AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: August 17, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Whether Congress has the constitutional
power to limit the functions of the courts in
these ways by, simple statutes is a question
debated by scholars. Congress has done so
only once before, in 1868, when it cut off the
, Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus appeals because it believed the Court
was about to declare Reconstruction laws
unconstitutional in a habeas corpus case
known aS ex parte McCardle. The Court up-
held Congress action then.
The Tuck measure follows the McCarclle,
approach. Experts disagree sharply on
whether it would hold up now.
For one thing the ? McCardle decision has
been much criticized as inconsistent with
the independence of the judicial process.
For another, some argue that the McCardle
statute, a removal of Supreme Court juris-
diction in a general class of cases, habeas
corpus appeals, was less a violation of the
separation of powers than would be a bar
to judicial enforcement of one particular
constitutional right.
,
A PRECEDENT
Foreclosing enforcement of the right to
equal representation would be a precedent
for picking out any other constitutional
right that Congress did not like at the mo-
ment and excluding it from the courts.
On the other side, scholars point out that
article III of the Constitution gives Congress
specific powers to regulate the appellate juris-
diction of the Supreme Court and to fix the
jurisdiction of all lower Federal tribunals.
As to the latter, indeed, it is up to Congress
which, if any, to establish.
The Dirksen rider as redrafted rests on
a different constitutional basis?the section
of the 14th amendment saying that Congress
may enforce the amendment by legislation.
The theory is that since the Court has now
construed the amendment to require equity
in districts, Congress may exercise its pow-
er to lay down a rule of decision requiring
a reasonable delay for legislatures to act.
The argument on the other side is that the
measure violates the separation of powers.
POWER AND WISDOM
Some suggested that the Justice Depart-
ment really considered the Dirksen rider un-
constitutional but went along on the theory
it would fall in a court test. That is not
correct. High officials of the Department, at
least, believe that the rider is a valid in-
vocation of Congress powers under the 14th
amendment.
The wisdom of the Dirksen proposal is an-
other matter, and there the Justice Depart-
ment certainly does not agree with the Sen-
ator from Illinois. The administration sup-
ports the Supreme Court's apportionment de-
cision and would prefer to have no legislative
Interference with it. The compromise was
made with Senator DIRKSEN for one blunt
reason: Officials were afraid that they would
get something worse if they did not take
this. The subsequent progress of the Tuck
bill suggested that they were right.
Should the Dirksen rider become law in
some form, the next question would be
whether a constitutional amendment would
be adopted during the period delay. That
might well depend on whether President
Johnson is reelected this fall and, if so,
whether he took a strong position against
any constitutional change. Thus far in the,
current battle he has not spoken out.
The question posed by the present conflict
between Congress and Court is in any event
larger than the apportionment problem.
What is now at issue is the status of the
Supreme Court and the continuance un-
impaired of its historic power to enforce
the citizen's constitutional rights.
MEASURE 'SCORED
That the issue is the Court as an institu-
tion explains the willingness of 15 prominent
law deans and professors last week to at-
tack such proposed curbs on the apportion-
ment decision as the Tuck bill. A telegram
from them called the proposals drastic ones
that would dangerously threaten the in-
tegrity of our judicial process.
Some of the signers of that telegram had
themselves opposed the apportionment de-
cision. Some have , sharply criticized the
present Court as too hasty, too confident of
its own wisdom, too ready to use bootstrap
history in its opinions. The professors can
be just as sharp as politicians in their crit-
icism. The difference is that they do not lose
their reverence for the institution of the
Court.
It is easy for sophisticated analysts to
the law to condemn sweeping, ill-considered
personal attacks on the Justices who so evi-
dently are trying honestly to tackle the
intolerably difficult problems put to them.
But, as Prof. Louis Jaffe of the Harvard
Law School has said, the Supreme Court
cannot expect only careful appraisals. It
must justify itself in the crude marketplace
of public opinion precisely because it deals
not only with esoteric lawyers' questions but
with great social issues.
What is about to be tested is whether the
recent line of Supreme Court decisions pro-
teeing individual liberty has offended public
opinion so much that the political forces
arrayed against the apportionment decision
will be able to limit or overcome it. On the
answer depends not only a good measure
of the States' future political makeup but
the great role of the Supreme Court in the
American system of government. It is hard
to imagine a more fascinating or more vital
struggle.
CALL OF THE ROLL
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum, and ask
that the quorum be a live quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislatiVe clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Bayh
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Carlson
Case
Church
Clark
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Douglas
Eastland
Edmondson
Ellender
Ervin
Fong -
Fulbright
Goldwater
rNo. 547 Leg.]
Gore Mundt
Gruening Muskie
Hart Nelson
Hartke Neuberger
Hayden Pastore
Holland Pearson
Hruska Pell
Inouye- Prouty
Jackson Proxmire
Javits Randolph
Johnston Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Salinger
Saltonstall
Scott _
Simpson
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Keating
Kuchel
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Mechem
Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Mr. MANSFIELD I announce that
the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
HUMPHREY] the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. HILL], the Senator from Utah [Mr.
Moss], and the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] are absent on official busi-
ness.
I also announce that the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] IS absent
19203
because of illness. I further announce
that the Senator from Nevada [Mr.
CANNON] and the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. McGEE] are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Iowa [Mr. HicKENLooPER ]
is absent on official business as a dele-
gate to attend the meetings of the In-
terparliamentary Union at Copenhagen,
Denmark.
The PRESIDING OFFICE
quorum is present.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN IST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 1380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr; President, on be-
half of myself and the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY] , I send to
the desk a proposed substitute for the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and ask that it be
printed under the rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment-mill be received and printed,
and will lie on the table.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute
(No. 1215), proposes a sense of Congress
resolution, as follows:
It is proposed to strike out all on and
after line 1, page 1, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SEC. 402. It is the sense of the Congress
that in any action or proceeding in any court
of the United States or before any justice or
judge of the United States in which there is
placed in question the validity of the compo-
sition of any house of the legislature of any
State or the apportionment of the member-
ship thereof, adequate time should be ac-
corded first, to such State to conform to the
requirements of the Constitution of the
United States relating to such composition-
or apportionment consistently with its elec-
toral procedures and proceedings and with
its procedure and proceedings for the amend-
ment of the- constitution of such State, and
second, for consideration by the States of
any proposed amendment to the Constitution
of the United States relating to the composi-
tion of the legislatures of the several States,
or to the apportionment of the membership
thereof, which shall have been duly sub-
mitted by the Congress to the States for
ratification.
Mr. President, I will, in consultation
with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
McCARTny], call up the amendment in
the nature of a substitute at the appro-
priate time for consideration by the Sen-
ate.
The first proper question is, Why sub-
mit the amendment? Perhaps the corol-
lary to that question has -already been
put in his usual picturesque way by my
leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] , who, I understand from the
press, called it meaningless.
There is a very real purpose in sub-
mitting the amendment. I believe it
would avoid a grave danger to the con-
stitutional establishment of our Gov-
ernment posed by the so-called Dirksen
amendment, in which the Senator from
Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] is joined. As
I shall develop in a few moments, the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66600403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
19204 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD]
joins in it on very different grounds from
those relied on by the Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. DIRKSEN]. I believe that the
sense-of-Congress resolution which the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MC-
CARTHY] and I propose as a substitute is
entirely in accord with the constitutional
separation of powers as between the leg-
islative and judicial branches of the Fed-
eral Government. It would not jeopard-
ize our governmental establishment but
it would frankly meet what I recognize
to be a difficult issue. Most importantly,
it would have the desired effect without
the deleterious effects upon our system
of government which I see in the Dirksen
amendment.
It is also assumed, in saying that a
"sense" resolution is "meaningless," thar'
the Dirksen amendment would be mean-
ingful. In my judgment, the Dirksen
amendment would not have the operative
effect of law which is claimed for it, if
that is what is meant by "meaningful,"
but would purport to have such operative
effect without in fact having it. Hence
It would work an injury both to the pres-
tige of the Congress and, by an effort
which would miscarry or misfire, to the
relationships between the Congress and
the judiciary. Therefore, a frank state-
ment of what we have the power to do?
namely, to request the Court to stay its
hand for appropriate reasons?is the
most honest procedure in this situation.
There is a real situation of difficulty
which faces the Nation in the State leg-
islative reapportionment decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court, the so-called "one-
man-one-vote" decision. The problems
which are thereby created are twofold.
First is the problem of conformance
without unduly upsetting our whole so-
ciety.
I should like to say just a word on that
subject, because I believe it is important.
There has been altogether too much loose
talk about the possibility that ?the en-
actments of State legislatures which are
organized on bases different from the
one-man-one-vote concept, including
those which are subject to the mandate
of the Supreme Court in the six cases
which the Court has already decided are
unconstitutional, void, illegal, invalid, or
in question.
One can speak as a lawyer only with
considered judgment, and I speak in that
way. I cannot conceive of the Supreme
Court upsetting the acts of a State leg-
islature which is organized in a way
which is not approved by one of these
decisions. I can understand the Court
making every effort to bring about the
organization of a legislature upon a prop-
er apportionment, but I consider it in-
conceivable that the Court would invali-
date the enactments of a legislature func-
tioning for decades, in the case of many
of them, and organized along lines of
which the Court disapproves.
