AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: September 8, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
21020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. Janeway is an accomplished econ-
omist and an able man.
This testimony to the soundness of
our economic policy is most pertinent
and appropriate.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
article printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
JANEWAY'S VIEW: FLOW OF U.S. DOLLARS TO
EUROPE IS NEEDED
(By Eliot Janeway)
NEW YORK, August 30.?The political lull
between the excitement of the party con-
ventions and the start of the Presidential
campaigns is a good time to survey the
economy overseas for possible storm warn-
ings. One that has cropped up again is the
rise, in the second quarter, of our balance-
of-payments deficit. According to the book,
a rising international payments deficit al-
most always spells trouble. It's usually a
sign that a country is falling behind in world
competition or is living beyond its means. If
the warning isnt heeded, foreigners soon be-
gin to distrust the currency of the country
running a deficit.
But today's situation looks like an ex-
ception to the rule. At least that's what the
evidence of the marketplace is suggesting.
It's always the better part of prudence to
check the experiences and theories codified
in the book by a reading of the stresses felt
in the marketplace.
This summer they show that, despite the
apparent deterioration ,in !ast spring's pay-
ments deficit, the dollar nonetheless remains
strong in the money market. The proof of
the pudding is in the bidding. Europe is
continuing to bid for more dollars than are
offered. In fact, the universal complaint
on the other side is that there aren't enough
dollars to go around.
How does the apparent contradiction be-
tween a strong dollar and rising payments
deficit come about? Because the dollar is
one of the world's two international clearing
currencies, and the British pound, which is
the other, is weaker still.
LONDON LOOKS FOR HELP
In fact, sterling is so sick that London
has had to look to us for help. And this is
one contributing reason for the rise in our
payments deficit. We've had to advance dol-
lars, first, to head off a financial collapse in
Italy (where an interim government is drift-
ing while inflation rages); and, more re-
cently, to backstop the pound.
Hindsight leaves little doubt that, if we
hadn't taken energetic measures to antici-
pate an August sterling crisis, the pound
would have broken its moorings under the
severe buffeting it's Just had to take with
severe repercussions for us.
The one sure way to expose the dollar to
a repeat performance of the money troubles
of the late 1920's and the early 1930's would
be to stand by and let the pound go under;
taking with it a good deal of Europe's (and
the free world's) structure of finance. It's
worth remembering that the depression of
the last generation blew in from a financial-
ly stricken Europe and knocked a booming
United States galley west.
ONLY PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE
The moral is that a moderate and manage-
able payments deficit is a burden we shall
have to carry as the only practical alternative
to running Europe into a money squeeze for
lack of the dollars which are feeding Eu-
rope's boom. Certainly, the alarming $5
billion payments deficit rate of 1963, with
its threat of a gold rim on the dollar, is too
much: it's not needed to help Europe and
any return to it would hurt us.
But under the present conditions, so
would any drastic and abrupt drying up of
net dollar outflow. With Italy in chronic
crisis, with Britain on the brink and with
none of the richer European countries will-
ing to lay hard cash on the line to help
either neighbor, the only way we can protect
the tremendous U.S. stake in European fi-
nancial stability is by running a $1 to' $2
billion payments deficit.
Every time our annual payments deficit
rate goes down toward the billion dollar
mark, storm warnings go up all over Europe.
But as soon as we release enough dollars to
ease the deficit back to ard a $2 billion
rate, the all-clear sound am,pt's this
summer's story.
AMENDMENT OF o EIG ASSIST-
ANCE ACT 0 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
CLOTTJRE MOTION
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I have
listened with distress of spirit to the
wails and lamentations of my distin-
guished friend, the Senator from Wiscon-
sin [Mr. PASTORE] , over the limited time
the Dirksen-Mansfield proposal has been
before the Senate for discussion.
It was introduced in its present form
on the 12th of August. A constitutional
amendment was introduced before that
time, and we added still to the version
of the proposed legislation before the
Senate, and had the discussion going.
So at least 3 weeks have gone by.
There has been ample opportunity for my
distinguished friend from the Badger
State to make his point?and for any
other Senator to make his point?should
he wish to do so.
In that period of time, there were oc-
casions when the Senate adjourned early
because, somehow, there were. no pre-
emptors of the time which was available
for the discussion.
Let me say to the Senator from Wis-
consin that in May of 1962, by one of
the quirks of history, another Dirksen-
Mansfield proposal for cloture was be-
fore the Senate. Actually, that proposal
on the literacy test was pending only 2
weeks, and then I joined the majority
leader to file a cloture motion. Oddly
enough, the distinguished Senator, from
Wisconsin voted for it. My distinguisheli
friend, the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART], who shares the acute feelings of
the Senator from Wisconsin, voted for it.
My esteemed colleague from Illinois, who
is now in the Chamber, voted for it; yet,
the proposal was here only 3 weeks and
the cloture motion was then filed.
However, I heard no voices ascend in
a crescendo of volume to the heavens
lamenting the fact that there was not
enough time to discuss the proposal.
Mr. President, I have been in Con-
gress for 31 years; and I have watched
the volumes of printed hearings ground
out until the Government has become
the purveyor of the greatest quantity of
wastepaper of any merchandiser any-
where in the world. We come lugging
these hearings into the Senate Chamber;
and I begin to wonder who reads them.
September 8
We go through all these exercises, some-
times with a sense of sheer futility, par-
ticularly when the issue is plain and does
not require many volumes of discussion.
An old universalist minister friend of
mine from Peoria used to say that no
souls were saved after the first 20 min-
utes. Yet, the Senator knows that 26
hours at $100 a page have already been
occupied in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
in the discussion of this question.
