AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080022-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: August 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080022-8
- 20250
CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD SENAPIT
The newspaper's answer: "The father is
, right and the law is on his side."
raDERAL AIRPORT AID PROGRAM
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, on
August 5 a local government agency?
the bistate Port of New York Author-
ity?declined to accept a $4,300,000 grant
of Federal aid. The circumstances
which impelled this extraordinary action,
in my judgment, should give the Senate
cause for grave concern?concern for the
protection of local government from un-
authorized interference in local govern-
ment affairs as well as for the proper
interpretation of Federal law in accord-
ance with the intent of Congress.
The facts are simple enough. The air
transportation requirements of the New
York metropolitan area are served by a
regional air terminal system of public
airports financed, developed, and op-
erated by the Port of New York Author-
ity under agreement between the States
of New York and New Jersey to which
Congress has consented. These are John
F. Kennedy International Airport and
La Guardia Airport in New York; Newark
and Teterboro in New Jersey; and two
commercial heliports in downtown Man-
hattan.
These airports provide terminal facil-
ities not only for scheduled airline opera-
tion but also to meet the general aviation
needs of private and corporate aircraft.
Teterboro, which is almost exclusively
devoted to general aviation use, is op-
erating at an annual deficit of $400,000.
The port authority is a self-supporting
agency. It does not have the power to
tax. On its own credit, the port author-
ity has raised and invested over $475
million in our region's air terminal sys-
tem. The $21 million of Federal aid
which has been granted over the past 17
years under the Federal aid airport pro-
gram amounts to less than 41/2 percent of
the local government agency's invest-
ment.
In 1962, the port authority applied to
the Administrator of the Federal aid air-
port program for a grant toward the cost
of runway extensions at La Guardia Air-
port. The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency apparently agreed with
the port authority on the critical impor-
tance of these improvements so that La
Guardia Airport could keep pace with
the Nation's air transport needs in this
age of jet flight. Federal aid funds were
allocated in due course for 1962 and
again for fiscal year 1963.
During this period another public
agency?the Tri-State Transportation.
Committee?established by the Gover-
nors of Connecticut, New Jersey, and
New York undertook an immediate ac-
tion study of the need for providing
airport facilities primarily to serve gen-
eral aviation within the tristate re-
gion. This study is going forward with
the aid of urban planning assistance
from the Federal Housing and Home
Finance. Agency. The FAA, the aero-
nautical agencies of the three States,
and the port authority are cooperating
in this general aviation requirement
study and it is expected to be completed
in about a year.
It would seem obvious that the needs
of general ?aviation in the great New
,York metropolitan area are not being
neglected by responsible local govern-
ment. It is equally obvious that the
runway extensions at La Guardia Air-
port will serve both commercial and
general aviation in the overall public
interest.
Nevertheless, since August of last
year, the FAA has refused to allocate
any funds to the La Guardia improve-
ment without a blanket commitment
from the port authority that it will fi-
nance and construct a 'ring of satellite
airports throughout the New York met-
ropolitan area for private and corporate
aircraft?for general aviation.
The port authority promptly pointed
out and patiently provided proof that
it had neither the authority nor the
financial ability to make such a com-
mitment, that the general aviation
problem was in fact receiving due con-
sideration, and that the completion of
the La Guardia improvement project
was of immediate national importance.
The Administrator replied with a de-
mand, as the price of Federal aid funds
for La Guardia Airport, that the port
authority commit itself not only to im-
plement whatever recommendations the
Tri-State Transportation Committee
might make a year from now with re-
spect to additional satellite facilities for
general aviation, but also to continue
to operate Teterboro Airport for private
and corporate aircraft forever, regard-
less of cost. The port authority simply
advised the Administrator in reply that
such an open-end commitment was im-
possible for its Commissioners, as re-
sponsible public officers, to make.
As far as I know, the FAA has not
sought to impose the same or similar
conditions upon any other airport opera-
tor in the United States. But certainly
the fact that this situation has 'arisen
only with respect to the Port of New
York Authority does not make it any less
of a national concern. At stake are fa-
cilities which serve the national interest,
and the Congress must always be assured
that its acts are being administered in
line with its intent.
The attempt by the Administrator of a
Federal agency to impose impossible de-
mands upon local government as a con-,
dition to the grant of Federal funds, in
my judgment, Mr. President, is arbi-
trary and unreasonable.
In one of his communications to the
port authority the Administrator of the
FAA has insisted that "despite major
challenge, the authority of the Adminis-
trator to prescribe conditions to grants
has been repeatedly reaffirmed." It does
not appear, therefore, that the Admin-
istrator is going to back down from ' his
position.
To the contrary, as a portent of what
is perhaps to come, I am told that last
week, in an address to the American Bar
Association convention on the subject of
supersonic planes, the Administrator
said it is up to the States and cities and
port authorities to provide general avia-
tion airports according to the needs of
aviation rather than according to the
pocketbook.