That is a very important point, because
if we did not grant that point, we would
face a great national crisis and emergen-
cy; but no one, including the Supreme
Court, has given any indication that this
will be the fact.
If we do not face that danger?that
the acts of our State legislatures are in-
valid because they are not organized ac-
cording to the principles laid down in
those cases which have brought on the
present problem, then we,are entitled to
proceed with such speed?or deliberate
speed, if we want to use the words of the
civil rights case?as to balance the pub-
lic interest and the stability of govern-
mental \organisms with the requirement
of the Supreme Court that legislatures
be organized based upon lawful appor-
tiorunent.
The assumption on which I am pro-
ceeding would also include approval by
a legislature of a proposed amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. It should al-
wayt be kept in mind that in every
State?if the U.S. Constitution is to be
amended to allow one, house of the State
legislature to be organized on a basis
other than population?which is the ef-
fort to be made by the Senator from Il-
linois [Mr. DiaxsEN] and other Senators
who are seeking time for such a consti-
tutional amendment to take effect?it
will be a question, in the final analysis,
for the people of that State to decide.
Once such a constitutional amendment is
adopted, the people of each State will
have to decide whether they will avail
themselves of it or not.
The fact that a State legislature will
or will not approve a constitutional
amendment permitting the people of
each State to make their choice repre-
sents only one element of the consti-
tutional process?the people of each
State must decide on their State con-
stitutions. At this time no legislature
can organize one house of its State leg-
islature on the basis of population and
the other house on some other basis
without running afoul of the 14th amend-
ment, under the Supreme Court deci-
sion. Something should be done, under
the Constitution, for the people to be able
to act in each State upon that matter
as they deem advisable.
The other point is that the lower Fed-
eral courts have proceeded to press the
matter Of reapportionment in some cases
in a manner which can turn out to be
inimical to the very objective to be served.
Let us remember that these malappor-
tionments have been going on for dec-
ades, in many cases over a century, 'and
somehow or other we have managed to
survive. I am all for changing the sys-
tem and for giving proper representation
to'our urban and suburban areas, which
have grown so much larger in population,
but I am not for tearing the country up
by the roots. Hence, the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY] and I have
offered what we consider to be a fair
comprbmise.
The question is being pressed by some
of the lower courts too hard. For ex-
ample, in my State of New York the
State has been given, under Court order,
the direction to reapportion by April
1, 1965. In the interim the Court has or-
dered three separate elections in 2 years.
Our State legislators hold office for 2
years. The court in New York has held
that they shall hold office for only 1
year, and that we shall have an election'
this fall, one next fall, and one the fall,
after that. It is rather difficult when a
Federal court tells a State that it must
August 17
curtail the constitutional term of its leg-
islators. That is pressing the matter a
little further than it should be pressed.
I hope the Supreme Court will hear me
and others like me who have been inde-
fatigable in its defense, when the Court
considers, as it will, whether these man-
dates are really what is intended.
There are other States in which the
courts have held that there should be
weighted voting in the State legisla-
ture?that is, one senator or one assem-
blyman shall have one and a half votes,
or one and three-quarter votes, and an-
other shall have half a vote. Again, this
is completely inimical to the American
system. We have never operated that
way, and I do not see why the Court
should impose such a system on us.
There are other cases. In Vermont
the Court has told the legislature it must
meet and reapportion and then must ad-
journ, that the legislators must go home
and cannot transact any other business.
Mr. President, that is straining the judi-
cial authority a little bit further than it
should be strained.
However, that does not mean that we
in our turn must be guilty of the same
thing. We must express ourselves very
clearly, and the residual power, even if
we have it, must be very sparingly an
very judiciously exercised.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will th
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. NELSON. As I understand thi
resolution it purports effectively to ac
as a kind of interlocutory decree runnin
against the Supreme Court and postpon-
ing the effect of its decision. It that cor-
rect?
Mr. JAVITS. When the Senator say
"this resolution," does he mean the Dirk-
sen amendment?
Mr. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. JAVITS. Yes; it purports to do
that. I had intended to develop that
point a little later. Perhaps it is just as
well that I tell the Senator now what I
have in mind. It purports to do what
the Senator has indicated. However, it
contains an escape hatch. The escape
hatch is "in the absence of highly un-
usual circumstandes." If the Court finds
highly unusual circumstances, it may
deny the application for a stay.
In my judgment, had the Dirksen
amendment omitted that provision, it
would have run directly in the face of at
least two U.S. Supreme Court decisions,
which I shall cite in the course of my
speech this afternoon, and would have
been held to be unconstitutional. It
would therefore have been thrown out
by the Court. That is my considered
judgment as a lawyer.
The Justice Department felt that the
addition of the words, "in the absence of
highly unusual circumstances" meant
that a court could say, "We are not ab-
solutely bound, because of the language
highly unusual circumstances, and we
can therefore deny the stay."
I feel that the original Dirksen pro-
posal, which lacked such an escape
clause, would have been thrown out as
unconstitutional, or run the danger of
a serious confrontation between the
power of the Supreme Court and the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05i20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
power of Congress to invade the Supreme
Court's power. This would be a con-
frontation similar to the one which oc-
curred in the previous century, which al-
most led to the impeachment of a Presi-
dent and to a dismemberment of the dr-
gans of our Government. I do not want
to see anything like that happen.
I believe that the Court will have to
say one of two things about the amended
Dirksen proposal. The proposal requires
the Court to issue a stay order unless
it finds highly unusual circumstances, as
a fact. But when we consider the nature
of the cases involved, highly unusual cir-
cumstances already exist when there is
malapportionment, and therefore it is
difficult for me to imagine what else
would be highly unusual circumstances,
if the Court were -honestly to administer
these words. It is therefore my judg-
ment that the Court would either strike
down the stay amendment on the ground
that it is a usurpation of the judicial
Power, especially in already pending
cases in which decrees have been handed
down and to some extent complied with,
for these are equity cases, in which the
courts may retain jurisdiction until the
decrees have been fully complied with
or longer; or the Court will say, "We
shall treat the amendment as a request,
because it is not really binding upon us
in view of the exclusionary language,
"highly unusual circumstances. We will
treat it as a request, and because we now
have the sentiment of Congress, we shall
honor it as a request."
I answer the Senator as follows: It
would be much more dignified and sound
and in the interest of our Government,
since the Court must treat it as only a
request in order to uphold it, to remake
the amendment in the form of a request.
Does any Senator believe that the Su-
preme Court would treat a considered re-
quest of Congress, enacted by both
Houses of Congress and signed by the
President, as a nullity? It would do no
such thing. But the dignity and in-
tegrity of both the judiciary and the
Congress would be upheld.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I -yield.
Mr. NELSON.- I read from page 2 of
the amendment, as follows:,
(i) to permit any State election of repre-
sentatives occurring before January 1, 1966,
to be conducted in accordance with the laws
of such State in effect immediately preceding
any adjudication of unconstitutionality?
Does not the language clearly provide
that in any case where the law of any
State has been declared unconstitutional,
they can now go back and conduct elec-
tions under their laws preceding the de-
cision?
Mr. JAVITS. That is exactly it. The
Senator has chosen a situation which
could represent highly unusual circum-
stances and in which the Court should
therefore refuse to issue a stay.
I- should like to tell the Senator, if he
does not mind bearing with me a few
minutes, exactly what the situation is in
a number of States which have already
acted in pursuance of the Court's deci-
sion that their State legislatures must be
reapportioned.
Mr. NELSON. May I ask the Sena-
tor one brief question?
Mr. JAVITS. Certainly.
Mr. NELSON. Under this paragraph,
the amendment provides that any ap-
propriate elector or party may file a pe-
tition, and even though the State, has
been ordered to conduct an election on
a different basis, it may go back to the
old basis. Is this not considered in the
amendment a , highly unusual circum-
stance?
Mr. JAVITS. The answer is "Yes." I
do not believe the Court would require -
that. I believe the Court would then in-
voke the words "highly unusual circum-
stances." Where a decree has been is-
sued in an apportionment ease and com-
pliance with that decree is under way,
it would read "highly unusual circum-
stances" to mean that it should not issue
a stay order, and therefore would not is-
sue one.
This bears upon the argument I made
a moment ago, that the Court may strain
to sustain this amendment, if we adopt
it?and I understand there is some
chance we shall. After all, to be realistic,
when the majority leader and the minor-
ity leader join in sponsoring an amend- \
ment, it has a pretty good chance of
success, although I understand from
what I have read in the newspapers that
they may differ as to the reason why they
have submitted the amendment. One
account I have read says that the minor-
ity leader believes it will afford time for
the States to approve a constitutional
amendment partially revising the Court's
decision; and that the majority leader
believes it will afford time for the States
to comply with the decision.
In any event, if the Court will hold that
"highly unusual circumstances" is an
escape hatch, I am sure that the Court
could sustain the amendment in such
a case as the Senator has described, but
the amendment then would be, in effect,
nothing more than a request. That is the
only basis upon which the Court -could
sustain it.