Frankly, anyone who is interested
needs only to read the majority opinion
of the Court, and then to read that com-
pletely devastating opinion, that un-
answerable dissenting opinion, of Justice
John Marshall Harlan; and there is the
whole story.
I suppose that we could make the
welkin ring and fairly rock the plaster
from the walls of the Senate Chamber,
but we shall not throw more light on the
subject than will be obtained from those
two opinions.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield to me?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
there have been no hearings whatsoever
on this proposal?
Mr. DIRKSEN. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. In either House or
Sehate. Is it not also true?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Is it not also true that
there are other proposals on which many
hearings have been held?
Mr. PROXMIRE. In which cloture
was involved?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I do not know about
that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I cannot think of
any. The communications satellite bill
involved many hearings. On the civil
rights bill there were extensive hearings,
lasting many months. To date there
have been no hearings on this proposal.
Mr. DIRKSEN. It does not make a
particle of difference, because those who
are opposed to it have freely stated over
and over?and some of them have stated
to me krivately?that they are going to
keep this show going, whether or no.
They will not do this for the purpose of
adding light, because when we orate to
an empty Chamber, day after day, we
must confess that perhaps a Senator or
two is in the Chamber, but no mo: e, to
listen to those words of wisdom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
INOUYE in the chair) . The time of the
Senator from Illinois has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. When one has been
expounding all this wisdom, what hap-
pens to it? There is no one in the Cham-
ber to listen. It is because they have
come to a conclusion with respect to the
basis of this issue. I believe that they
are only dilly-dallying. It has been con-
fessed that that is the whole purpose?
what the distinguished majority leader
has so aptly called the "cuddly baby"
filibuster.
, Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Weft.
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 21021
? Mr. PROXMIRE. We have not had
all the time that the Senator implies we
have had. Since August 13, the Senate
has passed 89 bills, passed 30 resolutions,
and adopted 17 conference reports. It
has sent 10 bills to the House. It has ?
acted upon appropriation bills. ' The
vastly, complicated social security bill,
took an entire week. Then there was
the Democratic National Convention, the
long Labor Day weekend. Clearly, we
have not had time to go into the very
complex and difficult proposal which af-
fects every single one of the 50 States
in varying ways.
I plead with my reasonable colleague
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DirmseN]
to consider the fact that we have not
had a real opportunity to discuss this
complicated proposal in anything like the
detail which has always been character-
istic of the Senate in discussing measures
of importance before cloture has been
invoked, or even proposed.
Mr. DIRKSEN. There is no doubt
about the volume of words which has
been uttered during this period, whether
it is measured by pages, bushels, gallons,
or any other unit of measurement. I was
in the Senate Chamber. The majority
leader was also in the Senate Chamber all
the time.
To revert to the calendar, we start by
agreement with Calendar No. 1403,
for example, and within 10 seconds from
the time it is called up, it is passed. Then
we go on to the next bill. If we talk about
an intrusion upon our time, let the Sen-
ator go back and look at the number of
bills, especially the claims bills from the
Judiciary Committee, that we whack
away at on an assembly line basis, at the
rate of perhaps 10 to 15 an hour.
Do not let the impression get out to the
country that 86 bills have been passed
that were world shaking and have had
an indelible effect upon the domestic and
foreign policy of the country. Some have,
to be sure.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Some have, indeed.
The RECORD shows the great amount of
time which has been taken upon other
measure by the leadership?and I be-
lieve rightly so?to expedite this session
and get important legislation out of the
way. We have documented the case, and
only 26 hours out of all that time has been
consumed on this particular issue. We
cooperated ?with the leadership. We
could have insisted on a Friday session
or a Saturday session, so we are told; but
the Senator from Illinois knows that that
would have been a terrible imposition on
other Senators who were eager to get
home. It would also have been difficult
for us. It would have been unfair to the
leadership if we had done that, and un-
fair to Senators. We did not do it. We
had the right to do it, I am sure, and the
leadership would have cooperated with
us if we had asked for it.
We should have further opportunity to
discuss the issue thoroughly, and to have
the opportunity?for those of us who
have not really had an opportunity to
speak at all?to come to the Senate and
speak.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
. Mr. MANSFIELD. I have listened to
the debate with interest. I find it hard
to comprehend what the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin is driving at.
I believe that he and his colleagues
have had plenty of time to explain a
simple issue to the Members of this body.
It is my belief, for what if is worth, that
so far as cloture is concerned, the chances
are very doubtful that it will be invoked.
That means, if my assumption is cor-
reet, that even if a motion to table is
defeated, as I assume it may well be, there
will be plenty of time to debate the sub-
ject, although, frankly, I believe the issue
is pretty clear cut. I doubt, as of now,
that any more minds will be changed.
I admit that in the past 2 or 3 weeks,
there has been an addition of strength
to the forces of those in favor of the
Supreme Court position. But I point out
that under the rules of the Senate, at
least in my opinion, there could be talk
on this subject from now until dooms-
day. I do not see where any time is lost.
I, do not see why the cry is raised now
that there should be more time to dis-
cuss the matter when the Senator well
knows that an agreement was arrived at
last week by means of which it was thor-
oughly understood and agreed that a clo-
ture motion would be presented this
Tuesday, and that a vote would be taken
on the Motion next Thursday Under the
rules of the Senate. Is that not correct?
Mr. PROXMIRE. There has been no
alternative. It is within the power of the
minority leader to make the motion at
any time he wished and we would have
to agree.
Mr. MANSFIELD. No; not any time.
