AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961-REAPPORTIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: September 9, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
?21098 CONGRESSIONAL RD\-- SENATE September 9
"Christian democracy believes that the
modern world is in crisis," he said, "and
that only a complete readjustment of so-
ciety can save man from materialism and
collectivism."
It was this belief in an *Urgent need to
humanize capitalism through a democratic
revolution that in 1931 led a group of stu-
dent leaders headed by Mr. Frei to drift
away from the middle-class conservative
party.
Four years later they established the Na-
tional Falange, which had only the name in
common with the Spanish organization, that
supported Generalissimo Francisco Franco
during the civil war. Throughout World
War II the Chilean Falange leaders supported
the allied cause and in domestic politics
more often found themselves in sympathy
with the leftists than with their former con-
servative friends.
SOUGHT END OF MONOPOLIES
The leadership of the Falange, which came
mainly from patrician and well-to-do fami-
lies, had as its main objective ending what
it considered the country's false democracy
where the rules favored the wealthy and the
monopolies. The leaders organized the
Christian Democratic party in 1957.
- Mr. Frei's reputation as one of the most
efficient and dedicated members of the Sen-
ate is rarely challenged even by his most
bitter political enemies, who range from
Communists to ultraconservatives.
The son of an affluent Swiss -immigrant,
Mr. Frei was sent to a public school in the
working-class suburb of Lontue, near the
fine villas of, the Chilean aristocracy. The
sight of underfed and poorly clothed class-
mates developed a keen sense of social in-
justice in the boy.
Mr. Frei has avoided the luxury he criti-
cizes among wealthy Chileans. He lives with
his wife Maria, a former teacher, and their
_ seven children in an unpretentious house in
a middle-class residential suburb of Santiago.
He holds a law degree from the Catholic
University of Chile, and has devoted much
time to the study of economiC planning. He
once held the post of Minister of Public
Works.
VISITED UNITED STATES AND EUROPE
Mr. Frei (the name is pronounced "Fray")
has traveled extensively. He made nine trips
to the United States, the last one in 1962
for a" conference at Columbia University on
underdeveloped countries. He has also at-
tended several congresses of Christian Demo-
cratic parties in Europe.
These links abroad and an intense interest
in international affairs have strongly in-
fluenced Senator Frei's views. References to
East-West relations and the role of the
smaller nations as promoters of world under-
standing marked his campaign speeches.
True to Chilean tradition of tolerance and
fairplay, Mr. Frei reiterated today his re-
spect for Senator Salvatore Allende Gossens,
his popular Action First opponent in the
election. "He is an honorable and hard-
working man as well as a first-rate parlia-
mentarian," he observed.
A relaxed host and a devoted father, Mr.
Frei takes delight in books and in long walks
in the forests surrounding Santiago.
A visiting American asked him how he felt
during the election and what it represented
to the future of the Christian Democratic
movement. He replied:
"I had an extraordinary sensation of inner
peace. I was absolutely confident. The most
important and positive factor is that our
victory comes as the party is achieving its
maturity after the experience of a hard and
prolonged struggle. It would have been dis-
astrous had success come prematurely while
we were still in a stage of development."
AMENDMENT OF '-REIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961?REAPPOR-
TIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLA-
TURES
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the
public is becoming more and more in-
formed about the dangers of the so-
called Dirksen amendment to the foreign
aid bill, which would suspend for an in-
definite period of time court orders pro-
viding for reapportionment of unrepre-
sentative State legislatures. I am
greatly pleased that some of the great
newspapers of the country and some of
the keen thinkers of the country are
taking up the challenge and are making
the issues clear.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield at that
Point?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, indeed.
Mr. RANDOLPH. When the able
Senator mentions the newspapers of the
country, I wish to have the RECORD indi-
cate that as reasoned an editorial as I
have read on the reapportionment sub-
ject, and which expresses the belief of
the Senator from Illinois as well as the
senior Senator from West Virginia, was
contained in a compelling comment in
the Charleston, W. Va., Gazette. I ap-
preciate the prior insertion into the
RECORD of that editorial by the senior
Senator from Illinois. The Charleston
Gazette is a liberal and progressive
newspaper in its editorial policy. It is
an exceedingly courageous newspaper
editorially on public questions. I am de-
lighted that both the Senator from Illi-
nois and the Senator from West Virginia,
now speaking, are in agreement on this
subject, and that is that the Dirksen
amendment should not prevail in the
Senate.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator
from West Virginia. His attitude on
this, as on so many other topics, is both
enlightened and sturdy. I am very glad
that he mentioned the Charleston, W.