On the other hand, if it is held that
this language is binding, and that the
"highly unusual circumstances" must
have occurred in connection with the ,
original lawsuit which challenged the
State's apportionment system and that
the issuance of a decree and compliance
with that decree is not in the category
of "highly unusual circumstances," then
I-go back to my original proposition that
this amendment would be thrown out on
the ground that it represented an effort
to make a rule of decision for the Court
in pending cases.
In my judgment, the precedents are
clear that the Court will not let that
stand; and I do not see anything in so-
cial philosophy or anything else which
would induce me to believe that the
Court would abandon these precedents.
On the contrary, I think the Court will
hold with them. If not, we shall have
what I am deeply concerned about: A
confrontation between the power of the
Court and the power of Congress, which,
in my judgment, does not bode very well
for either.
Mr. NELSON. What is the Senator's
interpretation of the effect of the amend-
19205
ment, if adopted, on a case that is raised
subsequently and considered by the
Court? Suppose a legislature meets next
January and an order is made that the
State be reapportioned. Can the Court
issue such an order in October 1964 di-
recting the legislature to act when it
meets in January 1965? Does the Sena-
tor interpret the amendment to mean
that the Court is deprived of jurisdic-
tion? What is the unusual circum-
stance ?-
Mr. JAVITS. Yes; in my judgment, if
we adopt this amendment and the Court
upholds this as a valid exercise of con-
stitutional power, it will be required to
stay the effect of its order until Janu-
ary 1,1966, at least.
Mr. NFT If some validity or
credence is given to the authority of
Congress to pass upon the effective date,
one way or another, of the Supreme
Court decision?and I understand the
minority leader to say that this is more
than 99 percent mandatory. What kind
of violence, then, would we be doing to
the concept of separation of powers?
Would this not set a precedent, so that
every single time the Supreme Court
made an interpretation of the Constitu-
tion that Congress did not like, Congress
could then adopt an amendment like
this, which has strong and persuasive in-
fluence, without even the adoption of a
constitutional amendment,' to postpone
the effective date of the order? If we
can do that, are we not, in effect, con-
stituting ourselves as a kind of super
Supreme Court to review the actions of
the Supreme Court?
Mr. JAVITS. That is so. I have al-
ready stated that it is my considered
judgment that the Dirksen amendment
as originally offered, until' redrafted in
consultation, as I understand?and I
have no inside knowledge except that
which is generally available?with the
Department of Justice, would, in my
judgment, have been unconstitutional as
violating the separation of powers. It
may or may not be saved by the phrase
with respect to "highly unusual circum-
stances." If it is saved by that clause,
it would only be because the Court con-
strues the whole amendment as being,
a request.
If that is the case?and I deeply be-
lieve it is?I ask, why not adopt a dig-
nified course, a course more honoring
the separation of powers, and put it in
the form of a request, because that is
the only chance of its being sustained?
I point to the cases which, in my
judgment, decide this issue. The first
case which decided it is the case of
United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, de-
cided in 1871. That case related to a
Reconstruction controversy with respect
to the indemnification of Southerners
who had been granted amnesty, for
property seized during the Civil War
pursuant to law. Congress endeavored
to deprive the court of jursidiction to
Indemnify claimants in connection with
pending cases. The Court in the Klein
case refused to accept that legislation
and declared it unconstitutional. That
case was decided atter the McCardle
case, which is being very heavily relied
upon by the proponents of the Dirksen
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
19206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
amendment. The distinction between
the McCardle case and the Klein case
and the distinction between the Mc-
Cardle case and the Dirksen amend-
ment is that in McCardle the appellate
jurisdiction was taken way from the
Court. No effort was made to impose
upon the Court a rule of decision in a
pending case; whereas, that was exactly
the purport of the legislation in the
Klein case and is also the purport of
the Dirksen amendment, if it is to have
operative effect and is not to be treated
merely as a request.
In my judgment, the Klein case is de-
cisive. The Klein case was succeeded by
the case of Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S.
530, a case decided as recently as 1962,
in which the majority opinion in the
Klein case was cited with approval. The
Glidden case concerned the power to
assign a judge of the Court of Claims
to a statutory 3-judge court, a consti-
tutional court, as it is called. The Court
Invoked the doctrine of the Klein case
in order to sustain its judgment that
the assignment was properly made.
Almost 100 years elapsed between the
Klein and Glidden cases, and the Court
stood by the Klein- decision. It did not
invoke the McCardle case, and that is
very insignificant, in my judgment.
I have given the Senator from Wiscon-
sin my considered judgment?which is
the best each of us can go by?as to what
the Supreme Court would do in respect
to the particular approach which we are
discussing. That is why I came to the
conclusion that the only honest thing to
do?and I do not use that term invidious-
ly; the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] is an excellent laivyer, and his
judgment, is as good as mine; I am
speaking of integrity to act based upon
my concept of what will or will not be
upheld as constitutional?would be to
make a request of what, in order to be
sustained, would have to be considered a
request in any event, instead of seeking
power which in my judgment we do not
have and should not have under our con-
stitutional form of government. It is
only another way to pack the Supreme
Court, if we are going to try to tell it
what to do in interlocutory proceedings
in a pending case. That is exactly what
the Klein case held.
Mr. NELSON. This is precisely the
point I was getting at. If the plain lan-
guage of the resolution means what it
says it requires the Court to make a find-
ing of fact that it is in the public interest
to postpone the effective date of the
Court decision unless it finds highly un-
usual circumstances. Since the specific
finding must be based on some kind of
substance, it would appear that we are
then superimposing our judgment upon
the Supreme Court's judgment in cases
that are pending and cases that have
been adjudicated, and, in effect, are mak-
ing a judicial decision eroding away the
powers of the Supreme Court.
(At this point Mr. SALMGER took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. JAVTrS. That turns on what the
Court will hold with respect to the words
"highly unusual circumstances."
If I may develop that point with the
Senator for a moment, we have already
covered the point that if there has been
a decree and partial or total compliance
with the decree, the Court could then
say that even though those circum-
stances occurred after the entry of the
decree, those are highly unusual circum-
stances which entitled the Court to re-
frain from issuing the stay which would
be authorized by this amendment.
I can conceive also of highly unusual
circumstances preceding the litigation it-
self, if a State legislature gave every
indication of not cooperating in an effort
to reapportion. The Court might deal
with that situation as it has certain civil
rights cases in which the Court has held
that there is no use going to the local
authorities to obtain relief when the en-
tire history of the local authorities, such
as a voting registrar, for example, has
been characterized by discrimination on
racial grounds. Therefore, the Court has
held it would be fruitless to require that
the plaintiff exhaust the remedy provided
by State or local law by appealing to
those authorities.
Such a situation might constitute
"highly unusual circumstances"; and I
believe that they are important. I men-
tion them because they bear upon the
answer to the Senator's question. But
laying aside the meaning of the words,
"in the absence of highly unusual cir-
cumstances," unless the Court uses that
as an escape hatch, the amendment
would run afoul of the 'separation of
powers, in my judgment, and would en-
deavor, in defiance of the decisions which
I have mentioned, to impose a rule of de-
cision upon the Supreme Court.
I do not believe that a discussion of
the McCardle case avails to save this type
of legislation. It is for that reason that
I state that it is illy considered judgment
that the only thing which places it in
some doubt is the meaning of the words,
"in the absence of highly unusual cir-
cumstances." If the Court were to give
those words the weight it needs to give
them in order to hold the legislation con-
stitutional, it would have to treat the
whole thing as a request. So long as that
is what the Court must consider it, why
not frankly face the question now and
ourselves maintain the principle of sepa-
ration of powers and make the request
which is the purport of the amendment
which the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
McCARrity] and I have offered.
I believe that if Senators will search
their own minds on the subject, they
must perforce agree that that kind of
request will be honored by the Supreme
Court in accordance with the spirit in
which it is made.,
I point out, too, that the amendment
as I have proposed it, in the form of a
request, covers the problem of interfer-
ing in pending cases. The proceedings
which have taken place in a pending case
give the Court an opportunity, pursu-
ant to our expressed wish, to defer de-
crees of the lower courts which in my
judgment have been -oppressive. The
amendment does not challenge the good
faith, the sincerity, or fidelity to duty of
any lower court. However, I believe that
in effect we have a right to gay to the
Supreme Court that we believe this issue
is being ridden too hard, especially if we
August 17
do not believe that the acts of these leg-
islatures are per se invalid because the
legislatures are apportioned on a basis
of which the Supreme Court disapproves.
Therefore, sufficient time should be
given so that adequate Government proc-
esses may operate in an orderly and
judicious way.
_I have given some examples of the
types of order so far issued by some
lower courts which are ill-advised in
terms of bringing about the reapportion-
ment reform ordered by the Supreme
Court.
I shall now refer to the situation in a
number of States in which the effort to
apply the naked power contained in the
Dirksen amendment will upset steps al-
ready taken to comply with the Supreme
Court decree.
