring back
a single bill instead of a, double-barreled
measure.
I have stood on this floor many times
in opposition to legislation where the
other body has, contrary to the rules of
the House, at least, added language that
was not germane to the House-passed
bill, and sent it back to us with such an
amendment, for us to take from the
Speaker's desk and accept or reject the
amendment. Under such a procedure
You have no right to debate the measure
in its entirety. You can either accept or
reject that which the other body has
added to a? measure that is in no way
germane to the amendment as offered in
the other body.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr: BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I have
asked the gentleman from Ohio to yield
to me at this point in order to make an
observation or two which I believe is
pertinent to the matter now before us,
and will also have to do with a resolu-
tion that will be offered shortly, as I
understand it, a continuing resolution
for appropriation bills not yet enacted
into law.
Mr. Speaker, we could have had this
action a day or two ago if it had been
deemed advisable on the part of the ma-
jority leaders. But in any event we do
have it up today. I agree with the
gentleman from Ohio on this matter of
conference. I understand that the con-
ferees have been meeting informally,
which frequently happens around here
when we get toward the closing days of
the session, so that when they are finally
or officially designated and officially con-
stituted, they can resolve their differ-
ences quickly in a conference report.
The point I am making is this: This
goes to conference today. The conferees
could meet and agree on and file a con-
ference report this evening. The con-
ference report could be debated tomor-
row and if it were filed today we could
have an arrangement by which it could
be considered today. Why is that im-
portant in the scheme of things around
here? Because the foreign aid appro-
priation bill and the supplemental ap-
propriation bill are the only ones left not
enacted into law.
The Appropriations Committee of the
other body has already reported an ap-
propriation bill for foreign aid and, as
I understand it, the same is true in re-
spect to the supplemental appropriation
bill. If we moved in that fashion the
appropriation bills could be concluded
this week. We could get these appro-
priations worked out and finally enacted
into law this week, which would achieve
the desire as quickly as adoption of the
resolution that has been offered for a
10-day continuation which I shall oppose.
Then there would be no reason in the
world why we cannot adjourn sine die at
the end of this week and, if I sense the
temper of the Members of the House,
that is what needs to be done.
There is pending a social security con-
ference. I see no reason why that con-
ference report cannot be resolved if it is
deemed desirable to bring in the very fine
and generous provisions that the House
enacted in the Social Security Act. That,
too, 'could be acted upon this week.
Except for someone's insistence, for
what reason I cannot understand, that
we do this and we do that, like Appa-
lachia, where a rule has been pending
for 42 days and no action taken/ as Isay,
we 6,n adjourn and go back home, and
I hope that is the way we may proceed.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the
gentleman from Indiana for that which
he has said. I find myself in complete
agreement with the statement he has
just made.
I am very much concerned over this
legislation. The House itself has spoken
its belief and its will as far as the Su-
preme Court decisions on apportionment
of votes in State legislatures- are con-
cerned. They did it by a strong major-
ity in the House. The Rules Committee
has acted on legislation. I believe the
House itself has done everything it could
to bring about a proper and an orderly
solution to the problem that has been
created as a result of the recent Supreme
Court decisions affecting State legis-
latures.
I have a strong feeling that the Sen-
ate amendment on State reapportion-
ment that was added to the foreign-
aid authorization measure is something
that could not be done under the rules
of the House. It would not have been
germane. It has no business in a bill
of this kind. We ought to legislate on
these two important matters, one on for-
eign-aid authorization and the other on
the apportionment decisions, on their
own merits, and not try to tie the two to-
gether to endeavor to mislead somebody
to say, "Well, in effect we will make it so
that in order to get this you will have
to vote for that, or vice versa." I do
not like that kind of legislating in the
Congress of the United States. I do not
think it is dignified, I do not think it
is proper, I do not think it is in good
taste. I am sorry to see we are con-
fronted with legislation of this type. So
I am hopeful the House will see fit to
send this legislation to conference and
that the conferees can work out some
October 1
sort of arrangement where at least we
will have an opportunity to pass upon one
question at a time, instead of some
joint mixed-up effort such as has been
proposed by the legislation sent to us by
the other body.
Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, I should
like to call the attention of the House to
the fact that the bill H.R. 1927, which
was a pension bill for non-service-con-
nected veteranscis over in the other body_
now. The conferees on the part of the
House have been appointed. We have
been advised by the chairman, the gen-
tleman from Texas [Mr. TEAGUE], that
we are ready to meet at any time. The
only thing that is holding up the con-
ference, as I understand it, is that in the
other body, the NSLI?the national serv-
ice life insurance?was added on to the
foreign aid bill. Of course, that is a
very controversial piece of legislation.
As far as the House conferees are con-
cerned, we are awaiting a call from the
other body.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As I understand
it, that would not have been germane if
it had been offered to the measure in the
House.
Mr. AYRES. That is correct. The'
House turned it down for a number of
years. The last time it turned it down
was just about a week ago.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Gaoss]
(Mr. GROSS asked and was giyen per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks-)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, it has been
my intention to offer -a motion to in-
struct the conferees with reference to the
select-out authorization which was in-
serted in this bill by the other body as
an amendment. However, in view of the
statement made by the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Swam],
who related the statement made to the
Rules Committee on yesterday, that the
managers on the part of the House would
go to the conference in opposition to
Senate amendments numbered 47 and
48; that the managers on the part of
the House will oppose this select-out pro-
cedure, I may change my mind. How-
ever, I should like to have that state-
ment made on the House floor by the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. MORGAN], the chairman of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Certainly, I am always
glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I am going to
yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. MORGAN] as soon as the gen-
tleman from Iowa concludes.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to have that statement in
the RECORD.
I would like to take just a few minutes
to explain to the Members of the House,
since this was not an issue when the
authorization bill was previously before
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the House. The same provisions were
defeated in the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs by a vote of more than
2 to 1, and therefore, I am surprised
that the other body would have the au-
dacity to put such authority in the bill,
well knowing that the House ?had
knocked? it out by that margin. What
do the amendments provide? It is pro-
posed to set aside civil service pro-
cedures, veterans preference, and give
the AID agency the authority to sum-
marily discharge 100 employees each
year for 2 years. So far as I know, no
such authority is given to any other
agency of Government and this kind of
raw power ought not to be given to the
AID agency. Every House Member
wants the Government to get rid of the
deadwood and the inefficients, and let
me point out that throughout the Gov-
ernment service last year other agencies
and departments brought 36,000 adverse
actions against their employees while
AID was giving ingrade promotions to
every employee except,one. If there was
so much inefficiency and so much dead-
wood in the AID agency last year, why
did they give all of their employees, with
a single exception, ingrade promotions
while other agencies of Government that
had inefficients and deadwood took 36,-
000 adverse actions against them?
I say again, this is the rawest kind
of power to set aside all civil service pro-
cedures and I remind you that the Amer-
ican Legion, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the AFL?CIO and union organi-
zations dealing the Federal employees
all appeared before our committee ear-
lier this year in vigorous opposition to
this proposal.
I trust that the chairman of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs will give
the House today complete assurance that
there will be no temporizing with this
issue when the managers on the part of
the House go to conference on the bill.
I would hope he would further say that
there would be no compromise of any
kind. If we are by this devious means
going to give special privilege to AID, it
means we could not deny it to any other
department or agency of Government.
This would be piecemeal abandonment of
the civil service system and the protec-
tion that system affords to employees.
I say repeal or abandon entirely the civil
service procedures, but do not do it by a
piecemeal approach as is here proposed.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am pleased to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. The gentle-
man from Iowa and I do not always agree
on foreign policy, but in this matter I
agree with the gentleman 100 percent.
He is entirely right and he is expressing
the sentiment of the great majority of
our committee including our chairman.