Va., Gazette, because I regard it as one
of the truly fine newspapers of the
country.
Mr. President, another fine newspaper
Is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. On the
2d of September it published an able
editorial entitled "Myths of Apportion-
ment," in which the editorial writer
properly said that the Senate ought to
deal with so important an issue sep-
arately and after careful reflection, but
that it should not deal with it until there
is time for calm review and sober second
thoughts. -
On yesterday, the 8th of September,
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch followed up
that editorial with another editorial
stating that there had not been?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch stated that there had not been
reasonable consideration of the Dirksen
rider. It pointed out that there had
been no committee hearings on it. The
editorial stated that the author of the
amendment had assumed in what he
thought were the last days of the session
that the amendment could be tied onto
a foreign aid bill, which he thought the
President could not veto. "And to what
end?" inquires the St. Louis Post-Dis-
patch. The editorial states:
The end is to overcome the Supreme
Court's historic decision that both houses of
State legislatures should be based on popu-
lation. The Dirksen rider would require all
Federal courts to stay at least until 1966 all
orders to redistrict in line with this decision.
In that time, the malapportionment forces
hope to press a constitutional amendment
through the malapportioned legislatures, for-
ever ending Federal court jurisdiction.
In addition to these editorials, there
have been interesting letters to the edi-
tor which have appeared in the New
York Times and the Washington Post.
On September 6 of this year a letter from
Mr. David M. Roseman, of Boston, was
published in which he stated that the
proposition that one person's vote is en-
titled to the same effect as that to be
given to another is hardly a revolutionary
theory.
Of course, that is the point of view
which the Court has been advocating
in saying that representation should be
substantially based on population.
On the 8th of September, yesterday,
a very able letter appeared in the Wash-
ington Post, by Elaine Jacoby, pointing
out that Montgomery County is handi-
capped because it does not have adequate
representation in the Maryland Legisla-
ture.
In this morning's Washington ? Post
there is another letter stating that polit-
ical scholars have pointed out that the
Supreme Court decisions on apportion-
ment came only after State legislatures
refused to conform to their own constitu-
tional reduirements, and after State
courts refused to require State officers to
- fulfill their oaths of office.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torials and letters be printed at the con-
clusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, as a
final comment, yesterday the distin-
guished junior Senator from Montana
[Mr. METCALF] made one Of the most
notable addresses delivered in a long
time before this body. While the audi-
ence on the floor which heard him was
not very large, I hope every Member of
the Senate and tens of thousands of
Americans will read his speech in the
RECORD. I have read it twice this morn-
ing. I regard it as one of the most able,
comprehensive; and persuasive addresses
ever delivered before this body.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. METCALF. I appreciate the com-
ments the Senator from Illinois has made
about the speech I delivered yesterday.
I hope in the future, if this matter is not
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
196r
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 21099
dropped, I shall be permitted to develop
further the danger to constitutional gov-
ernment, to the doctrine of separation
of powers, and to individual freedom,
which the Dirksen amendment presents
to the whole constitutional system of the
United States. ?
I am pleased that the Senator from
Illinois has read my speech. I hope oth-
ers read the speech and become aware
of the danger to the individual constitu-
tional freedoms of Americans if this sort
of legislation continues to be considered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator.
He developed this point succinctly. I
hope, if occasion arises, he will take
time to make an exhaustive review of
the cases which he analyzed yesterday
briefly, beginning with Marbury against
Madison and coming down to the Colo-
rado case.
Mr., METCALF. If the opportunity
arises, I shall do so.
EXHIBIT I
[From tlie St. Louis (Mo.) Post Dispatch,
Sept. 2, 1964]
MYTHS OF APPORTIONMENT
The reconvening Senate has put off, tem-
porarily, its struggle over Senator Dutxszisf's
proposal to delay or halt State legislative re-
apportionment as ordered by the Supreme
Court or other Federal courts. The Senate's
action amounts to putting off the main event,
but Congress can well use time for calm re-
view and sober second thoughts.
Before Congress recessed for the Democratic
Convention, the dispute had created some
myths and half-truths, on both sides. Wil-
liam- G. Colman, executive director of the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, did his best to dispel these notions
in testimony before a House Judiciary Sub-
committee.