In the State of Colorado, for example,
the Supreme Court held on June 22 that
the legislature was malapportioned. On
July 8 the legislature reapportioned both
Houses on a population basis and on July
9 a three-judge Federal district court
issued an order upholding that reappor-
tionment. The supreme court of the
State has now held that action invalid
under the State constitution. The mat-
ter is thereby very much in the status of
the courts having it under consideration
for future decision, with the necessity of
reconciling Federal and State court de-
cisions. To introduce into the situation
the kind of naked stay which is incor-
porated in the Dirksen amendment
would be disruptive and unwise.
A similar situation exists in Kansas,
where a plan for the reapportionment of
both houses was upheld by the State
supreme court on March 30, 1964. It
is now awaiting implementation.
The same situation exists in the State
of New York, where a three-judge court
ordered reapportionment. Although I
disapprove of the idea of three elections
in 2 years as ordered by the court?
which I mentioned a minute ago?this
question will be before the Supreme
court; and I believe that to attempt
to stay those proceedings by congres-
sional fiat would be distinctly ex post
facto.
In North Dakota, the legislature is act-
ing on four proposals for reapportion-
ment, pursuant to a court order.
In Tennessee, the State of the original
decision in the case of Baker against
Carr, a court proceeding and legislative
proceedings are pending to reapportion,
pursuant to court decree. '
In Vermont, I have already stated that
there is a lower court order ordering the
legislature to reapportion and to disband
without transacting further business.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has or-
dered reapportionment with various pro-
visions respecting the 1964 elections and
thereafter, until the legislature and the
Governor bring about the enactment of a
valid reapportionment plan.
There are many other States?in which
various proceedings involving this issue
are in the process of litigation. In ap-
proximately 16 States there have already
been court orders entered. In approxi-
mately 23 others litigation has already
begun. In many of these 39 States, as
well as in some of the other 11, some
npriaccifiad and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
legislative or executive action has al-
ready been taken toward reapportion-
ment. All those judicial proceedings
would be placed in jeopardy unless the
Supreme Court were to hold the Dirk-
sen amendment to be ineffective to
change a rule of decision in a pending
case.
At the same time, on the merits, the
situation which we face is not at all an
open-and-shut issue of one man, one
vote. There is the Federal compact,
which is constantly in the minds of the
people of all our States, which gives the
Senate two representatives from each
State, regardless of population. How
often have many of us from the great
populous States, like New York and Cali-
fornia, the State of the distinguished
Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from
California [Mr. SALINGER], felt ourselves
frustrated by the fact that actions, which
we consider inimical to our States, are
brought about by a vote of Senators from
very much smaller States. But this Fed-
eral compact has worked well for almost
two centuries. And we wish to see it
continu,e.
There is no reason, in my judgment,
why the people of the respective States
should not have the same opportunity. I
emphasize the word "opportunity."
Many States may not wish to follow the
Federal pattern. The State of Nebraska
has a unicameral legislature. There are
other States in which a one-house legis-
lature is now contemplated for simplicity
or for other reasons pleasing to the peo-
ple of those States. Our great sister free
nation, the United Kingdom, has func-
tioned for centuries, for all practical pur-
poses, with one house. It has worked
very well. It has been a model of par-
liamentary government, indeed, for the
whole world.
On the other hand, consider the situa-
tion which obtains in the State of
Oregon, which reapportioned both of its
houses on the basis of population a few
years ago. Now it has encountered a
new form of discrimination in terms of
representation. That situation involves
discrimination against areas in favor of
the one-man, one-vote concept. For ex-
ample, 8 of the 30 Senators in the State
Senate of Oregon live within the city
limits of Portland, Oreg. One State sen-
ator represents 28,000 square miles?a
district as ?big as Vermont, New Hamp-
shire, Rhode Island, and New Jersey
combined. The question raised is,
Should the people of the State of Oregon
have a right to say, "We enjoy these
tremendous areas, too. We want them to
be worked, cultivated, and developed.
We want to have people brought into
those areas. We want them to be given
agricultural and industrial opportunity."
I emphasize that word "want." Should
the people have a right to say, "We want
more than one voice in one of the houses
in our State legislature with respect to
the resources concentrated in such an
enormous area."
I see no reason why the people of a
State should not so decide. They ought
to have that opportunity. I can see a
very orderly pattern worked out to ef-
fectuate the mandate of the Supreme
Court and conform to the desire of all
of us to see that it is worked out in such
a way as to be not unduly disruptive of
our social order and State governments,
to give the people the opportunity, if
they wish, within a very proximate time
to enact a State constitution which will
apportion one house on a basis other
than population. They might express
themselves by turning down the proposal
and proclaiming that they want an ap-
portionment of both of the houses on the
basis of population, which is their
privilege.
? I do not see why we cannot effect all
those purposes by requesting the Su-
preme Court?as a coordinate branch
of the Government along with our-
selves?to stay its hand. The Supreme
Court is acquainted with our plans. We
should ask the Court to stay its hand
until we act with prompt and deliberate
speed. I use the phrase which the Court
itself used in the civil rights case of
Brown versus Board of Education. We
would thus avoid the need for placing
the Supreme Court in the position of
turning down an act of Congress which
purports to have a statutorily operative
effect, but which, in my judgment, if it
had such an effect, would have to be
struck down by the Court as unconstitu-
tional because it interferes with the pre-
rogatives of the judiciary.
Why should we have that confronta-
tion when it is not necessary? How often
do we see in a decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court the phrases: "We are
sympathetic with what the losing party
is claiming. But this is a problem for
Congress. We invite the attention of
Congress to this problem." How often
have we seen Congress? thereafter
legislate in that field? Why not, in a
historic moment in American history, do
the same thing with the Supreme Court?
Why should we not say to the Supreme
_Court, "This procedure is being crowded
too hard and too fast by the lower courts.
We do not expect you to declare the acts
of our State legislatures to be invalid;
nullities, or void, even if the State legis-
latures are elected on a malapportioned
basis. Therefore, we ask for time with-
in which our plan or legislative scheme
for dealing with this problem can be
worked out." -
That is the dignified, respectful way in
which to do it. It is the way in which
the Supreme Court has dealt with us.
It is the way in which, in my judgment,
we ought to deal with the Court. I be-
lieve that a confrontation between the
power of the Supreme Court and the
power of Congress is so dangerous that
it could be disruptive of the American
system.
We are operating in the atmosphere of
a presidential campaign. It is a presi-
dential campaign in which there will be
sufficient overtones of attacks upon the
Supreme Court and dissatisfaction with
Supreme Court decisions in the civil
rights field, the school prayer field, and
other fields. This will impose more than
an adequate strain upon the body politic
in the United States.
Why add another? That is the ques-
tion I ask. Why add another when we
19207
can accomplish a legitimate result by
being respectful ourselves, as we expect
the Supreme Court to be respectful of
the orders, views, and plans of Congress?
At best, we shall be home for 3 months.
Since Baker against Carr, when this
whole process was initiated, a period of
years has elapsed. Therefore, what
harm would there be in waiting to see
if the approach which the junior Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY] and I
have suggested works. We shall soon
find out if it does not work. There is
plenty of time in which to apply power,
if power is necessary. There is plenty of
time to apply power, if the request does
not work.
It is upon that ground that the junior
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MC-
CARTHY] and I believe that the amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute, which
we have proposed, represents a fair way
for Congress to work its will, and at the
same time to respect faithfully the insti-
tutions established by the Constitution,
of -coordinate power to rule our people.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, in
my opinion, the proposed amendment to
circumvent the Constitution of the
United States is ill-conceived, misbegot-
ten, misguided, and mischievous.
It is also destructive of the rights of
the American people to full and equal
representation in their State legislatures.
Until this belated effort was mounted
to bludgeon the Congress, under pressure
of adjournment deadlines, into a nulli-
fication of the Supreme Court decision
on legislative reapportionment, I had
hoped that the year 1964 would be re-
membered for two great milestones along
the road to equality.
- One, of course, is the recently enacted
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the other, the
Supreme Court's decision on legislative
apportionment.
Both of these great p.chievements bol-
ster the same basic principle that equal-
ity of citizenship, dignity, and oppor-
tunity for all Americans is fundamental
to our Nation's heritage, and that it is
guaranteed by our fundamental laws;
and that basic to everything else is the
right to vote?fully, fairly, without dilu-
tion, and at every level?from township
supervisor to President of the United
States.
It is tragic irony, therefore, that with-
in a few weeks of the triumphant pas-
sage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the
Congress should be considering its effec-
tive repeal.
And I mean just that, because if this
amendment should be enacted into law,
we would establish as the American rule
that some men are created half equal,
and that they are entitled to only half-
protection of the laws.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
19208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
It would be a discrimination, based not
upon the color of your skin; the church
where you worship, or the country from
which your ancestors came, but upon
where you now live.
Mr. President, I intend to examine in
some detail the absurd premise that
gross discrimination in one house of a
bicameral legislature, based on factors
other than people, be it pine stumps,
cows, inland lakes or what, does not real-
ly matter as long as some kind of qual-
ity is preserved in the other house of
the legislature.