Mr. GROSS. I would like to say that
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA]
was one of the strong supporters of the
motion I made in the Committee on For-
eign Affairs to strike this exact language
from the bill.
Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am, glad to yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BECKWORTH. I want, to concur
in the statement that this would be a
piecemeal approach to - a very serious
problem that exists not only with refer-
ence to the AID agency but with refer-
ence to other agencies and before it is
done if it ever should be it ought to be
studied very thoroughly over quite a
period of time. I certainly concur with
what the gentleman had said that this is
a piecemeal approach to this problem.
Indeed, it would be unfair to many veter-
ans and career employees in my opinion.
I want the action of our Foreign Affairs
Committee in deleting the provision to be
sustained.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 5 minutes to the 'distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. MORGAN].
(Mr. MORGAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time to clarify my own position.
Yesterday, due to the objection which
was made to the Foreign Aid bill being
sent to conference, it was necessary to
go to the Rules Committee and to get a
rule. I was the only one of the proposed
conferees who testified before the Rules
Committee. My position on this so-
called amendment was rigid, and I so
stated to the chairman of the Rules Com-
mittee. I was speaking for myself and
not the others of the proposed six con-
-Ierees.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs and also in
my capacity as a prospective House con-
feree on the foreign aid bill, I regard it
as an obligation to do my best to secure
Senate approval of the provisions voted
by the House. I very much hope that we
will not send the bill to conference with
instructions. I am glad to hear the gen-
tleman from Iowa say he is not going to
seek to instruct the conferees.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I have not quite
reached that decision, and the gentle-
man just threw .some doubt into my
mind when he said he was speaking only
for himself.
I believe conferences have been held
with Members of the other body, even
though this bill has not been formally
sent to conference. I believe the gen-
tleman and other members of the con-
ference should have something to say at
this time, stating their positions with
respect to this issue.
Mr. MORGAN. I can assure the gen-
tleman from Iowa that in the precon-
ference meetings which have been held,
this section of the bill has never been
reached, so there has been absolutely no
discussion with the other proposed six
conferees of the House on this particular
issue, and I had no opportunity to ex-
press other than my own opinion.
Mr. GROSS. If there are other
22619
Members who apparently vill be selected
as House' conferees on the House floor,
they can save a little time today by
making known their positions with re-
spect to this matter.
Mr. MORGAN: I have taken this
time in order to clarify my own position
for the gentleman from Iowa.
My distinguished colleague, the gen-
tleman from Iowa, is the author of the
amendment which struck this provision
from the bill. As chairman of the For-
eign Affairs Committee my vote was the
first vote of the 16 east in favor of his
amendment, which was opposed, as he
knows, by only 6 Members.
I certainly want to convince the gen-
tleman that my position is the same as
his. Otherwise I would not have cast my
vote in committee for-his amendment to
remove both these sections from the for-
eign aid bill. I have some very strong
feelings on this, as the gentleman knows.
The jurisdiction of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs has been challenged on
this subject, but this is not the issue.
The author of the amendment deleting
the "selection-out" authority was sin-
cerely concerned over it as a threat to the
civil service merit system. I had previ-
ously expressed my own view that it was
highly controversial and I was reluctant
to have the provision remain in the bill,
as the gentleman knows, but I did not
oppose it on the basis of the jurisdictional
fight between the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs and the House Commit-
tee on 'Post Office and Civil Service. I
was sincere in my effort to help the gen-
tleman on the case that he made with
respect to the attack on the civil service
merit system.
As I understand the parliamentary
procedure in regard to this, regardless
of whether the House conferees are in-
structed or not, they would have four
possible courses of action.