The Senate was considering the social
security bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE There was no op-
portunity to discuss it last week.. As the
majority leader well knows, the Senate
was_ considering the social security bill.
It is true that we could have insisted on
a Friday session. The majority leader
would have accommodated us. But we
would not have had any audience. There
would not have been any real opportun-
ity to discuss the motion. It was entirely
within the discretion of the minority
leader. He chose to file the motion today.
He could have given us more time in
which to discuss it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. After discussing
the question with Senators who favor
the Supreme Court decision and obtain-
ing their agreement, I went to the desk
of the minority leader and asked him if
he would hold back the motion until
today. He agreed to do so. I believe, in
good faith, that that statement should
be made. I am quite sure that Senators
who favor the Supreme Court decision
are well aware of that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Certainly. But
that is no accommodation to us.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The minority
leader did not have to agree to set aside
the pending business last week to allow
the Senate to proceed with the social se-
curity bill. But he did so at my specific
request after he made a statement to the
effect that he would object to anything
further being done in the way of laying
aside the pending business.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed. But
that was an accommodation to the ma-
jority leader and to the whole Senate.
For the purpose of bringing up the so-
cial security bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It could have been
an accommodation to the people of the
United States, to take up the social se-
curity bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It was. But it was
no accommodation to us. We knew that ?
we would have no opportunity to discuss
the motion during that time. We had to
spend the entire week on the social secu-
rity measure. That was perfectly `agree-
able to us. We were in favor of that, too.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is true, but
the minority leader could have presented
the cloture motion a week ago. We
would have been in the same position
then. I believe that we are ahead, by
reason of-having followed this procedure.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. We do not so much
object to the junior Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. DIRKSEN] filing his motion, as
we hope that not many Senators will
vote for it. That is what we are discuss-
ing today?whether the majority and
minority leaders will be able to ram down
the throats of Senators a cloture which
will greatly restrict future debate.
My colleague from Illinois [Mr. DIRK-
SEN] is perfectly within his rights to in-
troduce the motion today. I hope that
he will fail by a big margin to get the
required two-thirds vote in favor of his
motion on Thursday.
While I am on this subject, there is a
very sharp distinction to be drawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask that the Senator from Illinois be_al-
lowed 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. There is a very sharp
distinction to be drawn between a fili-
buster and an extended debate. The
purpose of a filibuster is to. prevent a
vote. The purpose of an extended de-
bate is to delay a vote. The reason for
delaying the vote is so that the Members
of the Senate and the public may become
better informed about the issue and thus
be able to reach a more mature decision.
We do not intend to prevent a vote.
But we had hoped that we might have
an opportunity to delay the vote until
some Senators who inadvertently became
involved in the plan for an anti-
reapportionment constitutional amend-
ment might be able to extricate them?
selves from the coils which have been
wound around them.
Mr. MANSFIELD. .When I hear talk
of extended debate and filibuster, I am
reminded of a statement made by a
distinguished Senator who is now run-
ning for President on the other party's
ticket, concerning something relating to
a choice, not an echo. What I think I
hear is an echo which I have heard time
and again in this'Chamber. There is no
difference whatever between an extended
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
21022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
debate and a filibuster. It depends on
who is wearing the shoe at the time, as
to who makes the statement.
Furthermore, the distinguished Sena-
tor from Illinois has used the word
"ram." I have never in my 12 years in
the Senate tried to ram anything down
anybody's throat. And I do not intend
to do so now. So far as I am concerned,'
the Senate can remain in session until
January 3, 1965. If the Senator wishes
to talk that long, it is all right with me.
? But there will be no ramming of any-
thing down anybody's throat. The
RECORD ought to be clear in that regard.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not accusing
the Senator from Montana of ramming
? this through in a personal sense.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator said,
"The majority and minority leaders will
be able to ram it down the throat of the
Senate."
Mr. DOUGLAS. If a Senator votes for
cloture, that will mean that the rules of
the Senate will force a premature vote
down the throats of the minority?not in
a personal manner, but in 'an impersonal
fashion through the operation of
cloture.
The distinguished majority leader
[Mr. MANSFIELD] said that there is no
difference between an extended debate
and a filibuster. The Senator may not
remember the fight that some of us put
up in connection with offshore oil.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the Sena-
tor should remember it. I was on the
side of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot remember
all the votes with certainty. When we
started, it was the plan of the propo-
nents to give all of the offshore oil to the
States. They would have given the
States all of the offshore oil, not just
within a 3-mile or 3-league limit but
out to the edge of the Continental Shelf.
For 30 days, the Senator from Ala-
bama [Mr. HILL] and I, brought to bear
such arguments as we could. As a result
of the fight which we made, we convinced
the Senate that even if it felt obligated
to give the royalty rights to the States
for the oil located up to 3 miles out?and
in the case of Texas, 3 leagues?the
United States of America has the rights
to the oil beyond that, to the edge of the..
Continental Shelf. The explorations
since then appear to show that the majOr
portion_ of the offshore oil is located
on that Continental Shelf beyond the 3-
mile limit. The decision which we helped
to secure from the Congress means a dif-
ference of hundreds, of millions of dollars
a year to the U.S. Treasury.
That is one specific case in which a
fight on the floor of the Senate, called a
filibuster at the time by our opponents,
resulted in a big improvement in the final
action that was taken. I could mention
another illustration.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I agree with the
Senator. But I point out that no matter
how it is termed, it is still a filibuster.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is the opinion
of the Senator from Montana.
The Senator may remember the Kerr
gas bill in 1950, which was aimed at
? depriving the Federal Power Commission
of the right to fix the price of gas at the
point where it entered the pipelines.