We have had considerable experience
with this situation in Michigan, where a
malapportioned? State senate, isolated
and insulated from the needs, aspiration
and desires of the majority of the people,
effectively throttled all attempts at so-
cial reform and economic progress, pro-
posed by Governors elected at large and
representing the majority of the people.
I am indebted for this documentation
to one of the nationally recognized lead-
ers in the fight for equal representa-
tion?Mr. August Scholle, president of
the Michigan AFL-CIO Council.
Mr. Scholle has been waging the "one-
man, one-vote" battle for years, and his
efforts have now succeeded in Michigan,
where we now have a legislature that is
fairly representative of the people in
both the State senate and house of rep-
resentatives.
Mr. Scholle had prepared testimony in
opposition to this destructive effort now
before us which he had hoped to present
to the House Judiciary Committee. He
was unable to do so.
However, his carefully documented
testimony presents such a powerful ar-
gument against the pending amendment
that I intend to quote extensivey from it.
Before doing so, however, I wish to
refute some of the rationalizations ad-
vanced on behalf of legislative malap-
portionment, which are nothing more
than smoke screens for maintaining a
status quo situation,of minority control
in our State capitols.
The first might be described as "The
people's right to be wrong." The gist
of this proposition is that the most
wildly unfair and unjust malapi)ortion-
ment of one house of a State legislature
is perfectly all right as long as it has
been approved in a referendum election,
regardless of the constitutional rights
that are trampled upon in the process.
This is, of course, absurd. No State
or city could pass a law denying a citi-
zen elector the right to vote because of
race, color, or creed. And should such
a law be approved in a referendum vote,
it would be thrown out by the courts.
Why then should a law be upheld that
dilutes or denies a citizen an equal voice
in his State legislature on the basis of
where he lives?
I would just comment, in passing, on
the discredited "Federal -analogy" ra-
tionalization that there is a valid paral-
lel between State legislatures and the
Federal Congress.
The Supreme Court of the United
States has eloquently held to the con-
trary, explaining that the sovereign
States joined initially in the Great Com-
promise to form the Federal Union, rep-
resenting people in one House and "sov-
ereign" States in the other.
But, Mr. President, there is not now,
and never has been, such a thing as a
"sovereign" county.
Equally disreputable is the argument
that at least one house of a State legis-
lature must be unequal in order to rep-
resent diverse interests of the State in
both or to achieve a system of checks
and balances.
Any districting plan in a bicameral
legislature of different-sized houses will
automatically meet this problem?even
if both houses are based on population.
This is true because of the overlapping
districts' different personalities; different
terms of office; and the mere necessity
that Measures must successively pass two
houses to become law.
This brings me to the key fallacy of
the pending proposal that fair represen-
tation in one house of a legislature will
suffice:
Fair representation?which means ma-
jority control?in one house only will not
pass a bill.
An entrenched minority in the other
house can kill it?and often does?as I
will Soon demonstrate.
Equally important, that second, mi-
nority-controlled house is likely to have
exclusive life-and-death power over gu-
bernatorial appointnients. And when it
also is granted the power of legislative
review over State agency actions, the
stranglehold is complete.
I know too well, from the experience of
my own State, of what I speak.
Michigan, in its 1908 constitution had
relatively fair provisions for legislative
apportionment and for reapportionment
every 10 years. The basic problem was
that these provisions were judicially un-
enforceable.
As the metropolitan areas of Michigan
grew tremendously after World War I,
the State changed from agrarian to in-
dustrial in nature.
But the legislators charged with the
duty of decennial reapportionment sim-
ply refused to act for fear of voting
themselves out of office.
Our senate was last reapportioned un-
der the 1908 constitution in 1925, sup-
posedly under the 1920 census, but only
roughly at that. The reapportionment
constitutionally required in 1930, 1940,
and 1950 were flagrantly denied by a
Republican-minority-controlled legisla-
ture fearful of Democratic urban
strength.
A petition drive in 1952 for correction
failed?through a campaign of abuse,
vilification, and misrepresentation that
demonstrates how useless is protection
of referendum assumed to exist in the
amendment we arediscussing.
A counterproposal freezing the 1920
districts carried, and even its proponents
a dozen years later conceded the tragic
errors involved. For, in the ensuing dec-
ade one house, the Michigan Senate, con-
trolled by a destructive minority block,
elected by a minority of the people, frus-
August 17
trated legislation proposed by a popular
governor, elected at large for six consecu-
tive terms, more times than ever before
in the country's history.
But because of Senate malapportion-
ment, he could not translate the popular
will into law.
And a minority-controlled State senate
served for years as a graveyard for pro-
gressive legislation, frustrating the popu-
lar will, unresponsive to the needs of the
State, and unaccountable for their ac-
tions to the majority of citizens in the
State.
In his statement, Mr. Scholle noted
that he has helped sponsor two petition
drives for legislative reapportionment in
Michigan. He also was plaintiff in a
court suit that went to the U.S. Supreme
Court and resulted in a modern, fair, and
equitable legislative reapportionment
this year in Michigan.
He said:
Reapportionment and equality of citizen-
ship are inseparable. What we are actually
discussing when we pose this problem is the
age-old struggle of men to achieve equality
and thereby freedom and dignity. This
struggle is without beginning and seemingly
without end.
Throughout our country, and throughout
the world today men are struggling for free-
dom; freedom of opportunity and freedom
of choice, both of which are unattainable un-
less there is equality of citizenship. Citizens
are unequal where equality is most essen-
tial?at the ballot box.
What happens when an unresponsive,
uncaring, and unreachable minority con-
trols one house of a State legislature?
I think the Michigan experience might
be illuminating here, not only-in terms of
denying needed legislation, but also in
the redistribution of tax moneys collected
for all State governmental functions.
A study in Michigan of tax collections
and redistributions in a carefully se-
lected representative group of 26 Michi-
gan counties for the fiscal year of 1960-61
showed that in the small senatorial dis-
tricts that had the least number of peo-
ple, we had a per capita collection in
one district of $90.33 while the State
redistributed in that area $98.63.
In another much overrepresented dis-
trict the per capita collection of tax dol-
lars was $89.59 and the redistribution
was $107.06 per capita.
Contrast this with the districts which
were very much underrepresented with
a much larger population.
For example, in one district, the State
collected $99.17 per capita and the leg-
islature redistributed only $72.56.
In Wayne County, the most popu-
lous area in the State, and one of the
most underrepresented in the State sen-
ate, per capita collections were $108.61
and the redistribution was only $66.45.
For further information on collection
and redistribution based on Michigan
Senate and House districts, I am attach-
ing exhibit "A," prepared by Mr. Scholle,
and ask unanimous consent that it be
Inserted at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
196.4
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Senatorial districts within 25 counties
[Figures based on 76 percent of revenue from counties and all direct payments to local units of government from State]
State collections, $799,147,880.98; State distributions, 8565,753,745.46
19209
?
1960
popula-
tion
Collections
from county
Per
capita
collec-
tions
Distributions
to counties
?