First, we could do our best to have the
Senate recede. If successful, then there
would be no further problem. Second, if
we failed, we could disregard the instruc-
tions and reluctantly accept the Senate
provisions. Third, we might be able to
secure a compromise acceptable to both
Houses. Fourth, if we failed to have the
Senate recede, we could report Senate
amendments Nos. 47 and 48 back in dis-
agreement, bringing the matter back to
the House for a separate vote.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Would the gentleman at
this time care to assure the House, since
he will control all the time, in such an
event there would be a reasonable
amount of time to discuss the amend-
ments, as they might come back in dis-
agreement from the conference?
Mr. MORGAN. I can assure the
gentleman that there will be a reasonable
amount of time to discuss the amend-
ments in the hour allotted on the con-
ference report.
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman has again expired.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield the gentleman one additional
minute.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
22620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I have
had the privilege of serving on conference
committees with our chairman on
numerous occasions. I want to reassure
the gentleman from Iowa that the chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
always stands fast in adhering to the
position of the House. I can assure him
that he will do likewise in this instance.
As the gentleman from Iowa knows, I,
too, voted with the majority in striking
o,ut this section in the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. Our vote was sustained
by the House. We will do our best to
maintain the position of the House. I do
not think that it would be fair to imply
that our chairman will not try to do his
best to bring back a bill reflecting the
position of the House, by formally in-
structing him to do that very thing. I
do not believe that there is anything in
the record of his past performance to
justify such lack of confidence.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. ADAIR].
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, as a pros-
pective conferee upon this bill I can
speak only for myself. For myself I will
say that I am fully prepared to sustain
the position of the House in this matter,
and I expect to do so. However, in
honesty and frankness, I must point out
that the conferees are not yet, appoint-
ed; that we are not, as the chairman of
the committee has said, in a position to
speak for all of the conferees collective-
ly; and the Members of the House must
have that in mind.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MORGAN. I have had a check
made and I am unable to find any in-
stances in the past 25 years where the
Committee on Foreign Affairs conferees
have received instructions. This is a
pretty good indication that they have
lived up to their obligations to support
the positions taken by the House and
there is no need to deviate from this
practice. I assure the House that in-
structions will not be necessary to assure
its acceptance.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL].
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, I was happy to learn of the as-
surance given to the House by the chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs that he would make every effort
to have the amendment which was
adopted by the other body regarding se-
lecting out authority on the part of the
Agency for International Development
deleted in that conference. I think all
of us can agree here that it is highly
desirable to get rid of incompetents and
misfits wherever and whenever they exist
in any Federal agency. We should al-
ways strive to improve the efficiency and
the quality of personnel in all Federal
agencies. We are constantly trying to
do that. We do it every year through-
out ' the year in the various legislative
approaches such as here recently where
we had an increase in pay and an im-
provement in retirement benefits. There
are many ways in Which we try to im-
prove the working conditions. There
is no quarrel with the fact that it is
desirable to have administrative flexi-
bility insofar as personnel management
is concerned. However, we also must
have legal guidelines in order that there
will not be abuse.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GRoss], pointed out Several reasons why
this amendment should be taken out. I
should like to amplify some of those
reasons. In fact, just 2 years ago I
believe we gave the Agency for. Interna-
tional Development similar authority,
that is, authority to weed out the so-
called misfits. Yet they were unable to
do so with the anthority we gave them 2
years ago, so what assurance do we have
that similar authority here would help
them to weed out deadwood now? Why
should this agency have such special
treatment? They claim they have
higher than average personnel. The
Agency for International Development
claims they have a need for higher than
average personnel, but I doubt whether
the National Aeronautics and Space
Agency will agree or that the Federal
Aviation Agency will agree or that the
Department of the Army will agree with
that. If the Agency for International
Development' has special authorities,
then other agencies have a right to come
in and expect them, also.
I believe if we allow this amendment
to stand it is going to cause more loss
of morale and trust on the part of high
level employees in the Agency for Inter-
national Development, which is going to
cause that type of employee to seek em-
ployment elsewhere. Therefore in the
final analysis, in the long run, it is going
to lower the caliber of employees.
As the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr.
