AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: August 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4
20192- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Only bills and
other items, on the ,calendar to which
there is no objection. I would assume,
barring some unforeseen happenings,
that the Senate would not be in session
for too many hours today.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Could the Senator in-
form me as to who is likely to speak in
the Senate Chamber today?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand that
the Senator from South ?Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND] is going to meet a bill at the
door, and will have some comments to
make. I express the hope that his ob-
jection will be given the proper consid-
eration and that his desire to put the
so-called Tuck bill?which I oppose com-
pletely?on the calendar, will not be ob-
jected to. If objection is made, of course,
it will have to lie over 1 legislative day
on August 31, to go on the calendar Sep-
tember 1.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do
not believe that the Tuck bill should be
placed on the calendar for possible ac-
tion today. I serve notice that I shall
object to the second reading today, so
that it will go over to the next legislative
day.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It was my under-
standing that that action will be pro-
posed that being the objective of the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THUR-
MOND].
Mr. DOUGLAS.. Is it to be consid-
ered today or the next legislative day?
Mr. MANSFIELD. It will be objected
to. That means that it will have to lie
over 1 legislative nay. The next legis-
lative day would be August 31, and it
would go on the calendar on September 1.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If no other Senator
objects,(I shall object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. So far as I am
concerned, I have, in the space of 10
minutes, explained the position of the
Dirksen-Mansfield amendment. I have
nothing further to say. I believe that
additional words would be superfluous.
So far as I am concerned, I do not intend
to become involved in extended debate.
The meaning is clear, at least as I in-
terpret it. My understanding is in the
RECORD. It will have to stand on its own
feet.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I fully concur in the
observations just made by the majority
leader. The language of the amend-
ment is very simple. It seems to me that
what we are being treated to is not light
but obfuscation by the long discussions
that have gone on. The reading of the
text, it seems to me, is sufficient. I shall
elaborate a little, but I know nothing
more than?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if
the Senator will yield, the Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HART] has 'gone into this
subject in detail and is deeply concerned
about the effect of the amendment on
every single one of the 50 States. Its
effect on each State is likely to be quite
different.
It seems to me that we have every
right as Senators to find out how the
amendment will work, and what its
serious ramifications may be. We should
like to hear from the authors of the
amendment so that we can find out how
they feel about it. We need a record to
make legislative history so we can be as-
sured of a court interpretation that fits
our understanding without clear, reason-
ably detailed statements from the
authors. Such statements will have seri-
ous effect.
Mr. MANSFIELD. So far as I am con-
cerned, all the apportionment plans put
into effect are valid. All reapportion-
ment plans being considered should be-
considered in the State legislatures.
What we are interested in primarily is
what was brought out by the distin-
guished Senator from Oklahoma yester-
day. His State is faced with a severe
problem. I know, that the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. Psoxivina] and the Sen-
ator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] are
aware of that. There are other States
as well?New York and Colorado?per-
haps others. The purpose is not to over-
turn the Supreme Court dictum, so far
as I am concerned, but to go ahead with
the "one man, one vote" proposal, and
to allow a little "deliberate speed" so
far as the States which are in difficult
circumstances are concerned.
Personally, I believe that it is a most
reasonable request to make. I cannot,
for the life of me, understand the oppo-
sition to a proposal of this kind.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There was a very
constructive and useful discussion on
the State of Oklahoma yesterday. All of
us learned a great deal from it. Some
of us conclude on the basis of this dis-
cussion that the amendment ,would do
nothing for Oklahoma.
It can do nothing for Oklahoma, es-
pecially since the amendment will not
be acted on until September. The Gov-
ernor has acted to call an election under
court ordered population apportionment,
AMENDMENT OF FOREIG ASSIS
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend
further the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. DIRKSEN. While my colleague
from Illinois is still in the Chamber, I
should like to inquire?because many
Senators have gone into active discus-
sion on the reapportionment matter_
whether they can disclose or feel that
they can disclose what they propole after
the Senate adjourns today. The reason
I ask is that I must of necessity, on be-
half of myself and I believe the majority
leader, consider seriously a cloture peti-
tion when the Senate returns. I think
this diScussion has gone on long enough.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me reply to that
by saying that I hope that my friend
and colleague_ the junior Senator from
Illinois and the Senator from Montana
will be allowed to explain the amend-
ment. Thus far, he and his supporters
have taken approximately only 1 hour
in the discussion of the amendment.