Per
capita
distri-
butions
1960
popula-
tion
,
Collections
from county
Per
capita
collec-
tions
Distributions
to counties
Per
capiti-
distri-
butions
2d senatorial district:
Ontonagon
Baraga
Houghton r
Keweenaw
Total
6th senatorial district:
Mason
Newaygo
Oceana
Lake
Manistee
Total
3d senatorial district:
Muskegon
Ottawa
Total
10, 584
7, 151
35, 654
2,417
$945, 273. 80
638, 031. 32
3, 307, 030. 47
241, 131. 70
$99.31 '
89.22
92. 75
99. 76
$1, 052, 505. 73
863, 604. 72
3, 350, 958. 73
335, 774.72
$99. 44
120. 76
93.98
138.92
12th senatorial district:
Oakland
13th senatorial district:
Genesee
33rd senatorial district:
Washtenaw
16th and 17th senatorial
districts:
Kent
Per Senator
Wayne County sena-
tonal districts (1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 18, and 21):
Wayne
Per senator
lltb senatorial district:
Macomb
15th senatorial district:
Clinton
Eaton
Shiawassee
Total
690,583
374, 313
172, 440
363, 187
,
-
2, 666, 739
405, 804
$68, 486, 736.31
36, 268, 457. 39
16, 177, 392. 79
39, 153, 019. 54
19,576, 509. 77
289, 648, 288.00
41, 378, 326. 85
31, 390, 352. 23
$99. 17
96.89
93.81
107.80
108. 61
77.35
$50, 109, 430. 00
26, 068, 756. 00
9, 867,969. 00
23, 440, 838.92
11, 720, 269. 46
177, 226, 542. 00
25, 318, 077. 42
25, 387, 365. 00
$72. 56
69. 64
57.22
64. 54
I
66. 45
62. 66
55, 806
5, 131, 467. 29
90.33
5, 602, 843. 90
98.63
21, 929
24,160
16,547
5,338
19,042
2, 088, 368. 36
2, 009, 466. 24
1, 362, 976. 56
453, 198. 42
1, 792, 519. 32
95. 23
83.17
82.37
84.90
94. 13
2, 786, 549. 39
2, 434, 909. 06
1, 599, N5. 06
807, 324. 06
1, 687, 899. 39
127.07
160.78
96. 65
151. 24
88. 64
87,016
7, 796, 508. 90
89. 69
9, 315, 966. 96
107.06
149, 943
98,719
14, 148, 703.19
8,849, 436.72
94.36
89.84
11, 712, 156. 95
4, 071, 883. 39
78. 11
41.42
37, 969
49, 684
53,446
2, 556, 816. 75
3, 613, 503. 61
4, 503, 576. 36
67.33
72. 72
84.26
2, 873, 035. 00
4,252, 668.39
4, 362, 903. 39
74.33
85. 59
81.63
248,662
22, 998, 139. 91
92.48
15, 784, 040. 34
, 63.47
141,099
10, 673, 896. 72
75.64
11,438, 606. 78
81.06
Representative districts within 25 counties
[Figures based on 76 percent of revenue from counties and all direct payments to local units of government from State]
State collections, $799,147,880.98; State distributions, 8565,753,746.45
1960
popula-
tion
Collections
from county
Per
capita
collec-
tions
-
Distributions
to counties
Per
capita
distri-
buttons
1960
popula-
tion
Collections
from county
Per
capita
collec-
tions
Distributions
to counties
1
Per
capita
distri-
butionE
ron district:
Alger
Baraga
Iron
Schoolcraft
Total
Ioughton district:
Houghton
Keweenaw
Total
gewaygo district:
Newaygo
Oceana
Total _
3enesee County, 1st
. and 2d districts (4
Representatives):
Genesee
Per Representative_
rent County, let, 2d,
and 3d districts (5
Representatives):
Kent
Per Representative.._
3hiawassee District:
Livingston
Shiawassee
'Total
-
9,250
7,111
17, 184
8, 953
$790, 757.46
638, 031. 32
1, 724, 273. 55
1, 036, 956. 14
$M. 48
80.22
506.34
105.24
-
$1,008, 120.39
863, 604. 72
1,661, 850,39
936, 497.39
8108.98
120.76-(3
96. 70
104.60
Macomb County, 1st,
2d, and 3d districts
Representatives):
Macomb '
Per Representative_
Monroe County:
Monroe
Muskegon County, 1st,
and 28 districts (2
Representatives):
Muskegon
Per Representative..
Oakland County, 1st,
28, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th
districts (6 Repre-
resentatives):
Oakland
Per Representative_
Ottawa County:
Ottawa
Washtenaw County, 1st
and 2d districts (2
Representatives):
Washtenaw
Per Representative_
Wayne County, dis-
- tricts 1 to 21, inclu-
sive (38 Represent-
atives):
Wayne
Per Representative_
405,804
135,268
101, 120
149, 943
74,971
690, 683
115,097
95,719
172,440
86,220
2, 666, 739
70, 177
$31, 390, 352. 33
10, 463, 450. 77
7, 819, 448. 91
14, 148, 703. 19
7, 074, 351. 59
68, 486, 736. 31
11, 414, 456. 05
8, 849, 436. 72
16, 177, 392. 79
8088, 656.39
289, 648, 288. 00
7,622, 323.86
$77.35
77.32
04.36
99. 17
89.84
03.81
108. 61
$25, 387, 365. 00
8, 462, 455. 00
6, 930, 758. 00
11, 712. 156. 95
5, 856, 078. 47
50, 109, 430. 00
8,355, 871.66
4, 071, 883. 39
9, 867, 099. CO
4, 933, 549. 60
177,226, 542.00
4, 663, 856. 36
$62.54
-
68. E4
78. li
72. 51
41.2.
57. 2:
66. 41
__. .
,
42, 538
4, 190, 018. 47
98. 50
4, 470, 072. 89
105.08
35, 654
2, 417
3, 307, 030. 47
241, 131. 70
92. 75
99.76
3, 350, 958. 73
335, 774. 72
93.98
138.92
38, 071
3, 545, 162. 17
93. 19
3, 686, 733.45
96.83
24, 160
16, 547
2, 009, 446. 24
1,362, 976. 56
83. 17
82.37
2, 434, 909. 06
1, 599, 285. 06
100. 78
96. 65
40, 707
3, 372, 422. 80
82. 84
4, 034, 194. 12
99. 10
374, 313
93, 578
363, 187
72,637
36, 268, 457.39
9, 067, 114. 34
39, 153, 019. 54
7, 830, 603. 90
96.89
107.80
26,068, 756. 00
6, 517, 189. 00
23, 440, 588.92
4, 688, 107. 78
69. 94
64.54
38, 233
63,446
3, 163, 212. 08
- 4, 503, 575.36
82.73
84.26
2, 823, 602. 00
4,362, 903.39
73. 85
81.53
91,679
7, 666, 788.44
83.62
7, 186, 505.39
78.38
1
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, of-
ten, the representatives from these dis-
tricts who give preferential treatment in
appropriating moneys td spend in their
own counties are the ones, with few ex-
ceptions, who are outraged at any pro-
posal to adopt social legislation for the
well-being of the residents of the popu-
lous counties which are the greatest
sources of income for the State.
Let me give some specific examples:
In 1958, the Michigan State Senate
voted on an amendment which would
have provided for free polio shots for
needy children. The 19 Republican
No, 161-6
members, representing 2,848,423 people,
voted against the measure, and the 12
Democrats, representing 3,193,417 people,
voted for it. The proposal lost, even
though it was favored by representatives
of the majority of the people, who felt
that this legislation was beneficial to
the State and its people.
In 1953, the Michigan Senate voted
on a $3 increase in unemployment in-
surance. The vote was 14 votes for and
14 votes against and the bill was killed.
However, ,14 senators .voting for the $3
increase represented 3,542,407 people,
while the votes cast against the bill rep-
resented only 2,421,631. In other words,
1,120,776 more people were represented
by the 14 senators voting for the amend-
ment.
This increase was denied even though
Michigan had one of the lowest average
rates of unemployment compensation in
the country. We still have this dubious
distinction a s a result of the continued
minority control of our State legislature.
An amendment to the Workmen's
Compensation Act to improve and clarify
the language of the act and to aid the
unfortunate victims of industrial acci-
dents was voted down by 18 senators rep-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66600403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
19210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE
resenting 2,859,918 people while the 14
senators who voted for it represented
3,510,849 people.
In 1955, a budget of $50,000 for prep-
aration of the St. Lawrence Seaway was
Proposed by the Governor. This was cut
to $500. Nevertheless, when an amend-
ment *as introduced to reinstate the
original $50,000, it was killed by a vote
of 19 senators representing 2,674,214 peo-
ple, while the 12 senators who voted for
it represented 3,266,215. In other words,
592,000 more people were represented by
the 12 senators voting for it than the 19
senators voting against it. Yet it lost.
In 1957, when mental health facilities
In the State of Michigan were sorely
needed, particularly in the populous
areas which provide the bulk of tax
moneys collected by the State, leigslation
was introduced to add 220 beds at Plym-
outh State Home and Training School in
the Detroit Metropolitan area. Despite
the obvious need for these beds, the pro-
posal was killed by a vote of 20 senators
representing 2,770,198 people while the
11 senators who voted for it, represented
3,132,404 people.
During the 1959-60 session of the legis-
lature, a bill was introduced which would
have enabled development credit cor-
porations to secure the benefits provided
by the Federal Small Business Invest-
ment Act of 1956, helping small business
in Michigan.
This bill was defeated in the senate by
17-15. There were 3,558,821 people rep-
resented by the 15 senators voting for
this bill which would have helped small
business in Michigan, while the 17 sen-
ators voting against this measure rep-
resented only 2,554,206.
Again ib the 1959-60 session of the
Michigan Legislature a bill was intro-
duced to exempt food and medicine from
the 4-percent sales tax with the objective
of relieving retirees and perions with
fixed incomes from this grossly unfair
burden of taxes. This proposal was
killed in the State senate by a vote of
20 to 14. The senators voting against
represented 3,279,700 people, while the
14 senators who voted for this relief for
retirees and fixed-income groups repre-
sented 4,957,298.
In other words, 1,677,598 more people
were represented by the 14 senators vot-
ing for this measure than the 20 senators
voting against. But it was defeated.
Perhaps the most outrageous example
of "tyranny by the minority" occurred
in the apportionment of Michigan's legis-
lative districts in the early 1950's.
The Michigan constitution?at that
time?provided that representative dis-
tricts be drawn with an equal number
of inhabitants and consisting of "con-
venient and contiguous territory."
The dictionary definition of "con-
tiguous" is: 1. bordering upon; to touch
upon, and in physical contact touching;
2. Near, adjoining."
But the minority-controlled Michigan
legislature, in a burst of gerrymandering
zeal unmatched before or since, ignored
this constitutional directive to create the
four-county Iran Legislative District in
the Upper Peninsula which is contiguous
only by water, off the coast of Lake
Superior.
That is right: Two of the counties?
Baraga and Iron?are 721/2 miles dis-
tant from Alger and Schoolcraft, the
other two counties of the Iron District.