It is not true, for one thing, that there is
something historic, if not sacred, about bi-
cameral legislatures. Georgia, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont had unicameral legislatures in
the early days of the Republic; Nebraska
has one now.
It is not true that one house traditionally
has to be based on something other than pop-
ulation. Population was the sole basis for
apportionment of legislatures in most of the
original States. At one time or another, 36
States have made it the primary basis for
both legislative houses.
It is not entirely logical that one house
ought to be based on geography in order to
produce diversity of representation. For ex-
ample, in a popularly based system, members
of a small senate would represent a more
diversified constituency than members of a
large house, whose delegates, in turn, would
represent more specialized interests.
It is not entirely true that rural domina-
tion of malapportioned legislatures leads to
discrimination against the cities. There may
be such discrimination at times, but more
often the rural representatives contend that
their urban colleagues cannot agree on what
they want. This situation does not excuse a
legislature's refusal to do what is best, nor
does it justify the deliberate weighting of a
house in favor of rural minorities.
Finally, it is not true that all urban resi-
dents want equal representation. Colorad-
ans voted overwhelmingly for a misappor-
tionment that the Supreme Court threw out
on the ground that a majority vote could not
abolish a constitutional right to equal pro-
tection of the laws.
Perhaps many Americans do not want equal
representation because they think legisla-
tures ought to be modeled upon the
U.S. Congress. The Supreme Court held
that there is no parallel, in history or law.
But political conservatives often favor rural-
dominated legislatures because these are
likely to be more conservative legislatures.
This sentiment crosses urban-rural bound-
aries and explains many of the attacks on
the Supreme Court's decisions.
Weighting apportionment to get specified
ideological or legislative results distorts popu-
lar government. It cannot be justified any
more than any other way of saying that the
end justifies the means. Yet this is what de-
fenders of the status quo in State legisla-
tures are defending, by devious means. Sen-
ator DIRKSEN WOUld attach his proposal to
the foreign aid bill, where it does not belong
in any case.
The Senate ought to deal with so impor-
tant an issue separately and, after necessary
reflection, deal with it summarily.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Sept 8, 1964]
AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION ?
Senator EVER= M. DIRKSEN intends to file
a petition to shut off debate on his rider
aimed at fair voting legislatures, at the Su-
preme Court, at judicial review and the Con-
stitution itself. What follows should be a
dramatic lesson in the workings of our Gov-
ernment.
For some weeks a small band of Senators
has been filibustering against the Illinois
Senator's rider to the foreign aid bill. Their
numbers have grown, however, and it is no
longer certain that Mr. DIRKSEN can find
the two-thirds vote necessary for cloture.
The issue pits many who do not believe in
the filibuster rule, but are now using it
against other Senators who traditionally up-
hold the filibuster, or at least the two-thirds
rule that makes it difficult to overcome. In
this case, the filibusters are right to use the
weapon, and not just because it is there.
Certainly the two-thirds rule should be
ended, because it encourages the kind of
talkathon by which a minority can prevent
any Senate action at all. But the rule should
not be ended without establishing procedures
to guarantee ample public hearings and am-
ple debate. The cloture issue is essentially
one of reasonable consideration versus un-
reasonable suffocation.
In the case of the Dirksen rider, consider--
ation has been anything but reasonable.
There were no committee hearings on it.
The author jammed it into what he thought
were the last days of the session, and tied it
onto a foreign aid bill he thought the Presi-
dent could not veto. The technique was
that of a rush job. And to what end?
The end is- to overcome the Supreme
Court's historic decision that both houses
of State legislatures should be based on pop-
ulation. The Dirksen rider would require
all Federal courts to stay, at least until 1966,
all orders to redistrict in line with this de-
cision. In that time, the malapportionment
forces hope to press a constitutional amend-
ment through the malapportioned legisla-
tures, forever ending Federal court jurisdic-
tion.
Even if the Dirksen rider were intended
only as a temporary- block to judicial au-
thority, it would be highly objectionable.
What it signifies is that Congress can tell
the courts they cannot enforce the Consti-
tution, temporarily or otherwise. ' The Su-
preme Court's decision is based on the 14th
amendment requirement of equal protec-
tion of the laws. There is nothing equal in
the voting laws of a State which allow 12
percent of its people to elect a majority in
one house.
If Congress can thus limit court protection
of one constitutional liberty, why cannot
Congress limit others? Why can't it with-
draw from court jurisdiction the defense of
Negro voting rights, or of free speech, free-
dom of the press, property rights, fair trial or
due process of .law?