This is one of the most fundamental acts
to come before the Senate, so we hope
very much that they will take advantage
of the opportunity to explain their case.
When they do we certainly will reply to
it. 1,1
August 21
the only relief for Oklahoma must come
from a request to the Supreme Court.
I think that should be the remedy for
each of the States. That is the remedy
for all American citizens.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The press stated
this morning that the State of Oklahoma
had filed a petition.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It has.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Also, a plea has
been made to Associate Justice Byron
White and a request that the Supreme
Court will go into special session to al-
low Oklahoma a little time to go through
with what the Supreme Court has de-
creed every State must do. I believe the
argument of the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. MONRONEY] is valid and sound.
That is why he is supporting the Dirksen-
Mansfield proposal.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am sure that the
purpose just given by the Senator from
Montana is his intent, but the effect of
the Dirksen-Man.sfield amendment
might be something entirely different.
In reality, it proposes for an indetermi-
nate time a stay in' the execution of an
indefinite number of reapportionment
orders and plans. It is quite possible
that this would bring to a complete
cessation a number of reapportionments
already underway. There are a number
of suits filed in State and Federal courts
concerning the upper houses of various
State legislatures which, in my judg-
ment, would be indefinitely postponed by
the Dirksen amendment.
I compliment my colleague-in that he
has been completely honest in the state-
ment of his motives for proposing the
amendment. Such frankness has been
somewhat rare in this body. My col-
league has been completely frank. He
said his purpose is to obtain a stay of
time, during which a constitutibnal
amendment can be submitted to the
various State legislatures for action. I
compliment him again for his state-
ment. This is the purpose of his amend-
ment.
If the Dirksen amendment passes, then
later a constitutional amendment may
be submitted to the presently malappor-
tioned State legislatures. The incum-
bent Members can then ratify the
amendment and thereby seal themselves
in their districts in perpetuity and re-
move themselves from court control or
any attempt to enforce the 14th amend-
ment.
' That is what is at stake. I am sure
this is not the purpose of the Senator
from Montana. But it is obviously and
admittedly the purpOse of my colleague
from Illinois. It is the purpose of those
behind the Tuck bill, and I believe, most
of those'behind the Dirksen amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the Tuck
bill is an outrageous usurpation of con-
stitutional authority and the authority of
the Supreme Court. So far as the Sena-
tor -from Illinois alleging that this would
apply to an indefinite number ,of States,
that is correct. But so far as the state-
ment concerning an indefinite period of
time is concerned, I believe the Dirksen-
Mansfield proposal is very specific, that
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-IRDP66B00403R000300080026-4
1964 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD SENATE
we propose to allow one election and one
session of the State legislatures so that
the States may face the question and try
to comply with the dictum laid down by
the Supreme Court only 2 or 3 months
ago.
The date specified in that amendment
was January 1;1966. It is my belief that
if the amendment were to pass, the great
majority of the States, by far, would
within a period of 8 months, have ad-
justed themselves to the ruling of the Su-
preme Court. What we are asking for
basically is a little delay. Our task in
this body is to recognize the responsi-
bilities that we have in relation to all
the States of the Union.
I am somewhat perturbed when I read
articles by columnists and newspaper
stories to the effect that the amendment
means a 4- or 6-year delay. If it means
more than 8 months, it will apply to a
1 very small number of States. Then it
will be under the jurisdiction of the.
courts. In the amendment, the jurisdic-
tion of the Federal courts is nailed down
tight. I do not care how anyone inter-
prets it; that is what it means.
Mr. PROXMIRE. On page 2, lines 9
to 14, it is provided that a stay shall be
granted for a sufficient period "to allow
the legislature of such State a reasonable
opportunity in regular session or the peo-
ple by constitutional amendment a reas-
onable opportunity following the adjudi-
cation of unconstitutionality to apportion
representation in such legislature in ac-
- cordance with the Constitution."
