AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: September 23, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ful charges of 1810, or even 1910. To wit, the
blanket of "total" communication which has
spread over the countryside since the early
days of radio.
One slur, a moment of petulant anger, a
sentence growled in scorn, is seen and heard
on each household TV, belched out from
every car radio, ,so immense is our network
of instant, total,, complete communication.
These bon mots?hustled into the morning
news?saturate the body politic to a degree
unprecedented in grandmother's time.
Another new factor has emerged, more
successful, more effective than Machiavelli
ever dreamed. It does not involve the use
of hate as name calling between liperal Dem-
ocrat, and opponent. Instead, as we have
seen, Republicans have been accused of
hating.
Republicans have been accused of deliber-
ate and unscrupulous attempts 'to smear.
Republicans have been attacked as appeal-
ing to the base instincts of the electorate.
Republicans have been called "haters."
Republicans, say the Democrats, sow fear.
The chieftain of Democrat publicity, the
man credited by many as having been re-
sponsible for the election, and reelection, of
Mr. Roosevelt, neatly capsuled this Demo-
crat approach to political ethics. The quote
deserves repeating:
"Nobody has ever been able to formulate
a political code of ethics. Despite the fine,
altruistic language of party platforms, the
habit has always been to smite the opposi-
tion, regardless of Marquis of Queensbury
rules, whenever and however the opportu-
nity offers." ?2
Our problem, the Republican problem, is
that we didn't know that if you spewed hate
but said on -the side you didn't really mean
it?it's all part of the game?you could get
away with it, and' win the White House, and
the Senate, and the House of Representa-
tives to boot.
On March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court
ruled that wide latitude in the press' criti-
cism of public officials is constitutional.
Said Justice Brennan:
"Thus we consider this case against the
background of a profound national commit-
ment to the principle that debate on public
issues should be uninhibited, robust, and
wide open, and that it may well include
vehement, caustic, and .sometimes unpleas-
antly sharp attacks on government and pub-
lic officials." "
Falseness of the charges no longer counts.
Malice must now be proved, an exceeding
difficult proposition in any libel suit. A
difficult question is thus posed. By what
means can the spread of hate, now free to
echo from 10,000 newspapers, be checked?
We, as Republicans, can offer no simple
solution. The gulf between Press Agent
Michelson's "smite the opposition" and
President Johnson's occasional requests for
an avoidance of "venom" appears too great
to bridge.
But the record of these past 30-years is
unavoidably consistent in its documentation
of hate and hatemongering by Democrats,
for Democrats, even among Democrats. Lest
the GOP unconsciously accept the current
inference that only among Republicans does
the venom flow, this record is offrjed. F
30 years Republicans have been calle
name in the book. For 30ae s epu cans
have been walloped, smitten ?? ? er the
head with the vilest of ? th.
Again, exactly who is ing ye. om"?
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend fur-
9Michelson, "The Ghost Talks," p. 204.
" The New York Times, Mar. _0, 1964, p. 22.
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, what
is the present parliamentary status?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the Dirksen-
Mansfield amendment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. 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. 579 Leg.]
Aiken Johnston Pastore
Anderson Jordan, N.C. Pell
Bartlett Jordan, Idaho Prouty
Bible Lausche Proxmire
Boggs Long, Mo. Robertson
Brewster Long, La. Russell
Case McClellan Smith
Dirksen McGee ,Symington
Douglas McGovern Talmadge
Ervin McIntyre Walters
Pulbright McNamara Williams, Del.
Gore Metcalf Yarborough
Hart Monroney Young, N. Dak.
Hayden Mundt Young, Ohio
Inouye Nelson
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON],
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crrartcri],
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Doan], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
ELLENDER], the Senator from Alaska [Mr.
Grarmsrmc], the Senator from Florida
[Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE], and the Senator from Ore-.
gon [Mrs. NEUBERGER] are absent on offi-
cial business.