There was debate On the bill for more
than a month. We were defeated, but
the developments and force of that de-
bate so changed public opinion that the
President of the United States vetoed the
bill. While some of the effect of that veto
was later removed by shilly-shallying on
the part of the Federal Power Commis-
sion, the private oil and gas interests have
not been able to get all they wanted, even
now. So extended debate serves a useful
purpose. If the Senator from Montana
votes on Thursday for cloture?and I ex-
pect the Senator will?with the best in-
tent in the world, he will still diminish
the opportunity which is accorded to
Senators to convince other Senators and
the people that the' Supreme Court is
correct. He would take from us the op-
portunity to show that the present mal-
apportionment- of State legislatures
should be corrected, that the legislatures
themselves have not corrected it by them-
selves, and that the only hope of fair ap-
portionment really lies in the Supreme
_Court. We hope that we can so convince
the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Illinois has once
again expired.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
have not as yet stated how I shall vote
on the cloture motion presented by the
distinguished minority leader. I am sorry
that the distinguished Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. DouoLAs] made the assertion
that he did, because it may or may not
be true. But at least I was trying to keep
my position secret until the time came
to make a decision.
It is my candid belief that the cloture
motion will not command sufficient votes
to make it effective; further, it is my
candid belief that, so far as the debate on
the subject is concerned, Senators who
are opposed to the Mansfield-Dirksen
amendment will have all the time they
wish to discuss the subject and to- con-
vince their colleagues. Moreover, it is
my belief that from now on not a single
vote will be changed. The Senator either
has the votes on his side or he has not;
and that is it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Since the debate
began, a number of votes have been
changed. We have not had an opportu-
nity to discuss that subject with the
Senator.
Mr. MANSFIELD. From now on no
votes will be changed.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There are all kinds
of arguments still to be made which we
seek to develop. A number of Senators
who wish to discuss those points have
not been able to do so. We have not
been able to discuss the subject with
those Senators since the Labor Day week-
end. In view of the limited opportunity
we have had to discuss the subject, to
say that not a single vote would be
changed from now on is a statement with
which I would disagree. I make that
statement on the basis of the experience
we have ? had in the past week or so.
Votes have changed whenever we have
gotten the ear of our colleagues. But
many of them have not yet been reached.
September 8
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
could be completely mistaken. All I am
doing is giving the Senate my judgment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. A number of Sena-
tors have not yet made up their minds.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe I know
the Senators to whom the Senator from
Wisconsin has reference. Some of those
have not spoken; others have had their
statements printed in the RECORD. But
so far as changing minds further is con-
cerned, very few, if any, will be changed
from now on. I admit that in the past 3
weeks some minds have been changed.
That is why I made the statement that, in
my opinion, it will not be possible to in-
voke cloture on the motion which was
presented earlier today. Therefore, the
Senate will have all the time in the world,
at least until noon January 3, 1965, if it
so desires, to discuss the subject.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois may have 3 additional
minutes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, is not
the Senate now in the morning hour;
and is not the Senator from Michigan
entitled, in his own right, to speak for 3
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is entitled to
speak for 3 minutes.
Mr. HART. .1 thank the Chair. It
occurs to me that since I was about to
make a comment which would involve
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN],
it would be more courteous if I did it on
his time. In either case, I shall speak
for no longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. President, it might be helpful to
put into perspective what is a filibuster
and what is not a filibuster, who is pro-
ceeding precipitately and who is drag-
ging his feet.
I suggest that we turn our minds back
a few months to a situation in this
Chamber when we were confronted with
a proposal made by the majority leader
that the Senate take up the civil rights
bill. As well as I can reconstruct the
situation, on the 9th day of March the
majority leader moved that the Senate
take up the civil rights bill. The Judici-
ary Committee had held 9 days of hear-
ings on the bill before that. I have not
been able to determine how many days
of hearings the Commerce Committee
had held on the bill. Serving on both
committees, I am uncertain in my mem-
ory which was the longer. But it is my
impression that the Committee on Com-
merce devoted more time to considera-
tion of the measure. In any event,
when the majority leader moved to take
that bill up so that something could be
done about it, there had been 9 days of
hearings before the Judiciary Commit-
tee.
On the 25th day of March, the distin-
guished minority leader, 'the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] counseled
us thus:
If this is as important as the zealots would
have us believe, it is all the more reason why
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
?????
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the Senate should be most careful about a
bill of this kind.
Parenthetically, there are those who
feel that the domestic crisis then con-
fronting us in civil rights was more com-
pelling than the constitutional crisis
that confronts us in the Dirksen
amendment. But I am sure that all
thoughtful persons would agree that
both were and are of major importance.
The minority leader then went on to
say:
There seems to be great haste and hurry,
but when we stop to think of the impor-
tance of this measure and what its imp-act
on the country would be, we can afford to
take some time and be careful in our
scrutiny.
This was the 25th of March. The Sen-
ator was commenting on a motion that
had been pending since the 9th of March
to take up the bill for discussion. Finally
the minority leader counseled us:
There has been great discussion about the
intent of Congress. The courts will take a
look at the language in the bill, and out
of it they will finally come to a conclusion
as to what was the intent. I believe that one
of the most scholarly articles I have ever read
on the subject of intent of Congress appeared
in the Harvard Law School Journal. Who-
ever wrote it did a very good job, because the
very first line in that article was: "The in-
tent of Congress is a fiction."
The second sentence was: "The intent of
Congress is .what the courts say it is."
Where do the courts go? They go to the
language in the bill, and the courts go to
the reports.