Gaoss], has pointed out, there is ample
authority, there are sufficient rules and
regulations, to get yid of incompetents.
In fact, 36,000 were discharged under
civil service laws and regulations last
year.
Incidentally?and this is most inter-
esting?the Agency for International
Development has had five different per-
sonnel officers within the last 4 or 5
years. I think that can lead to the
question whether or not this is a matter
of administration. Should we actually
give new authority and enact a special
law in order to overcome the inefficiency
of leadership in the Agency for Interna-
tional Development?
submit, Mr. Chairman, if this special
authority is granted to the Agency for
International Development, then other
agencies of Government have the right
to, expect the same authority. It is going
to open the floodgates for political abuse
and pressure and it can have a tendency
to destroy confidence in the civil service
system. If such special authority is
merited, if this is a special and peculiar
type of agency, then let the matter be
considered by the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service and have them
make a determination as to where this
October 1
agency differs from other agencies and
enact a special amendment to "the civil',
service law.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield? -
Mr. BROYHILL. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
want to associate myself with the very
fine remarks that the gentleman has just
made. This is a most important issue.,
The gentleman has been following it very
closely. I think the membership of the
House should recognize that our distin-
guished colleague from Iowa has per-
formed a noble service to the civil service
merit system of this country in staying
on this issue throughout. It has been
most important. I can say, as chairman
of the Manpower and Utilization Sub-
committee, that the employees of this
Nation have been vitally concerned with
this proposal ,that would destroy the
merit system. I agree with the gentle-
man fully that there is ample authority,
in our opinion, to remove these employ-
ees if they are not able, if they are not
competent. If that is not the case then
we should enact the necessary legislation
to give all agencies such authority.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN].
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, at the
outset I associate myself as a member of
the House Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service with the statements made
by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gaoss]
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
BROYHILL] relative to the Senate amend-
ment which they were discussing. I have
asked for this time, however, to make
some additional remarks respecting Sen-
ate'amendment No. 60, the amendment
relating to legislative apportionment.-
Let us understand clearly and quickly
what this sense of Congress resolution
does.
With respect to delaying the imple-
menting of the June 15 Supreme Court
legislative apportionment decisions this
amendment says that the Congress
thinks it would be nice if the members
of the Judiciary would delay implement-
ing those decisions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they do not have to
do this, but the Congress thinks it would
be jolly nice of them if they would.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my
colleagues that Mr. Chief Justice Warren
in the majority opinion June 15 said ex-
pressly that the courts were under no
obligation to implement these decisions
instantly if it interfered with or em-
barrassed an ,election process already
underway.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in a word,
said he thought it would be nice if they
allowed a reasonable delay with respect
to the impending election. But some of
these Federal courts have no more re-
spect for Mr. Chief Justice Warren's rec-
ommendation as to what would be nice
than they will have for the Congress if
we state that it would be nice if they
heeded our sense of Congress resolution.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
? But in the matter of the last para-
graph of amendment No. 60?so ably
described by the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Mr. Simm]?there is the real
clincher and the real clinker. This says
that it is the sense of Congress that the
Federal courts shall redistrict if the
legislatures have not acted within the
6 months' time limit provided by the
amendment. It says if the legislatures
have not acted "pursuant' to the Con-
stitution" That means, translated liter-
ally, "pursuant to the June 15 decisions
of the Court."
This amendment underwrites the very
principle repudiated by this House in
adoption of the Tuck amendment, the
principle that population must be the
sole factor of representation in both
houses of the State legislature.
This amendment means it would be the
sense of Congress if adopted that that is
hereafter a constitutional principle.
This means that we would underwrite
the abuse of authority I referred to ear-
lier this afternoon in which a 3-judge
panel in Connecticut has suspended elec-
tions called for by the Constitution or by
statute, with respect to the legislative
branch in that State.
This means also by further implication
that the audacious next step already ini-
tiated in my own State of Michigan is
underwritten by the sense of the Con-
gress.