I further announce that the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. HILL] and the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]
are absent because of illness.
I also announce that the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. Ham], the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. BuRracx], the Sena-
tor from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE],
the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Hum-
prIREY] , the Senator from Washington
[Mr. JACKSON] , the Senator from Wash-
ington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the
Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Sen-
ator from Maine [Mr.-MusarE], the Sen-
ator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH],
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Rim-
coFrA , the Senator from California [Mr.
SALINGER], the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATHERS], the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. SPARKMAN], and the Senator from
New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on
official business.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL],
the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] ,
the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOP-
ER], the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
GoLawarER], the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
HICKENLOOPER], the Senators from New
York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING] ,
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
MEcnEm] , the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
MILLER] , the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. MORTON], the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. PEARSON] , the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SCOTT], the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] , and
the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are
necessarily absent. .
21863
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL-
soN] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Domnacx] are detained on official busi-
ness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is not present.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the Sergeant at Arms
be directed to request the presence of
the absent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to' the' motion
of the Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Sergeant at Arms will execute the order
of the Senate.
After a little delay, Mr. ALLOTT, Mr.
CLARK, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CURTIS, Mr.
EDMONDSON, Mr. FONG, Mr. HRUSK.A, Mr.
KUCHEL, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. SALTON-
STALL, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. STENNIS en-
tered the Chamber and answered to their
names.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is present.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, there
are two main aspects of the question
now before _us, namely the Dirksen
amendment to the foreign aid bill. The
first is substantive, and the second is
procedural and constitutional. On the
substantive side, there is the fact that
virtually all the State legislatures are
now malapportioned so far as popula--
tion is concerned, and that this malap-
portionment has been steadily growing
worse as the population has been mov-
ing to the cities and suburbs, while the
old rural and small town pattern of rep-
resentation of decades ago has persisted.
The' procedural and constitutional
aspects involve several features. One of
them is the extraordinary inappropri-
ateness of attaching amendment of this
type to the foreign aid bill, a point which
has nothing to do with the subject matter
of the main measure now before us.
Connected with this is the fact that
the acnendment, far reaching in its im-
portance, was submitted on the floor of
the Senate without any prior hearings in
any committee, and that the so-called
precedent in connection with the civil
rights bill does not apply, since that bill
had been considered for years in various
committees of the Senate, and in this
year sections of it had been considered in
the Judiciary Committee, in the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, and
in the Committee on Commerce.
The constitutional aspects of this
measure are very grave. It was proposed
that Congress should enact a law either
setting aside or postponing the interpre-
tations of the Constitution given by the
Supreme Court.
Mr. President, this is a highly irregu-
lar, and, in my opinion, an unconstitu-
tional proposal. The Constitution of the
United States is interpreted by the Su-
preme Court, and that is the Constitu-
tion unless and until it is superseded by a
constitutional amendment. It is im-
proper for Congress to try to overrule the
Supreme Court in matters of constitu-
tional law. That is precisely what the
Dirksen amendment would do.
Therefore, our objections to the Dirk-
sen amendment are founded on these
facts. First, long continued and accu-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 23
- 21864
mulating abuses 'in reapportionment
were for the first time being redressed
by the decisions of the Supreme Court
and the inferior Federal courts to re-
apportion in some fairly close proportion
to population; and the cities and the
suburbs were for the first time being
given hope that they could escape from
the legislative shackles 'withwhich they
were bound.
The Dirksen amendment would pre-
vent these decisions from going into ef-
fect for a period of time, and during this
time it was the avowed intention of the
senior sponsor of the amendment to pro-
pose a constitutional amendment per-
manently forbidding the Federal courts
from interfering in Such matters. This
would have been submitted to the pres-
ent malapportioned State legislatures.
Those malapportioned State legislatures,
by ratifying the constitutional amend-
ment, could then put themselves beyond
reach of a court order.