Interposed between them are Marquette
and Delta Counties which comprise an-
other district.
The only way to get from one part of
this "contiguous" district to another,
without crossing another district is to
go by boat. -
The legislators who created this malap-
portioned monstrosity thought it was
very funny. They turned it into a cloak-
room joke, asserting that the four coun-
ties of the Iron District "are contiguous
by the waters of Lake Superior."
As might ,be expected, this same minor-
ity-controlled legislature followed a simi-
lar gerrymandering pattern in drawing
congressional district lines. The result
was that this legislature created?in
Michigan?the smallest congressional
district in the Nation, containing only
178,251 people under the 1950 census.
The largest congressional district in
the State?in the Detroit metropolitan
area?contained more than 500,000 peo-
ple, almost three times as many people
as the smallest in the Nation.
Another evil effect of a minority-con-
trolled legislative house is that it is
likely to have exclusive life and death
power over 'appointments by the Gov-
ernor.
The Michigan constitution provides
clearly for the appointive power of the
Governor, with the advice and consent of
the Senate.
But during the 12 years that G. Men-
nen Williams served as Governor of
Michigan, being elected and reelected
with substantial majorities, the minor-
ity-controlled State senate arrogantly
usurped his appointive power, by reject-
ing or refusing to confirm many of his
key appointees.
This is clearly demonstrated by the
fact that senatorial refusal to confirm
appointees of the Governor wasyery rare
from 1901 to 1948. A total of only nine
appointees were rejected. But in the 12-
year period of 1949-60, the senate re-
jected 24 appointees of Governor Wil-
liams.
For example, one member of the ap-
peals board of the Michigan Employment
Security Commission, who was appointed
In 1946 for a 6-year term, remained in
office until 1960, or 8 years after Gov-
ernor Williams had attempted to replace
him. The senate achieved this by sim-
ply refusing to confirm the appointment
of those named by the Governor to re-
place him.
This was clearly a senatorial usurpa-
tion of the Executive power of appoint-
ment. It is but one example of many
such instances. Since the Senators
themselves did not accuse the appointees
of lacking qualifications, the conclusion
is inescapable that they were motivated
by political considerations?at the ex-
pense of good government.
As a matter of fact, on many occa-
sions, it was blatantly admitted that in
a majority of the eases the appointments
were denied for partisan political ad-
vantage.
In 1963, Michigan adopted a new Con-
August 17
stitution. It included apportionment
provisions unique in the Nation's history.
One house, said to be based on popula-
tion, approached, but did not achieve,
that description. The other, the Sen-
ate, did not, but admittedly was not in-
tended to, for it literally represented area
under a so-called 80-20 formula which,
in application, meant that 19 acres liter-
ally had the voting strength of a human
being, and the votes of some citizens
were potentially worth up to times those
of others.
These 1963 provisions, like the adopted
1952 Michigan proposals, were fortu-
nately thrown out by the U.S. Supreme
Court, as a violation of our citizens'
rights.
But their application under a formula,
which could have been applied with only
slight modification to deny democracy
to every State in the Union, illustrates
the fallacy of thinking that good govern-
ment can be achieved when only one
house is responsive to majority will.
Our Michigan experience repudiates
also the outrageous argument that any
abuse of constitutional rights can be
permitted if enough people vote for it.
Majority rule means constitutional ma-
jority rule, and our right to free speech, -
free press, free religion, and the free
ballot box does not depend on majority
approval or sufferance of our fellow citi-
zens, as the Supreme Court has just re-
affirmed.
Our 1963 apportionment provisions
were adopted not alone, but as one sec-
tion among hundreds in a totally new
State constitution. The campaign to
adopt that constitution, led by our pres-
ent Governor, was pitched out-State on
the theme that the apportionment pro-
visions would restrict Detroit area influ-
ence, and, in Detroit, on the approach
that citizens should vote for a generally
good constitution despite the apportion-
ment provisions, whose validity "would
after all be a question for the courts."
Wholesale misrepresentation abounded.
When the constitution finally, carried by
a margin after recount, of one-half of 1
percent, the apportionment provisions
were urged by their proponents to the
courts as a great expression of the popu-
lar will and no longer a legal, but a voter-
preempted question.
If these represent the standards of
fairness the present Proposals are de-
signed to achieve, and if such proposals
should carry, our Republic is in danger.
It will further be in danger because of
another aspect of the proposed amend-
ment?the notion that we strip the courts
of power when we disagree with them.
This proposal, probably unconstitutional,
is shockingly dangerous, for it runs con-
trary to our heritage of obeying laws un-
til they are changed, and of recognizing
and respecting judicial authority. More-
over, these proposals constitute the grav-
est threat to judicial independence and
the separation of powers within recent
memory.
It was because of the courts and the
great decisions in Baker against Carr and
Reynolds against Sims that we stand in
Michigan and elsewhere on the thresh-
old of real democracy, living State gov-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
ernment, and the ability to meet the
needs of our citizens.
If we do not have faith and confidence
in abiding by the will of the majority of
the people; if we do not believe that the
majority will of the people should be re-
flected by our legislative bodies; if we do
not believe that 50-percent-plus of the
people should govern, then what percent-
age of the minority of the people do we
determine should govern the majority?
Should 49 percent govern the 51 per-
cent, or as has prevailed in Michigan,
should 29.4 percent of the population be
able to govern through control of one
house, the other 70.6 percent of the peo-
ple?
Or should we Sovietize the State legis-
lative bodies and have 7 percent of the
people dominate the other 93 percent, as
prevails in the Soviet Union?
Regardless of all of the fine academic,
hypothetical, theoretical arguments that
can be made, when a clear perspective is
taken of this question it boils down again
to this simple question: "What percent-
age of the minority of the people should
control the majority?"
Is the tyrannny of majority rule over
the minority ever likely to be more ob-
noxious than the tyranny of a minority
over the majority? If minority control
over people is to be approved, then a
grave and serious question can be raised
as to the morality of our spending billions
of dollars a year of the people's money
to defend ourselves from foreign
ideologies.
There is absolutely no separation of
the question of combating dictatorships,
whether nazism, fascism, or commu-
nism, and 'of combating any other
ideology wherein a minority of the
people can govern the majority.
Some of our most difficult interna-
tional problems could be solved if the
people who lived under the iron heel of
dictatorship were to be given equality at
the ballot box and the majority of the
people were permitted to cast a ballot to
determine the form of government they
wanted to live under.
Certainly we all know that the Berlin
wall would be torn down by the East
Germans within a week if the East Ger-
man people were permitted to vote and
the wishes of the majority of the East
German people were abided by.
I have ? always firmly believed that if
the various States ever achieved truly
representative government that the
many frictions which prevail today in
areas such as civil rights, the arguments
about States rights against the propa-
ganda of concentration of power in
Washington would, to a major extent, be
resolved.
If the legislature actually reflects the
sentiment of the majority of the people,
the legislatures of each State would be
concerning themselves with cooperating
and working in harmony with the Fed-
eral Government to meet the problems of
the pockets of poverty, illhousing, old-
age security, mental health, and the
many other social problems which we
face as a nation today.
If we approve the pending proposal and
the proposed constitutional amendment
for which it is supposed to buy time, we
shall have to go back to the people and
tell them that we do not believe in equal-
ity of citizenship at the ballot box.
We will be in the position of advocat-
ing to our constituents that they sacrifice
their most cherished basic symbol of
freedom?equality.
If we are going to be honest, we will,
have to say to the people, "We don't be-
lieve that a majority of the people should
govern, but that a minority should gov-
ern." We will be advocating an oli-
garchy, or some type of despotism, or
some other tyrannical form of govern-
ment to substitute for majority rule. We
will resume the dreary argument over
just what percentage 'of the minority of
the people should govern the majority.
We will make a mockery of the words
in Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address,
"that government of the people, by the
people, and for the people shall not per-
ish from the earth?'
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call may be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAFtTHY. Mr. President, I
commend the Senator from MiChigan
[Mr. McNAmmuil for his excellent pres-
entation of the case for apportionment in
his State. The examples which he cites
could be found in many other States in
the Union. If we need any practical
demonstration of the justification for the
court's action, that justification was con-
tained in the statement which the Sen-
ator from Michigan has just completed.
Along with his statement, of course,
was the theoretical case made for the
Supreme Court's action by the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] in the pres-
entation which he made to this body's
few days ago, in which he inquired into
the constitutional aspects of the case,
and the constitutional aspect of the ap-
plication of the Court's decision.
Today the Senator from New York
[Mr. JAvrrs] and I submitted an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute for the
Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, which is
under consideration by the Senate.
It is my opinion that the Court has
ruled quite properly in this case that the
principle of one vote for each person is
fundamental to American democracy.
The principle that the majority shall
rule is fundamental to American democ-
racy.
This was clearly expressed by the men
who drafted the Constitution of the
United States. One of them, James
Madison, said that once the will of the
people has been determined, even though
the majority was by a single vote, that
decision should be held'as sacred as if it
were unanimous.
, The RECORD clearly shows that under
existing practices in many States, it is
impossible to determine what the will of
the majority is.