Mr. Speaker, a judicial decision?and
I hope the Members will hear this?in the
State of Michigan has already applied
the principle laid down and the authority
claimed under the June 15 decisions of
the Supreme Court, to the county boards
of supervisors in the State of Michigan.
Now this means that we are going to
-have, if the ultimate logic is pursued, the
Federal Judiciary dictating representa-
tion on and the makeup of the county
boards of supervisors.
The gentleman from New York [Mr.
CELLErt] whom I respect greatly, inti-
mated that we ought not to pursue this
matter because it might arouse opposi-
tion in the other body and they might
resort to another filibuster and thus we
might not be able to go home quite so
soon.
Mr. Speaker, for what purpose are we
here as the sworn representatives of the
people if it is not to protect the elective
process, if it is not to protect the legis-
lative operations and authority, if it is
not to protect the historical principles
of representation in our State legisla-
tures, if it is not to curb the interfer-
ence and usurpation of the judiciary?
Mr. Speaker, I would rather go down
to defeat staying here until the last day
of this session, until the last day of this
year, than acquiesce to this kind of a
sense-of-Congress resolution.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. HAYS].
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, as one of
the prospective conferees, I would like
to address myself to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. SMITH], chairman of the
Rules Committee. I listened to his re-
marks very 'intently. I think he would
agree with me that since the Senate did
spend 35 days on this section they are
not going to give it up, very lightly, and
there is a reasonable assumption that
the conferees on the House side are go-
ing to have difficulty in having this sec-
tion stricken.
I agree with the gentleman from Vir-
ginia that it really does not mean much.
He and I agree that section B, which he
objects to, as I understand it, more
strenuously than any other section,
would have at least an implication that
the Congress is saying that in case a
State fails to apportion, the court will
do it. I do not really think that, even
though some people in the House might
agree, that in case a legislature does not,
somebody should. I do not think we
ought to approach that in this back
door fashion.
So I come to a question which I would
like to propound to the gentleman: In
view of the fact we are concerned with
the situation, if we get section B stricken
or modified to where it did not do this,
the House conferees would be achieving
about as much as they could achieve
under the circumstances?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. As to what
they can achieve under the circum-
stances, I think it is essential to go back
to the basic application. I feel section
B should come out, and I do not believe
the House will reverse its position. I will
go so far as to say that with section B
cut I think the provision is a complete
nullity. It would not do any good, and
probably-it would not do any harm.
Mr. HAYS. I thank the gentleman,
because I think he and I agree on this
section B coming out. I believe he ap-
preciates the situation that the House
conferees might be in. It is true, as the
minority leader said a while ago, that
the prospective conferees have been
meeting informally. But we have not
discussed this section. However, in view
of the 35 days the other body spent on it,
I can sense that the conferees of the
other body are not going to agree to
strike that whole section.
I want to do as much as I can to get
the opinion of the House on agreeing to
something that will stand up.
I am glad to have the gentleman's
statement.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. STRATTON].
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I do
not plan to oppose the resolution to send
the foreign aid appropriations bill to
conference, but I would like to urge the
conferees on the part of the House to
press strongly for the replacement of
Senate amendment No. 60 on legislative
reapportionment with the wording of the
original Dirksen-Mansfield rider.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, the time that
has been spent in the other body debat-
ing this whole subject. But I am dis-
turbed by the fact that the wording ulti-
mately adopted in the other body has no
real legal binding effect. It merely ex-
presses the "sense of the Congress" and
therefore is unlikely to be of any real
help to States like New York, which des-
perately need more time to deal with the
sweeping changes mandated by the June
15 decision of the Supreme Court
22621
Amendment No. 60 will not, Mr. Speaker,
give us any additional time in New York
or anywhere else. Instead, We need the
wording of the original Dirksen-Mans-
field rider if we are to help my State
and other States. I hope the conferees
will act to put teeth back into this sec-
tion and give us the time we need in
New York.