This proposal is one of the most dan-
gerous ever submitted to a legislative
body. I am proud that some of us who
are proud to call ourselves liberals have
been trying to prevent the Senate from
falling into this folly. I personally have
tried to address myself to the first of the
major issues; namely, to the malappor-
tionment of existing State legislatures,
both in the so-called lower houses and in
the upper houses. I have left to my
brethren, who are lawyers and constitu-
tionalists primarily, the discussion of the
second set of issues.
In keeping with my belief that both
? issues are important and that both sets
of evidence must be considered, I should
like to resume today my discussion of
how the large cities and the suburbs of
the large cities are now grossly under-
represented in our State legislatures, and
how the apportionment of seats in such
cities and suburbs has not kept pace with
the regional drift of the population away
from the farms and small towns to the
metropolitan centers. By that I mean
not merely to the central cities, but to
the suburbs also.
In past addresses I have discussed the
underrepresentation of the cities and
suburbs, both in average terms and also
in terms of comparison between the dis-
- tricts which are most underrepresented,
and the districts which are most over-
represented. Still more material needs
to be introduced to indicate the whole set
of injustices which should be laid bare.
In my present presentation I shall
draw primarily upon a valuable statisti-
cal study which was made in 1961, by two
professors at the University of Virginia,
Paul T. David and Ralph Eisenberg, who
published this very valuable monograph
entitled "The Devaluation of the Urban
and Suburban Vote."
Mr. David was the coauthor of a very
Important work some years ago on the
presidential primaries and the selection
of candidates for the Presidency by the
two major parties.
The significance of the approach made
by David and Eisenberg was that they
made an analysis in terms of counties.
There are about 3,100 counties in the
United States. David and Eisenberg de-
veloped punch cards for each county,
showing its population in 1910, 1920,
1930, and 1960, and its representation at
each period of time in the house of its
State and in the senate of its State.
From this information they douid com-
pute the number of persons per senator
or per representative in each of these
counties for each of these decennial pe-
riods.
This is a valuable study. It needs to be
noted and analyzed. Perhaps I should
start by saying- that as to States where
the town, rather than the county, is the
predominant unit of local government
and of representation?and this is true of
the New England States?it is not per-
fectly adequate. As we know, in New
England the town is the primary unit of
local government. It is the primary unit
of representation in the State legisla-
tures. However, as I have said, there are
fantastic disparities in the New 'England
States in the representation of small
hamlets and of large cities. Again and
again, I have called attention to the
State of Vermont, where the smallest
town, having a population of 36, send
One representative to the lower house of
the Vermon Legislature, and the largest
city, having a population of 38,000, sends
- one representative.
Similar fantastic situations exist in
Connecticut, where each town is allowed
two representatives in the lower house,
and cities like New Haven and Hartford,
having populations, as I remember, of
well over 200,000, receive only the same
'representation in the Connecticut house
as towns having populations of 100, 200,
or 300.
New Hampshire has almost a similar
disparity, not quite so glaring as Ver-
mont's, but very great.
In Rhode Island, the disparity is not so
muCh in the lower house as it is in the
State senate. Until recently each town?
I think there are 43 in Rhode Island?
had one representative in the State sen-
ate. Providence, having more than 200,-
000 people, had the same representation
as East Greenwich, with about 250.
When the county is taken as the basis,
some of the disparities between are
glossed over, because a county may con-
tain -grossly overrepresented small towns
and possibly grossly underrepresented
cities.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield with the usual reserva-
tion?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the
Senator from Montana has an important
announcement to make, but I ask that
the following facts be printed at this
point in the RECORD. '
Table I is from David and Eisenberg,
page 9, with 100 being taken as equal
representation on the basis of popula-
tion, it shows that in 1910, the small
counties of the country had on the aver-
/ age 113/81 or 1.4 times the representa-
tion per person of those in the largest
counties and that by 1960 this had risen
on the average to a ratio of 171/76 or
21/4 times the average representation per
person of those in the largest counties.