The impact of the bill will be "from now
on," and the social Pattern of our country
will be changed. Some time later I do not
wish to lament and to rue the day when I
did not take sufficient time to give sufficient
scrutiny to the words, the phrases, the
Implications, the legal significance, and what
its impact will be upon the ec and soc fabric
of our country.
The PRRSIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may have 2
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HART. I invite the attention of
Senators to the fact that caution was
voiced by the Senator from Illinois a few
months ago, because the words are not
inapplicable at the present time. The
caution is not unrelated, because the
Dirksen amendment would affect in,some
form or other?though there is no record
to inform us how?each of the 50 States
of the Union with respect to composition
and operation of its State legislature.
If on the 25th of March, on a motion
that had been pending since the 9th of
March to take up the: civil rights bill, we
were cautioned as I have described by
the Senator from Illinois, he would not
find us, I am sure, to be inflexible and
unreasonable in suggesting that, without
any committee hearings?unlike the case
of the civil rights bill?and with only 20-
some hours of discussion available to us,
we insist that what he told us then is
relevan't now. For that reason it is well
that we get into perspective exactly
where we stand and how much time
ought to be devoted to the subject and
what sort of record should be developed
before the Congress of the United States
goes on the road to reaching over into
the Supreme Court building and, in ef-
fect, telling the Justices to move over.
Once we adopt that precedent, history
will make it an unfortunate day.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I wish
I could take time adequately to answer
my distinguished friend from Michigan.
Senators will observe that he put the
emphasis on the month of March. The
committees had produced little legisla-
tion at the time. When I said, in that
statement on the floor, "We can afford
to take some time," I meant exactly that,
because we had time, and there was
nothing crowding the Senate at the mo-
ment. So there was no reason why it
could not go back. ? Now we are getting
close to the middle of September. I
know the mood of the Senate. I know
the mood of the House of Representa-
tives. Members want to go home. I
want to go home. I want to get out on
the hustings. and do a little campaigning
and answer some of the speeches such
as the one we heard from the distin-
guished Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
FULBRIGIIT] a little while ago.
How long are we going to keep Sen-
ators here as they gather up these pearls
of wisdom? Senators talk to an empty
Chamber. There was a conference. One
Member of that group came to this desk
any number of times to ask whether or
not I was going to submit a cloture mo-
tion. At the time I had no thought of it.
When it was said to me, "We will con-
tinue, then, ad infinitum," with Members
of Congress wanting to get home, that is
a horse of another color.
So there was a reason to file the clo-
ture motion. If it fails, the amendment
will still be here, and the Senate will get
a vote on it, or my name is not DIRKSEN.
It can be tabled. Any Senator is free
to make that motion. Why does not the
Senator rise in his place and offer a mo-
tion to table? There is nothing to stop
the Senator. Some Senators have a po-
litical motive. They are going to get a
few votes and gather a little strength.
No such thought occurred to me. I
was ready to file the motion for cloture,
in accordance with the agreement I had
with the majority leader, after he had
conferred with the Senator. I could
have done it a week ago. But it is an
appropriate time, at the end of the Labor
Day weekend. So there has been time
to discuss it. Senators have not been
able to keep other Senators here to listen
to them. But they know the arguments.
When I say "them" I mean Members of
the Senate. They read the Washington
Post. They read the articles by the law
professors and deans. I read them.
Everybody has read them. If Senators
are not familiar with the issue by now,
all I have to say is that instead of throw-
ing light on the subject, Senators' have
obfuscated it and made it more complex
and bewildering than it really is.
So there is the answer to all this-argu-
ment, and every Senator is going to have
a vote, one way or another, on this
amendment, because I mean to carry it
to a conclusion.
21023
WHITESTONE COULEE UNIT OF THE
OKANOGAN-SIMILKAMEEN DIVI-
SION, CHIEF JOSEPH DAM PROJ-
ECT, WASHINGTON
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate the
amendment of the House of Representa-
tives to Senate bill 2447.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate the amendment of the
House of Representatives .to the bill (S.
2447) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to construct, operate, and main-
tain the Whitestone Coulee unit of the
Okanogan-Similka.meen division, Chief
Joseph Dam project, Washington, and for
other purposes, which was, to strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert:
That for the purpose of furnishing a new
and a supplemental water supply for the
irrigation of approximately two thousand
five hundred and fifty acres of land in
Okanogan County, Washington, for the pur-
pose of undprtaking the rehabilitation and
betterment of existing works serving a ma-
jor portion of these lands, and for conserva-
tion and development of fish and wildlife
resources and improvement of public rec-
reation facilities, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to construct, operate,
and maintain the Whitestone Coulee unit of
the Okanogan-Similkameen division of the
Chief Joseph Dam project, in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal reclama-
tion laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat.
388, and Acts amendatory thereof or sup-
plementary thereto). The principal works of
the unit shall consist of: facilities to permit
enlargement and utilization of Spectacle
Lake storage; related canal and conduits,
diversion dam, pumping plants, and distri-
bution systems; and necessary works inci-
dental to the rehabilitation and expansion
of the existing irrigation system.
SEC. 2. The provisions of section 2 of the
Act of July 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 568, 569), shall
be applicable to the Whitestone Coulee unit
of the Okanogan-Similkameen clt6ision of
the Chief Joseph Dam project. The term
"construction costs" used therein shall in-
clude any irrigation operation, maintenance,
and replacement costs during the develop-
ment period which the Secretary finds it
proper to fund because they are beyond the
ability of the water users to pay during that
period.