In most States?certainly in my State,
and in many others?it would require
two sessions of the legislature to adopt
a constitutional amendment. That
would mean 1965 and 1967. The refer-
endum would be in 1968.
My State has already acted. There are
many other States that have not. The
great majority of the States have not.
This procedure would take 4, 5, or 6 years,
according' to the language of the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would seriously
question that. In my opinion it would
take not more than 8 months for the ma-
jority of the States. If they did not
comply by January 1, 1966, it would be
up to the courts, not to the legislatures,
to decide. I believe we are well within
our constitutional rights in advocating
an amendment of this nature. When
compared with the Tuck bill, this amend-
ment is as different as night is fro/11'day.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The phrase which is
'used on page 2 of the Dirksen amend-
ment is that the legislature should have
a "reasonable opportunity" to act. No
? one knows what this would mean.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Who will deter-
mine what it means?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is a real ques-
tion.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The courts will de-
termine it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is a real 'ques-
tion. The truth of the matter is that
the 'legislatures have had this opportu-
nity 'for decades.
Mr. MANSPLELD. That is true.
Mr. DOUGLAS. They have had an
opportunity to act for decades. They
have refused to act. In Alabama and
Tennessee, they did not reapportion from
1901 on, until the Supreme Court ordered
them to do so in 1962 and 1964.
Mr. MANSFIELD., That is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS,. For six decades they
violated their own constitutions, as well
as the ordinary rules of fairness. In
view of the record of the State legisla-
tures in the past, in perpetuating their
own malapportionment, r do not believe
that we can expect of them any celerity
In attaining fair apportionment in the
future. On the contrary, to the degree
that there has been reapportionment, in
almost every instance, it has been under
court order. These court orders would
be stayed or put in cold storage under
the Dirksen amendment. During this
freeze, my colleague and his associates
would initiate a constitutional amend-
ment. The constitutional amendment
would forever remove from the courts
the power to order reapportionment, in
the many malapportioned State legisla-
tures. It would grant to the present
malapportioned legislatures the power to
perpetuate their malapportionment.
The constitutional amendment would
forever prevent courts from enforcing
the right to the equal protection of the
' laws. And the equal protection of the
laws, in the judgment of the Supreme
Court, and, in the judgment, I believe,
of the vast majority of the American
people, requires substantially equal rep-
resentation.
, Mr. MANSFIELD. Once again, I be-
lieve the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS] is misjudging a premise be-
cause of his lack of a firm foundation.
What the Senator is saying, in effect?
and I say this most respectfully?is that
in his opinion the House and the Senate
will pass a constitutional amendment?
which requires a two-thirds vote?
which, in turn, will be ratified by the
States, which requires a three-fourths
vote.
Frankly, I do not believe that a con-
stitutional aniendment in this direction
can get a two-thirds vote in either body.
I am fairly certain in my own mind?
again expressing an opinion,?that three-
fourths of the States would not ratify
such an aniendment, if, by some unfore-
seen chance, such an amendment were to
pass.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSHELD. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. It seems to me that
we are forgetting a fundamental truth.
That fundamental truth is that the
Constitution of the United States begins
with the words "We the people," and
there is in that Constitution a reserva-
tion clause that the powers not expressly
delegated to the Central Government are
reserved to the people and to the States.
With regard to the malapportionment
of State legislatures, it is still in the
hands of the people. The trouble is
that there is an indisposition to re-
apportion in the fundamental way. It
is proposed to take a shortcut. That
shortcut is the Supreme Court. I say to
? 20193
the Senator from Wisconsin that 'if he
feels deeply about it, he can go out to
Wisconsin and make some noise about it.
.We shall do it in Illinois. That is our
responsibility. Let us not dump it and
allow nine men over in this marble palace
to tell the people in the States what they
have to do.
When it is said that six decades have
gone by, it seems to me that the power
residing in the States and in the people
has existed ever since the Constitution
was fabricated. Now, suddenly, the
whole thing is overturned by the High
Tribunal.
Mr. THURMOND. I am very frank
to say that, in my opinion, the question'
is one for the people in each State to
determine. The Senator from Illinois
said something about motives of Sena-
tors, and so forth. I can tell him frankly
that my position is that the 'people of
each State ought to make the determina-
tion. I am sure that the Senator trusts
the people of Illinois, as I trust the peo-
ple of South Carolina. I believe every
Senator trusts the people of his own
State. I believe the people of each State
ought to make the determination as to
how they -wish their? legislature
constituted.