The original Dirksen proposal to the
Senate was, I believe, without question,
19211
clearly unconstitutional, because it would
have had the Congress overriding Su-
preme Court decisions?decisions which
were ,,not related to the statutes which
had been enacted hy the Congress, but
decisions based upon their interpretation
of the Constitution. Certainly, the
Senate and the other body do not have
any right or any power to override or
overrule constitutionally based deCisions
of the Supreme Court.
The Mansfield-Dirksen substitute is
somewhat less brazen and somewhat less
open in its challenge to the Court, but
in my opinion, if in the Mansfield-Dirk-
sen substitute we move to the point where
the legislative branch establishes real
power or control over the Court's deci-
sions, at that very point we shall move
into the area of the unconstitutional.
If we stay short of that, we remain in
the area of making a recommendation
and a suggestion to the Supreme Court
and the inferior courts as to how they
should proceed in this case.
In my judgment there is no "between"
ground in this case, unless we were to
proceed to amend the Constitution; but
short of that, there is no intermediate
area between that which is unconstitu-
tional and that which is a mere recom-
mendation on the part of the Congress
to the courts in their dealings with the
execution of the decision which has been
made with regard to reapportionment.
It is my opinion, therefore, that the
best approach?an honest and open ap-
proach?is that which is proposed in the
amendment which the Senator from New
York and -I have offered. It would ex-
press the sense of Congress with regard
to proceeding under the Supreme Court
decision on reapportionment.
I sincerely hope that Senators will
give thought to the distinctions which
the Senator from New York made in his
remarks earlier today and to the points
which I am now making.
I should like to emphasize the point
that S&nators who were most concerned
about the effectiveness of State govern-
ment and the integrity of States, and
who spoke so often of keeping govern-
ment as close to the people as possible?
those who are prone to quote Abraham
Lincoln that government should do for
the people only what the people cannot
do as well for themselves or what they
cannot do at all?have in this case an
opportunity to eliminate an obstacle to
effective State government. This obsta-
cle has prevented the people from doing
for themselves what they saw they could
do just as well as the Federal Govern-
ment, but which they have been kept
from doing because they do not have
equal representation in the lower and
upper bodies of State legislatures.
So, let us eliminate that obstacle?an
obstacle in the way of the people in the
States, an obstacle which keeps them
from doing for themselves what they
could do, and whatthey would do if they
had reapportionment and proper rep-
resentation in their State legislature.
To protect the integrity and effective-
ness of State governments, to protect the
integrity of the Constitution of the
United States, to protect the integrity of
the Supreme Court, and, along with
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6
19212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
that, the integrity of the U.S. Senate,
the proposal that the Senator from New
York [Mr. JAvirs] and I have offered
should be adopted in this body.
JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I am pleased to have
been able to join with the Senator from
Minnesota in this effort. There are two
approaches to this situation. The first
approach is one which, in my judgment,
was struck down in 1871 in the case of
United States against Klein. It is the
approach of the Mansfield-Dirksen
amendment?as the Senator calls it?
undiluted?that is, without the addition
of the clause "highly unusual circum-
stances"?which perhaps gives the
Court an escape mechanism. The other
approach is the more condign approach,
of depriving the appellate court of juris-
diction entirely, which was the course
Pursued in the McCardle case, a very old
case which predated the Klein case.
There is grave doubt in my mind that
the Supreme Court would follow the
McCardle precedent with respect to
Pending cases in the Federal courts, even
though those pending cases were in the
lower courts.
There may be some States?but very
few of the 50 States?the apportion-
ment of which has not now been called
into question in the Federal courts.
Therefore, if the McCardle doctrine,
which has been questioned in later cases,
were not to stand up, we would again be
running the risk of a direct confronta-
tion between the judiciary and Congress
in an area in which it is not necessary
to have a confrontation. It is my con-
viction that in the cases which are al-
ready pending before the Federal courts,
if the Supreme Court would have to re-
gard the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment
as more than merely precatory, they
would therefore strike it down. The
amendment which the Senator from
Minnesota and I recommend would best
square with existing law, the likelihood
of a new decision on this legislation by
the Supreme Court, and the substantive
result which we have a right to expect
from the Court, of crowding the whole
situation quite so hard in terms of im-
plementation of the law which the Court
has laid down.
Mr. McCARTHY. I believe that this
is the best course of action for Congress
to take insofar as it would have any
bearing on decisions and rulings which
have been made with respect to cases
in the process of being appealed, and
certainly with reference to any recent
decisions that might be made with ref-
erence-to other States. It is my opinion
that this is as far as Congress should go
in attempting to give direction or to in-
fluence the judicial process in this
proceeding.
Mr. JAVITS. - I thank the Senator
for his intercession. The idea of a
"sense" resolution was very much the
idea of the Senator from Minnesota. I
was honored when the Senator felt that
I should take the laboring oar in it. I
know that it will be regarded as our joint
endeavor. I hope it might have some
helpful result in resolving the question
before Congress. I know the Senator
joins me in the realization that it is a
real problem that has to be coped with.
No matter what should happen to the
legislation here, it would be most unfor-
tunate if the Supreme Cdurt allowed the
situation to be dealt with quite as hard
as some lower courts seem to think it
must be.
Mr. McCARTHY. I agree with the
views of the Senator from New York, and
I am pleased to work with him on this
particular bill. I know that the Senator
shares with me the conviction that the
processes of democracy are not self-oper-
ating and that we need to pay continu-
ous attention to the procedures and re-
lationships which exist in our Govern-
ment among the three branches.
The Senator from New York has joined
me in the past?perhaps not in the same
kind of joint effort?in trying to protect
the integrity of the legislative branch as
against the executive branch, and also
the integrity of the executive branch as
against a challenge from the judicial or
legislative branch of the Government.
This becomes increasingly more impor-
tant as we move into many areas in which
it is more difficult to draw a line between
executive and legislative authority, as in
the case of earlier proceedings under the
civil rights issue when Congress failed to
take action which it should have. In this
instance we placed a great burden on the
executive branch of the Government.
We placed a great burden upon the judi-
cial branch of the Government and
asked them to carry out legislative func-
tions, or almost legislative functions, be-
cause Congress had failed to act.
The Senator from New York was one of
those who pressed hard for the enact-
ment of the civil rights bill to assist the
executive branch of the Government in
meeting its responsibility in this area,
and also to make it easier for the court
to carry out its responsibility regarding
this problem.
I am glad to join the Senator in draw-
ing the line, under the limited right that
Congress has, to give direction on this
basis.
Mr. JAVITS. If one wants to be re-
spected, he must give respect. That is
why I appreciate the approach which we
have both adopted.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
[No. 548 Leg.]
Aiken Curtis Inouye
Allott Dirksen Jackson
Anderson Dodd Javits
Bartlett Dominick Johnston
Bayh Douglas Jordan, N.C.
Beall Eastland Jordan, Idaho
Bennett Edmondson Keating
Bible Ellender Kuchel
Boggs Ervin Lausche
Brewster Fong Long, Mo.
Burdick Fulbright , Long, La.
Byrd, Va. Goldwater Magnuson
Byrd, W. Va. Gore Mansfield
Carlson Gruening McCarthy
Case 1 Hart McClellan
Church Hartke McGovern
Clark Hayden McIntyre
Cooper Holland McNamara
Cotton Hruska Mechem
August 17
Metcalf Prouty Sparkman
Miller Proxmire Stennis
Idonroney Randolph Symington
Morton Ribicoff Talmadge
Morse Robertson Thurmond
Mundt Russell Tower
Muskie Winger Walters
Nelson Saltonstall Williams, N.J.
Neuberger Scott Williams, Del.
Pastore Simpson Young, N Dak.
Pearson Smathers Young, Ohio
Pell Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. ?A quo-
rum is present. ,
APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT
PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAL-
INGER in the chair) . The Chair, on be-
half of the President pro tempore, an-
nounces the following appointments:
To attend the third United Nations
Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic
Energy at Geneva, August 31 through
September 9, 1964: -Senators PASTORE,
ANDERSON, HiCKENLOOPER, and AIKEN,
with Senators CHURCH, MCINTYRE, JOR-
DAN of Idaho, and CASE as alternatives.
To attend the British Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference at Jamaica,
November 15 through 22, 1964: Senators
PULBRIGHT, NELSON, BOGGS, and IVIii.LEa.
The Chair, also on behalf of the Pres-
ident pro tempore, announces the follow-
ing appointments to the Committee on
Arrangements for the Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address: Senators
DOUGLAS, HARTKE, DIRKSEN, and COOPER.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had agreed to the report of the commit-
tee of conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendments
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11134)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ments of State, Justice, and Commerce,
the judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and
for other purposes; and that the House
receded from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 7
to the bill, and concurred therein.
DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE,
AND COMMERCE, THE JUDICIARY,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-
PRIATION BILL, 1965?CONFER-
ENCE REPORT
Mr. MeCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 11134) making
appropriations for the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, the judi-
ciary, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1965, and for other
Purposes. I ask unanimous consent for
the present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
Port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of Aug. 15, 1964, p. 19167, CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080033-6