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary is authorized as
a part of the Whitestone Coulee unit to con-
struct, operate, and maintain or otherwise
provide for basic public outdoor recreation
facilities, to acquire or otlierwise to include
within the unit area such adjacent lands or
interests therein as are necessary for public
recreation use, to allocate water and reser-
voir ,capacity to recreation, and to provide
for public use and enjoyment of unit lands,
facilities, and water areas in a manner co-
ordinated with the other unit purposes. The
Secretary is authorized to enter into agree-
ments with Federal agencies or State or local
public bodies for the operation, maintenance,
and additional development of unit lands or
facilities, or to dispose of unit lands or
facilities to Federal agencies or State or lo-
cal public bodies by lease, transfer, exchange,
or conveyance, upon such terms and condi-
tions as will best promote the development
and operation of such lands or facilities in
the public interest for recreation purposes.
The costs of the aforesaid undertakings, in-
cluding costs of investigation, planning, Fed-
eral operation and maintenance, and an
appropriate share of the joint costs of the
unit, shall be nonreimbursable. Nothing
herein shall limit the authority of the Sec-
retary granted by existing provisions of law
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
40.1
21024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 8
relating to recreation development of water
resources projects or the disposition of pub-
lic lands for recreational purposes.
(b) The costs of means and measures to
prevent loss of and damage to fish and wild-
life resources shall be considered as project
_ costs and allocated as may be appropriate
among the project functions.
SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for construction of the new
works involved in the Whitestone Coulee
unit, of the Okanogan-Similkameen division
of the Chief Joseph Dam project $5,312,000,
plus or minus such amounts, if any, as
may be required by reason of changes in the
cost of construction work of the types in-
volved therein as shown by engineering cost
indices and, in additiOn thereto, such sums
as may be required to operate and maintain
said division.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the House
amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is a very Im-
portant piece of legislation, authorizing
the Whitestone Coulee unit of the Chief
Joseph Dam unit. Chief Joseph Dam
is primarily a huge power project, one
of the greatest in the world, but the pos-
sibilities of some irrigation from it are
very good, and this is one of the units,
that can lend itself to irrigation. I am
glad the Senator from Wisconsin is
bringing the matter up.
I ask unanimous consent to have
placed in the RECORD at this point a let-
ter from the Department of the Interior
to my distinguished colleague [Mr. if/1M-
son], chairman of the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs, describing the
project, its value, and the benefit-cost
ratio. I appreciate the action of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs in pressing the bill through. I
know it is expedient to accept the House
amendment to the Senate bill.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.0 ., March 2, 1964.
Hon. HENERY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.0 .
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This responds to
your request for the views of this Depart-
ment on S. 2447, a bill to authorize the Sec-
retary of the Interior to construct, operate,
and maintain the Whitestone Coulee unit
of the Okanogan-Similkameem division, Chief
Joseph Dam project, Washington, and for
other purposes.
We recommend enactment of the bill with
certain amendments suggested hereinafter.
The Whitestone Coulee unit is a potential
irrigation development to serve 2,660 acres
in north-central Washington aboUt 10 miles
from the international boundary with Can-
ada. Existing facilities of the Whitestone
Reclamation District now serve 1,830 irriga-
ble acres of the project area. The plan of
development of the unit provides for re-
habilitating and enlarging existing works
and constructing new facilities to serve an
additional 705 acres of lands that are now
dryf armed. Continuation of water service
within their entitlement to a further 125
acres of class 6 district lands which have
a water ?right is also proposed. The 125
acres of class 6 lands would not be included
within the district for repayment purposes;
however, they would pay appropriate opera-
tion, maintenance, and replacement charges.
The lands in the unit area are devoted
almost exclusively to apple production, with
cover crops. By climate, topography, and
soils the area is particularly well suited to
this crop pattern under sprinkler irrigation.
The district lands in question have a long
and successful production history, and the
new lands included in the project plan are
equally well suited for apple production.
The Whitestone Reclamation District
holds adjudicated rights to the flows of Toats
Coulee Creek. The plan of development
contemplates replacing an existing diversion
dam on that creek with a new structure,
rehabilitating the main supply canal which
runs from the point of diversion on Toats
Coulee Creek to Spectacle Lake some 4 miles
away. Active storage capacity of Spectacle
Lake would be expanded from 3,800 to 6,250
acre-feet by construction Of a dike and out-
let 'control works. Three small pumping
plants would be built and the gravity distri-
bution system of canals, siphons, and buried
pipe laterals would be rehabilitated and ex-
panded as necessary. These improvements
would provide an adequate water supply for
irrigation of all lands of the unit.
Development of the unit as proposed
would produce no flood control benefits of
significance, nor is there opportunity for the
production of hydroelectric power. Investi-
gations disclosed no need in the area for
Industrial water supplies or pollution con-
trol or other public health measures. Exist-
ing facilities for domestic water service are
adequate and will remain in use. Thus, the
Whitestone Coulee unit is proposed princi-
pally as an irrigation development.
There are, however, opportunities to pro-
vide excellent fishery and general recreation
benefits. These would be realized under the
plan of development proposed. The State
and private interests have already developed
Spectacle Lake as a recreation facility. By
virtue of annual stockings of fingerlings by
the State Department of Game, it is an ex-
cellent rainbow trout fishery. With in-
creased capacity and project improvements
the fishery would be enhanced to produce
average annual benefits estimated by the
Fish and Wildlife Service at $4,050. Lands
would be acquired to replace existing public-
access areas inundated by enlargement of
the reservoir, and basic recreation facilities
would also be constructed.
The project is engineeringly and eco-
nomically feasible. Based on a 100-year
period of analysis, the benefit-cost ratio is
5.6 to 1, demonstrating the productivity of
irrigated orchard land in the area.