Furthermore, under the Constitution
of the United States?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I should like to
complete my statement, and then I shall
be glad to yield. Under the Constitution
of the United States the question is po-
litical and not legal. Therefore, the Su-
preme Court has no jurisdiction.
As the able Senator from Illinois has
stated, the question has never been dele-
gated by the States to the Union, to the
Federal Government; therefore, it is re-
served to the States. I think it is per-
fectly clear that-the States, and not the
Federal Government, have jurisdiction
In the field. Why should nine men in
Washington have jurisdiction to overrule
50 legislatures in this Nation? Why
should not the people through their legis-
latures have the power and the jurisdic-
tion to determine the composition of
their legislatures? I am certain that
that should be the case in spite of the
ruling.of nine men here in Washington.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
South Carolina has said that he would
rely on the people. I believe that all of
us would like to rely on the people. But
who would put the question? Who
would set up the referendum? It would
be set up by the malapportioned legis-
latures. They would put the question.
That is why, in case after case, the peo-
ple have? seemed to vote against their
own interest. Their own right to an
equal vote. They have not had an op-
portunity to/ answer the right question.
Anyone who has served as Governor
of his State, as the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. THURMOND]. has so ably
served his State, knows that that state-
ment is true. It has happened again and
again in my State. If State legislatures
are relied upon to supply the question
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4
20194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --CSENAtE
for a referendum, we know how easily a,
question can be rigged. Indeed, have
again and again been rigged.
If we should rely on the adoption of
a constitutional amendment that would
be required to pass the Congress, once
again we would find the same problem
manifested, because in this case the State
legislatures, not the people, decide. The
House has shown how it felt when it
Passed the Tuck bill. The fact is that
we, as Members of Congress, are in-
timately connected with our State legis-
latures as a result of our friendships with
legislators, when we go before the people
In a constitutional referendum.
But again, the question would not be
acted upon by the people of the States;
it would be acted upon by the State legis-
latures. _
I am confident that if the question
were submitted to the people, as the Gal-
lup poll showed yesterday, population
apportionment would be overwhelmingly
approved. The people are for popula-
tion apportionment.
I disagree vigorously with the majority
leader when he says that if the question
were submitted to State legislatures,
three-quarters of the legislatures would
not approve it. How can he predict?
The State legislators want to keep their
jobs. We know that. That is a fact of
political life. If there is any constitu-
tional amendment that would whip
through State legislatures, it would be
this one.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
Wisconsin has referred to the legisla-
tures being malformed. Who says that
they are malformed? That is the opin-
ion of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The people of a State constitute the
legislature of that State. There is at
least one State in the Nation that has
only one legislative body. The other
States have two bodies?two bodies made
up as the Congress is made up. That is,
they have representation according to
each county, based upon area, and then
they have representation according to
population as the House of Representa-
tives in the U.S. Congress has.
So the people in each State could
? change that system if they so desired.
If the people of each State are not sat-
isfied with the present composition of
the legislature, there is nothing to keep
them from changing it.
Mr. PROXMIFtE. The only State in
which the composition of the legislature
could be changed readily by the people
is the State of Oregon, which permits
a truly free initiative.
Mr. THURMOND. I do not believe
that the people of one State ought to
try to tell the people of another State
what the composition of the legislature of
that State ought to be. Furthermore, I
wish to inquire of the able Senator from
Wisconsin upon what authority the Su-
preme Court acted on the question.
Where in the Constitution is the juris-
diction that has been delegated by the
States to the Supreme Court to, act in
this field? There is no such jurisdic-
tion. The Supreme Court has gone.be-
Yond its authority, and therefore the
Court, in my judgment, in this particu-
lar matter, is in-error. It is incumbent
upon the Congress to take steps to cor-
rect the situation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President,
these are malformed legislatures. Yes-
terday we had a discussion with the very
able Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MON-
RONEY] in which it was admitted that
since 1921 the Oklahoma Legislature has
refused to comply with the clear require-
ments of the Oklahoma constitution,
and there is no recourse that Oklahoma
citizens have except the U.S. Supreme
Court. Their , own supreme court has
refused to act.