August 21
If this doctrine is going to receive
broader application, so that States and
cities around the Nation will be hounded
to provide facilities that they cannot
finanee soundly, at the risk of being
denied Federal aid funds for which they
are otherwise clearly eligible, Congress
ought-to step in and, in my judg ent,
take a closer look at the current
istration of the Federal Airport Ai ct.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN A SIS
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend fur-
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
distinguished historian, Irving Brant, in
discussing the reapportionment problem
in 1785, which was analogous to the
present one, said that one of the great
difficulties in reapportionment was, as
he called it, the rotten borough system.
Not only the Senator from Pennsylvania
tMr. CLARK], but the historian Irving
Brant argued with considerable con-
viction, that malapportionment is al-
ways sure to happen because legislatures
will not reapportion themselves.
Why has not this ridiculous situation
been corrected by the States themselves?,
The answer, of course, is no mystery.
Reapportionment means the transfer of
political power. And those who possess
political power are extremely reluctant
to transfer it from themselves.
Mr. President, I previously referred be-
fore to the Advisory Committee on Inter-
governmental Relations. This is a com-
mittee which included the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr.
Celebrezze; the Secretary of the Treas-
ury, Mr. Dillon; Governor DiSalle, Sen-
ator Ervin, Senator Mundt, Senator
Muskie, Governor Smylie, and a number
of other very distinguished Americans,
including Representative Dwyer, Gov-
ernor Hollings, of South Carolina, and
others. This commission, which secured
the services of outstanding experts, had
this to say:
The major problem facing legislators in
this matter, is that apportionment of legis-
lative seats is a function of political power?
political power in the most personal sense.
Certainly apportionment is of major con-
cern to political parties, the many interest
groups in our society, the political subdivi-
sions of the State, and the'people generally,
but to the State legislator, apportionment
often represents a challenge to the interests
of his constitutents, to his tenure in office,
and to his power to influence the policy de-
cisions of the State. In a study of the prob-
lem in Illinois it was said that:
"Redistricting legislation is of basic con-
cern to legislators because it is a kind of
job specification which can be drawn to the
special advantage or disadvantage of any
member. Redistricting can insure continu-
ity in office or can insure retirement, de-
pending on the terms of the bill. No other
legislation has quite the same direct effect
on a legislative career, and with no Other
legislation do the demands, the proposals,
the maneuvering, and the compromises
emanate within the legislative body to the
same extent."
That statement is from a study by
Gilbert Steiner and Samuel Gove made
in 1956. Steiner and Gove observed that:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080022-8
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080022-8
1964- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Redistricting proposals that dislodge a
minimum number of sitting members, ir-
respective of party, will be favored over pro-
posals that do not take into account sitting
members.
This conclusion is supported by nu-
merous other studies.
They disregarded of course, the funda-
mental principle that all people should
have an equal vote in their legislature.
The ball game should be played by giv-
ing everyone their three strikes and not
some two strikes and others five strikes.
I continue to read from this definitive
study of apportionment:
While personal factors may play a pri-
mary or the primary role in legislative ap-
portionment when the legislature itself is
called upon to act, numerous other factors
are involved. Second only to the personal
factor is the problem of the so-called
urban-rural conflict.
It is interesting that Steiner and
Gould pointed out?and they are right?
that the main problem is the personal
problem. Almost all the debate here is
centered on the so-called urban-rural
controversy, but the big problem in get-
ting legislatures to apportion is that leg-
islators themselves are affected. Their
own careers are at stake. If they are
not affected their close friends are.
Politics being what it is and legislators
being the kind of people they are?as we
are?they do their best to accommodate
their friends and to be helpful to them.
They have an immediate and urgent
problem of assisting friends versus a
general principle, and we know on the
basis of experience what happens. ?
I continue to read from the study:
In this context the ?issue is not one of
determining the basis of representation, but
of which "group" shall control the legisla-
ture of a State. The history of apportion-
ment has shown that the States considered
population to be the basic factor in the ap-
portionment of legislative seats when their
first constitutions were adopted.
I should like to repeat that statement:
The history of apportionment has shown
that the States considered population to be
the basic factor in the apportionment of
legislative seats when the first constitutions
were adopted.
That statement means not only the
Federal Constitution, adopted by the
thirteen States, but also the constitutions
of the various States.
I continue to read from the study:
Around the turn of the present century, it
became evident that significant shifts in
legislative districts would be required in most
States if population continued to be the
primary or sole basis of representation. The
possibility of shift coincided with the begin-
ning of the real growth of big cities and
urban areas. Up until that time most of the
legislatures had been apportioned in accord-
ance with constitutional mandates. For ex-
ample, the last apportionment in Illinois,
before its 1955 constitutional amendment,
occurred in 1901. In 1901 Cook County con-
tained 38.1 percent of the State's population
and the county received 37 percent of the
seats in each house of the legislature.