Okanogan County, Wash., in which the
unit is located has been designated as a rural
redevelopment area under criteria in the
Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 (75 Stat.
47). Accordingly, the benefits which would
accrue to area redevelopment from project
construction and operation have been cal-
culated. We propose that this function be
recognized as a project purpose in accordance-
with principles for water resource develop-
ment evaluation adopted by the President
on May 15, 1962 (S. Doc. 97, 87th Cong.), for
application within the executive branch. To
accomplish this, the bill should be amended
by adding the words "and for area redevelop-
ment," after the word "facilities," on line
2, page 2.
Also, section 4 should be renumbered sec-
tion "5" and a new section 4 reading as fol-
lows should be added:
"SEc. 4. The Secretary is authorized, if the
Whitestone Coulee unit is located in whole
or in part in a redevelopment area as defined
in the Area Redevelopment Act (75 Stat. 47)
to recognize redevelopment as a function of
the unit, to evaluate the benefits of the unit
in relieving persistent unemployment or un-
deremployment, and to allocate costs to the
redevelopment function as appropriate,
which costs shall be nonreimbursable."
The total project cost is estimated to be
$5,312,000. Of this, $813,000 would be al-
located to area redevelopment, $4,336,000 to
Irrigation, and $163,000 to fish and wildlife
enhancement and recreation. On the basis
of budget studies, we have estimated the re-
payment capability of the irrigators to be
$1,100,200 over a 50-year period. This is 25
percent of the irrigation allocation. The
balance of the irrigation allocation would be
returned from revenues of the Federal Co-
lumbia River power system.
Orchards are slow to develop. Conse-
quently, those project farmers whose lands
are not now in orchards will require a 10-
year development period, during which they
will experience very low revenues. For that
reason it is necessary to fund a part of the
operation and maintenance costs of the unit
during that period. Projections are that ap-
proximately $74,000 in operating costs would
be funded as an irrigation cost item.
The first sentence of section 2 makes ap-
plicable to the Whitestone Coulee unit the
provisions of section 2 of the act of July 27,
1954, authorizing the Foster Creek division
of the Chief Joseph Dam project (68 Stat.
568). The provisions of section 2 of the act
of July 27, 1954, are not entirely appropriate
to the Whitestone Coulee unit?those provi-
sions are:
(1) Establishment of a 50-year repay-
ment period (this is necessary);
(2) Adoption of a variable repayment
formula (this is not necessary, general rec-
lamation law now provides this authority,
act of August 8, 1958 (72 Stat. 542);
(3) Provision for financial assistance from
Chief Joseph Dam (financial assistance is re-
quired, but because of recent changes in ac-
counting practices for the Federal Columbia
River power system it is no longer appropri-
ate to tie financial assistance to an individ-
ual project or dam); and
(4) Availability of Chief Joseph project
energy for project pumping at rates not ex-
ceeding the costs of generation (similarly,
the change in accounting practices makes it
no longer appropriate to tie the unit pump-
ing power reservation and charges to an in-
dividual project).
In order to provide for a 50-year repay-
ment period for the irrigators, fund operat-
ing costs as necessary during the develop-
ment period, reserve power for unit pumping
and provide financial assistance to the unit,
we recommend that section 2 be deleted and
the following substituted therefor:
"SEc. 2. Irrigation repayment contracts
shall provide for repayment of the obligation
assumed thereunder with respect to any con-
tract unit over a period of not more than fifty
years exclusive of any development period
authorized by law. Operation, maintenance,
and replacement costs during the develop-
ment period which the Secretary finds it
proper to fund because they are beyond the
ability of the irrigators to repay during that
period shall be returned by the irrigators
during the repayment period. Construction
costs allocated to irrigation beyond the
ability of the irrigators to repay, shall be
returned to the reclamation fund from reve-
nues derived by the Secretary from the dis-
position of power marketed through the
Bonneville Power Administration. Power
and energy required for irrigation water
pumping for the unit shall be made avail-
able by the Secretary from the Federal Col-
umbia River power system at charges deter-
mined by the Secretary."
Finally, to accommodate the bill to the
administration's proposed legislation con-
cerning cost-sharing at water resource pro-
jects, a new subsection 3 (b) should be added
as follows:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
Fr Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
"(b) The costs of means and measures to
prevent loss of and damage to fish and wild-
life resources shall be considered as project
costs and allocated as may be appropriate
among the project functions."
Authorization to proceed with the White-
stone Coulee unit would be most timely.
The unit has a very high benefit-to-cost
ratio, and will produce substantial benefits
in a community that is undergoing serious
economic hardship.
A statement of personnel and other re-
quirements that enactment of this legisla-
tion would entail is enclosed in accordance
with the provisions of Public Law 801, 84th
Congress.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised
that there is no objection to the presenta-
tion of this proposed report from the stand-
point of the administration's program, sub-
ject to possible supplementary advice from
the Bureau of the Budget when views of the
Department of Commerce on the proposed
amendments to the bill dealing with area
redevelopment are received.
Sincerely yours,
KENNETH HOLUM,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Whitestdne Coulee unit Okanogan-Similkameen division, Chief Joseph Dam project
[Estimated additional man-years 6f civilian employment and expenditures for the 1st 5 years Of proposed new or
expanded programs, as required by Public Law 801, 84th Cong.]
?
-
1st year
2d year
3d year
4th year
5th year
Estimated additional man-years of civilian employ-
ment:
Administrative services: Clerical
Substantive (program): Engineering aids and
technicians
Total estimated additional man-years of civilian
employment.
Estimated expenditures:
Personal services
All other.