I point out that the case of Reynolds
against Sims was decided by the Supreme
? Court of the United States with eight
Justices in favor of the decision and one
opposed. By that margin the Court
decided it had clear right and authority
under the explicit language of the 14th
amendment. I agree.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
? Mr. DIRKSEN obtained the floor.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Presi-
dent?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yielAi.
to the Senator from Arizona.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. GOLDWATER. I appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Illinois.
I have only a short statement to make,
and then Senators can get on with the
debate.
Mr. President, the chances are very
,good that I shall not be present when the
vote is taken on the social security
measure. I have a short statement
that I would have made at that time,
and I shall do my best to be in this
neighborhood if the engagement that I
am going to be kept busy with will allow
me to do so.
I favor a sound social security system
and I want to see it strengthened. I
have voted for genuine improvements in
the system since I have been in the
Senate, and I plan to do so now. I
supported the 1956 amendments to the
Social Security Act and, in 1958, I voted
to raise benefits so that their value in
terms of purchasing power would be
preserved.
It is generally agreed by students of
social security that the basic purpose of
the 0A,SDI program, as it has developed
in the United 'States, is to provide a
basic floor of economic protection which
becomes available in the event of the
death, disability, or retirement of the
family breadwinner. Social security was
never intended to replace private vol-
untary efforts?nor - should it. Bene-
fits under the program are not a sub-
stitute for individual savings and private
retirement and insurance plans. They
are instead a base upon which the indi-
vidual may build through his own
efforts.
We Americans make provisions for the
future through a great variety of volun-
tary programs, many involving contri-
butions by employers. Self-employed
persons were once treated unfairly when
their payments into voluntary retire-
ment programs were fully taxed; but
August 21
recent legislation?which I supported?
has gone far toward placing them on
the same footing as those who earn
wages and salaries.
Recognizing the important role being
filled by social security, we can and
should, of course, make improvements
from time to time in such areas as the
financing and operation of the system.
But that is not at issue now.
As for the features of the present bill,
the 5-percent increase in benefits will
help to meet the rise in living costs since
1958.
Two other provisions of the present
bill make the program more flexible in
meeting the needs of our people. The
first is extension of benefits to a sur-
viving child beyond the present age limit
of 18 to the new age limit of 21, pro-
vided the child is in school or college.
The second is reduction in a widow's
age of eligibility from 62 to 60, benefits
being actuarially adjusted. In connec-
tion with the latter, I might mention
that I voted in 1956 to lower from 65
to 62 the age at which all women could
claim OASI benefits.
These are worthy improvements in the
social security system, enabling it to
serve us better in fulfilling its funda-
mental purpose. They should be clearly
distinguished from schemes designed to
alter that purpose and, thereby, to-over-
burden the system. We shall not pre-
serve the social security program if we
saddle it with unnecessary new burdens,
such as medicare. We penalize every
senior citizen if ?we thus bankrupt the
system that protects him.
Essentially, protection against need in
America depends on a free economy that
produces an ever-growing abundance
and ever-greater opportunities for all.
In this context, social security has a
vital and legitimate supporting role, and
it is for this reason that I will vote for
the proposals before us.
PERSECUTION OF THE JEWISH MI-
NORITY IN SOVIET RUSSIA
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that a statement
that I prepared in regard to Senate Re-
solution 204, which the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] introduced
with some 61 or 62 cosponsors?and I
am one of those?be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
As a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 204
which the Senator from Connecticut intro-
duced last autumn, I express my support for
his amendment to the pending bill. This
amendment emphatically reflects the horror
felt by the Congress of the United States
for the savage persecution to which the So-
viet Union is subjecting its Jewish minority.
I am sure that civilized people everywhere
share the horror we feel and join in the con-
demnation we express.
But I would like to call the attention of
my colleagues, and of the American people
as well, to the grim irony which characterizes
the situation we deal with in the proposed
amendment.
A third of a century ago Adolf Hitler and
his Nazi Party took over the Government of
Germany on a political pl Worm, the chief
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080026-4