In my State, Mr. Speaker, we have
already been directed by the Federal
court to redistrict our legislature by April
1965. And we have been told by the
court that we must hold three successive
legislative elections within the next 2
years. Even if there were to be no other
action on this subject at the Federal
level, even if there were to be no con-
stitutional amendment decreeing a new
and different system of State apportion-
ment, my own State of New York still
needs more time than has been given to
us by the courts to adjust to the changes
decreed by the Supreme Court decision.
Our people are most emphatic, Mr.
Speaker, in their desire that each of our
62 counties be individually represented
in at least one house of our State legis-
lature. But to bring this about even
without the aid of the proposed con-
stitutional amendment?would require a
much longer period of time. It could be
done, for example, by increasing the size
of the State assembly. But this requires
a constitutional amendment in New York
State and would take at least 2 years to
be adopted in a Statewide referendum.
The name would be true were_we to adopt
a system of weighted voting in the State
assembly, as some have proposed.
And it is unfair and unreasonable,
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, to require
that candidates for the State legislature
run for office three times in 2 years. This
is bad for the continuity- of our State
government. It is bad for those who are
interested enough in State government
to run for office.
If the House conferees will, therefore,
insist on the original Dirksen-Mansfield
wording, if they will direct the additional
time we need rather than merely go on
record as believing that it would be nice
to have such time, then we will have per-
formed a real service for my State and
for many others as well. I therefore
urge the conferees strongly as a repre-
sentative of the most rural congressional
district in New York State to do just
this.
There is ample basis, Mr. Speaker, for
such action by our House conferees.
After all, we passed the so-called Tuck
bill on this same subject some weeks ago
by a very substantial margin. At that
time, as Members may recall, I was one
who urged that we should substitute for
this Tuck bill the original Dirksen-Mans-
field rider. The House however favored
a stronger piece of legislation?in fact
one that was in my 'judgment unconsti-
tutional. Now the Senate has passed a
much weaker piece of legislation than
even the Dirksen-Mansfield rider. So
why not compromise on a middle ground?
Why not resolve the differences between
the Tuck bill and the inadequate "sense
of Congress" resolution by supporting
the original Dirksen wording as a fair
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9
22622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
middle ground? This is what I am urg-
ing.
Mr. Speaker, no less a person than
Walter Lippmann urged this course some
days ago. He pointed out the sweeping
impact of the June 15 decision for areas
similar to the one I have the honor to
represent. He pointed out that we have
spent 10 years already trying to adjust
to the sweeping Supreme Court decision
on school desegregation. Surely we ought
to be allowed at least 2 years to adjust
to another decision with equally sweep-
ing implications.
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania. .
Mr. KUNKEL. I would like to express
my strong opposition to the Senate
amendment concerning the selecting out
of civil service employees in AID. I hope
that provision will be removed from the
conference report. In other words, my
position is the same as that taken by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRoss] and
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROY-
HILL], and other Members who have
spoken on- this specific provision.
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was
given permission to revise and) extend
his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I, move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laidson the
table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints
the following conferees: Mr. MORGAN, Mr.
ZABLOCKI, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. HAYS, Mr.
ADAIR, Mr. MAILLIARD, and Mr. FRELING-
HUYSEN.
MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1965
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules
I call up House Resolution 892, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration
of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1183),
making continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 1965, and for other purposes.
That after general debate, which shall be
confined to the joint resolution and continue
not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ap-
propriations, the joint resolution shall be
read for amendment. At the conclusion of
the consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the joint resolution to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution
and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo-
tion to recommit.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. BROWN], and I now yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as you all know, we have
been operating on appropriations under
a continuing resolution. That continu-
ing resolution expired today, and with
respect to any bills that have not been
passed by both Houses and signed by
the President the whole matter of the
use of money for paying bills or paying
wages is just simply paralyzed.