Total estimated expenditures
None
None
None
1
3
3.25
1
3
4
1
- 3
2.75
None
None
None
(I)
(1)
$154, 200
1,080, 780
$194. 465
2, 278, 535
,
$144. 097
1,078, 903
810.942
3,458
$197, 000
1, 235, 000
2, 473, 000
1, 223, 000-
14,400
.1 General investigation expenses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Wisconsin to con-
cur in the House amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
CROOKED RIVER FEDERAL
RECLAMATION PROJECT
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
that the Chair lay before the Senate the
amendment of the House of Representa-
tives to Senate bill 1186. .
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the -bill (S. 1186)
to amend -the act authorizing the
Crooked River Federal reclamation proj-
ect to provide for the irrigation of addi-
tional lands, which was, to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
That the first section of the Act entitled
"An Act to authorize construction by the
Secretary of the Interior of the Crooked River
Federal reclamation project, Oregon", ap-
proved August 6, 1956 (70 Stat. 1058), as
amended, is amended by inserting immedi-
ately before the period at the end of the
first sentence of such section the following:
"and the Crooked River project extension,
together referred to hereafter as the pro-
ject. The principal new works for the pro-
ject extension shall include six pumping
plants, canals, and related distribution and
drainage facilities". ?
SEC. 2. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for construction of the new
works involved in the Crooked River project
extension $1,132,000, plus or minus such
amounts, if any, as may be required by rea-
son of changes in the cost of construction
work of the types involved therein as shown
by engineering cost indexes and, in addition
thereto, suCh sums as may be required to
operate and maintain said extension.
SEC. 3. Supplemental power and energy
required for irrigation water pumping for
the project shall be made available by the
Secretary of the Interior from the Federal
Columbia River power system at charges
determined by him.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur. in the House
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion to
concur in the House amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? ,
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideratiOn
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend fur-
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, Mr.
Arthur J. Freund, of St. Louis Mo., is
one of the most prominent attorneys in
the Middle West. He was one of the
first to call attention to the actions
taken at a meeting sponsored by the
Council of State Governments in Chicago
in the fall of 1962. That meeting of
the so-called assembly of the States
started the movement which has now
come to fruition in the Dirksen-Mans-
field amendment.
The council proposed to the State leg-
islatures three application for constitu-
tional amendments, one of which would
have denied any authority to the U.S.
Supreme Court to order reapportionment
of State legislatures.
That amendment application has been
approved by 13 State legislatures to date.
It is not quite certain what its constitu-
tional status is-as compared with the
amendment which the Senator from Il-
linois [Mr. DIRKSEN] will offer in the
Congress if the present Dirksen-Mans-
field amendment to the foreign aid bill
is adopted.
The present Dirksen-Mansfield amend-
ment would anesthetize for a period of
21025
time?the precise duration of which is
uncertain?any present or future action
of the Supreme Court in ordering reap-
portionment, and would freeze the State
'legislatures, with the possible exception
of two or three, in their present malap-
portioned form.
My colleague was completely frank in
saying that it is his intention, when Con-
gress reconvenes in January, to introduce
,a constitutional amendment which would
establish a permanent prohibition
against any order of the Supreme Court
providing for reapportionment.
If the present effort is successful in
the House and the Senate?and particu-
larly if the cloture motion is approved on
Thursday by a two-thirds vote?I think
we can be certain that, unless there are
.appreciable changes in the composition
of the Congress by January, such an
amendment would go through Congress
and that the present malapportioned
State legislatures would then undoubted-
ly ratify it. That is what is at stake in
this whole issue.
It is a very grave issue.
Mr. Freund, some weeks ago, wrote
me a very, detailed letter before the full
tactics in connection with the Dirksen-
Mansfield amendment were revealed.
I ask unanimous consent that this' let-
ter appear at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ARTHUR J. FREUND,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
7 NORTH SEVENTH STREET,
ST. LOUIS, MO., July 30, 1964.
Re proposals to amend the U.S. Constitu-
tion relating to apportionment in State
legislatures.
Hon. FAITL H. DOUGLAS,
Senate, Ogee Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR DOUGLAS: DI utmost earnest-
ness I write you regarding the current pro-
posals to amend the Constitution of the
United States so as to deprive the Federal
courts of jurisdiction in causes having to do
with the malapportionment of State legis-
latures.
You are aware that I was one of those who
early advocated opposition to the three pro-
posals of the Council. of State Governments
to amend the Constitution. One of the
Council's proposals was designed to nullify
the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in Baker v. Carr, (1962) 369
U.S. 186, relating to the malapportionment of
a State legislature, and it is one of a number
of proposals on this subject now before the
Congress. S.J. Res. 181, introduced by Sena-
tor STENNIS on July 8, 1964, and S.J. Res. 185,
introduced by Senator Dmicssig on July 23,
1964, are also typical of proposals directed to
the same ultimate end. The proposals to
amend the Constitution and dilute the ju-
dicial process generated by Baker v. Carr have
been multiplied as a result of the more recent
decisions of the Supreme Court requiring
equal population representation in both
houses of State legislatures where the bi-
cameral system prevails, delivered on June 15,
1964. In Reynolds v. Sims, ? U.S. ?, 12
L. ed. 2d 506, the Court held that the malap-
portionment of the Alabama Legislature was
in contravention of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. This was fol-
lowed on the same day by comparable hold-
ings with respect to the legislature in New
York (WMCA v. Lomenzo, - U.S. -, 12
L. ed. 2d 568); in Maryland (Maryland Com-
mittee v. Tames, U.S. -, 12 L. ed. 2d
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080005-7