It is significant that these disparities ex-
isted in general not only in the largest
15 States but also in the smallest States
as well.
? There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TABLE 1.?Relative values of the right to vote
for representation; in State legislatures,
national averages, and averages for major
groups of States, 1910, 1930, 1950, and 1960
Categories of counties by
population size
1910
1930
1950
1960
National averages for all 50
States:
Under 25,000
113
131
141
171
25,000 to 99,999
103
109
114
123
100,000 to 499,999
91
84
83
81
500,000-and over
81
74
78
76
Averages for the 7 largest
States:
Under 25,000
116
158
165
194
26,000 to 99,999
111
134
139
155
100,000 to 499,999
99
93
99
100
500,000 and over
83
74
77
77
Averages for the 8 next larg-
est States:
Under 25,000
116
135
147
186
25,000 to 99,999
100
106
110
119
100,000 to 499,999
93
84
78
78
500,000 and over
81
78
86
79
Averages for the 35 Smallest
States:
Under 25,000
111
123
133
162
25,000 to 99,999
98.
92
101
105
100,000 to 499,999
76
70
63
58
500,000 and over
45
63
71
67
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a sec-
ond table shows the relative under-
representation of the 27 largest cities of
the country and of the suburban coun-
ties which adjoin or ring them. This
shows that in nearly every instance, the
suburbs are, more grossly underrepre-
sented even than the central cities, badly
treated as the latter are. We, whb have
been fighting therefore for fair repre-
sentation, have been contending there-
fore more for the suburbs than for the
central cities. And I for one resent the
efforts of some of our opponents to be-
cloud the issue by stirring up prejudice
against the cities and attempting to
disparage our motives. We are fighting
for justice. This would help the cities
but it would help the suburbs even more.
I ask unanimous consent that this
table be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TABLE-IL?Relative values of the right to vote
for representation in State legislatures,
central city, and suburban counties of the
27 largest standard metropolitan statistical
areas 1910, 1930, 1950, 1960 1
[From David and Eisenberg, pp. 12-13]
1960
SMSA
rank
Central city and sub-
urban counties
Relative values
1910
1930
1950
1960
New York City
(5 boroughs)
75
71
81
93
Nassau
122
54
101
59
Rockland
132
127
108
86
Suffolk
113
79
100
47
Westchester
117
88
109
95
2
Los Angeles (Los
Angeles-Long
Beach)
91
39
53
54
Orange
79
90
122
56
3
Cook (Chicago)
87
71
89
91
DuPage
94
73
74
44
Kane
)08
110
90
76
Lake
107
97
72
51
McHenry
107
97
82
66
Will
94
74
81
62
4
Philadelphia
89
88
88
98
Bucks
148
147
124
63
Chester
121
131
113
92
Footnotes at end of table.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070008-5
?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
TABLE 11.?Relative values of the right to vote
for representation in State legislatures,
central city, and suburban counties of the
27 largest standard metropolitan statistical
areas 1910, 1930, 1950, 19601?Continued
[From David and Eisenberg, pp. 12-13]
1960
SMSA
rank
Central city and sub-
urban counties
Relative values
1910
1930
1950
1960
4
Phila.?Con.
.8..080.4 0000.001.,1000 0000P.0.00000,1.00.
WOOMMN.4,,WOMN.0= 0100.W0W0'. W .00.4 WW Wm,. W.0114,P01 0 W.WW WOCOW,WW0WW=0 0000.0,0WWWW-4WCON
,
. . . . . - ,.. . . . . .... w... . .
- ,.,., . .......... ...........,..
.,. 01010iAMOW.0.....40101WM,PW COW MCOC,PWWW,1 M WWM.W0 ,MOW-,w.WW.w. W 0.0 ..WWWWW0,01.00 W0.0..MWWWWWWWWW00,1