The distinguished senior Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has pointed out
how badly malapportioned Illinois has
been since then. What I am trying to
say is that historically apportionment
within the States has been in accordance
with their constitutions until the turn
of the century. We found that in Okla-
homa apportionment was made accord-
ing to the Oklahoma constitution until
1921. Since 1921 there has been a con-
stant denial of the citizens of Oklahoma
of the right of equal votes in their State
legislature. The State Supreme Court
of Oklahoma has said that they could
/not step in and would not step in to
assist. So American citizens residing in
Oklahoma had only one recourse, and
that was the Supreme Court of the
United States.
I continue to read from the study:
That the start of the 20th century marked
a turning point in apportionment, is attested
to by numerous studies.
Therefore, Mr. President, in order to
preserve rural domination of the legis-
lature, at the beginning of the 20th cen-
tury States began to abandon popula-
tion as a standard of representation.
Basically three methods were used in
order to maintain rural control. Since
the responsibility for reapportionment
is usually delegated by the State consti-
tion to the legislature, the majority group
in the legislature could simply do noth-
ing.
A second strategy was to secure con-
stitutional standards for apportionment
that would insure the preservation of
rural control in one or both branches of
the government. For example it might
be written into the constitution that
each county have at least one represent-
ative no matter what its population.
Yet a third method was to pass redis-
tricting bills from time to time that gave
proportionately greater representation to
rural than to urban areas and perhaps
favored a particular party. Sometimes
a combination of these techniques was
used. Jewel cites the case of Illinois as
an example of this combination-of-tech-
nique method.
No reapportionment at all took place
in Illinois from 1901 to 1955. When
it did occur, rural downstate groups were
able to exact a high price for it: A new
constitutional provision guaranteed peri-
odic reapportionment of the House on a
population basis but established a Senate
apportionment that assured a numerical
majority to the downstate area.
In view of all this evidence, how is it
possible to think that the States would
ever solve the problem at all if left to
themselves? Indeed, it may not be hu-
manly possible. The only way this prob-
lem can possibly be solved is by the ac-
tion which the Supreme Court has so
correctly taken. States will reapportion
because they are under court order to do
so, and for no other reason. Can anyone
dispute this? The reapportionment ac-
tivity which has occurred since Baker
against Carr certainly stands as testi-
mony to this fact. The Court, has now
ruled that legislatures must now be re-
apportioned, as the 14th amendment de-
mands, on a one man, one vote basis.
The situation the Court is [Atempting to
rectify has persisted long enough. Only
in highly unusual cases, as my amend-
ment specifies, should States be allowed
to delay in carrying out their constitu-
202,51
tional requirements. I, therefore,
strongly urge adoption of my amendment
and strongly oppose adoption of the Dirk-
sen amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that I may yield to the senior Senator
from New York [Mr. JAviTs] without los-
ing my right to the floor.
7,The PRESIDING OteraCER. With-
objection, it is so ordered.
MOBILIZATION FOR YOUTH
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to
acquaint the Senate with a situation
which has developed in New York City,
regarding an agency which has an im-
portant part in an effort to deal with
problems of juvenile delinquency and the
problems of those who are living in slums
and in very badly underprivileged areas.
We have been making this effort in New
York, and it has received substantial sup-
port from the Federal Government.
I am referring to the affairs of an
organization known as Mobilization for
Youth, which has been much discussed
in the New York press in recent days.
One of our local newspapers, the New
York Daily News, disclosed the basis of
a study by its reporters, that it believed
there had been infiltration by what it
called leftwingers and Communists in
?the staff of over 300 persons of this par-
ticular, voluntary agency. Incidentally,
this is not a governmental but a private
voluntary agency.
Those charges have come under very
close investigation by the FBI, the De-
partment of Justice, and by the New
York City Police Department. In New
York, Mr. Screvane, who for all practical
purposes is the deputy mayor, has been
in charge- of that particular activity on
the part of the city. The Federal in-
terest relates to the fact that in the last
22 months during which it has been op-
erating Mobilization for Youth received
58 percent of its support from Federal
agencies, 28 percent from municipal
agencies in the city of New York, and
14 percent from the Ford Foundation.
Generally speaking, those expendi-
tures have been about $5.5 million in
that time. MFY has confined its work
to the Lower East Side of New York, a
67-block area in the slum ridden Lower
East Side of New York City. I have
some modest feeling of expertise in that
regard, as that is the area in which I
was born. I have lived in New York
City all my life, and I believe I know
something about my hometown, par-
ticularly the area in which the agency
has been operating.
It has operated in three major divi-
sions of work: First, in training young
people for jobs. In that activity it has
been extraordinarily successful. In MFY
had done nothing else, I think we could
say that it was well worthy of the sup- ?
port which it has received for that
reason alone.
Second, MFY has been active in youth
activities, in youth clubs, in youth rallies,
and in youth orientation of a kind which
is traditional in the social welfare field.
Third?and this point has involved
some consideration and discussion?it
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080022-8