The chairman of the Committee on
Apprepfiations came to the Committee
- on Rules and asked for a rule to agree
to the resolution which would extend
that extension for a further period of 10
days. That rule has been granted and
that is what is before you today.
Mr. Speaker, when we Were asked
about this and when the committee yes-
terday agreed to go along with this ex-
tension of 10 days, I thought everybody
around here was under the impression
that this would aid us to the point of
getting a sine die adjournment. Things
have happened since that time. I do
not know what they are because we or-
dinary Members of Congress are not in
on these conferences that take place on
the Hill and off the Hill. But the rumor
is very rife today, and i read it in the
papers, that the other body has now
completed its work?I am certainly glad
to hear that, because we have been wait-
ing several months for them to complete
their work?and that they were going
into 3-day recesses for the House to
catch up. The House has already caught
up. I do not know how tar we ought to
go fiddling around with this situation
any longer.
It has been very evident from the
demonstrations that have taken place
here today that the House is practically
unanimous in its desire to conclude this
session that has kept us in session con-
tinuously for the past 20 Months. Some
of us feel we have done enough and
should not attack further legislation,
with the absence of so many Members.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Does not the
gentleman feel that if we make this con-
tinuing resolution to October 3, it might
aid this adjournment?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I was just
getting to that.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I am sorry I
interrupted, then.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Some Mem-
bers seem to think that if we vote down
this resolution it would aid us in get-
ting an adjournment. I do not share
that opinion. What I have said may
have sounded like I' do, but I do not. I
had not completed my statement. I
think that the fact, which I believe to
be a fact and which has been demon-
strated here today, is that this House
wants to adjourn and adjourn as quickly
as possible. It may be impractical and
impossible to get the necessary legisla-
tion through in the next few days.
I do not see that it would be any help
in delaying adjournment to refuse this
10-day delay because then it might reach
the point where something so vital was
necessary that we would have to go over
October 1
and take a recess. I, for one, do not ex-
pect to vote for any recess. I want to.
get the business finished and get out of
here.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ARENDS. In order that the gen-
tleman may understand how I feel about
this proposal, let me say I do not think
it is either impractical or impossible to
get our work done in the House of Rep-
resentatives by Saturday night and,'
therefore, for whatever it may be worth
I want to say that I intend to vote
against even this 10-day extension pro-
vided for under the resolution. This
Congress not only can but should finish
its business in the remaining 3 days of
this week.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I know the
gentleman is very sincere in his views
about this. I hope that whatever we do
here will result in early adjournment.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield? .
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yiejd to the
gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. In this morning's "Blat-
ter," the "Washington Blatter" that is,
it states:
Leaders in the House, which is the main
bottleneck to a Saturday getaway, acted as
though they had never heard of this idea,
but it might solve their immediate problem
of rounding up enough Members to pass any
more controversial bills.
In other words, certain individuals are
trying to put the monkey on the back of
the House after the other body recently
filibustered for more than a month on
reapportionment. Now the House is
being charged with holding up the ad-
journment of Congress and I resent it.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HALLECK. The thing that con-
cerns me about this continuing resolu-
tion, and I expressed my views to the
gentleman from Texas -who has no
greater friend than I in this body, that
if we adopt this 10-day extension today,
we in effect will be issuing a sort of open
invitation to run the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Congress for another
10 days. I think the better part of wis-
dom is to vote this down and put every-
body on notice that we can meet what-
ever requirements there are, if we get the
appropriation bills passed before Satur-
day night, because nobody is going to go
without their pay between now and then
under any existing situation. So far as
I am concerned, just as the minority
whip, the gentleman from Illinois has
stated, I am not going to vote for this
resolution.
Mr. SMITH -of Virginia. I thank the
gentleman for his statement, but I just
would like to say to him that there are
two bodies of the Congress and it is
entirely possible, and I am speaking from
past observations, that maybe the Sen-
ate would not agree with that.
Mr. HALLECK. I have just been read-
ing in the papers that the people on the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070004-9