The path of the Dirksen proposal is the
path of indirect amendment, of the Consti-
tution, which is the path the Dirksen forces
have accused the Supreme Court of taking.
More is involved here than the right of new
urban majorities to be fairly represented in
rural-dominated legislatures. The Dirksen
rider represents a ride against the power of
judicial review and an independent judi-
ciary. It is a legislative attack on the third
branch of Government and on the funda-
mental doctrine of separation of powers.
Bo serious is the nature of this issue that
President Johnson, who has not spoken out
on its publicly, should lend all his help to
the embattled band of Senators trying to
stave off the Dirksen challenge. The Presi-
dent is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution is deeply involved in the
Senate struggle. It must be upheld.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post,
. Sept. 9, 19641
CLOAK OF DARKNESS
Malapportionment is a percentage racket?
a house take to make a Las Vegas boss turn
green with envy. Specific issues between the
underrepresented and the overrepresented
only rarely make news. The Michigan Sen-
ate over years of controversy chose to bring
that rich State to the edge of bankruptcy
rather than to allow the income tax urged by
Governor Williams. New York City every
year must beg for its life from upstate legis-
lators in a share of the money which city
people pay in State taxes,
For the most part, State legislatures-oper-
ate within a cloak of darkness. Most of their
actions are not made interesting to news
reporters or newspaper readers. Typical pile-
ups of legislation in the last days of sessions
create masses of law whose fine print is liter-
ally unavailable to interested parties until
weeks later.
Honorable apportionment will not make
perfect overnight our State governments.
Democracy, in the graceful phrase of Sir
Winston Churchill, is the worst system of
government?except for every other system
attempted by man. But the most elemental
drive within political man is to achieve self-
government. No military junta, no monarch,
no aristocracy, no Communist apparatus, and
no special interest coalition can deprive its
people of the right which our own Declara-
tion of Independence attributes to a higher
law than man's; none of these can deprive us
permanently.
Political scholars have pointed out that
the Supreme Court decisions on apportion-
ment came only after refusal by State legis-
latures to conform to their own constitu-
tional requirements, after State courts re-
fused to require State officers to fulfill their
oaths of office. Commentators who tell us
that the Federal courts acted as a last resort
neglect to invoke one further resort of a
people who are deprived of self-government.
Lours M. TEITELBAUM.
ALEXANDRIA.
[From The Washington (D.C.) Post,
Sept. 8, 1964]
THE PEOPLE'S VOICE
Your recent editorials regarding attempts
by legislators in both Houses of Congress to
change the Supreme Court ruling on State
reapportionment are to be highly com-
mended. Surely the effort to rush through
these acts in the closing days of Congress
without careful consideration by that body,
and before the people back home can wake
up to what's happening is a reprehensible
act. It will not cover up the nature of this
effort, which is a naked power play by the
legislators, whose State legislatures are con-
trolled by the few, to continue this unfair
situation. ,
Take the State of Maryland where I live, for
example. Only 14 percent of the population
can control the Senate of the State of Mary-
land. This senate can block any legislation
for the State and often does. Only the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3
21100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE _ SeRember 9
State government in Maryland may levy in-
come taxes, by far the largest revenue pro-
ducer, and this is turned back to the local-
ities in accordance with a formula approved
by the same minority legislature.
? Montgomery County may levy only real
estate taxes, and only such other minor taxes
as the State legislature will permit. Nor, can
the county legislate on many other impor-
tant local issues without the express approval
of the State legislature. In other words,
Montgomery County is not able to determine
how it can tax itself, no matter how willing,
but must depend on the State legislature for
this and many other matters. The limits im-
posed by the State of Maryland on Mont-
gomery County to govern itself are much
greater than the limits imposed by the Fed-
eral Government, direct or indirect, on the
State of Maryland.
How can we in Montgomery County 'ever
adequately meet the needs of our fast grow-
ing population to educate our children, and
provide a host? of other urgently needed
services in these circumstances? Is it any
wonder that we urban and suburban com-
munities are turning more and more to
the Federal Government for help, when
our own States turn a deaf ear to our
needs? The States cannot have it both ways.
Either they will have to be reformed (if
necessary under court orders) to give an ade-
quate voice to the urban and suburban com-
munities, where the bulk of the population
now is, or inevitably they will have less and
less voice in the affairs of their people.
ELAINE JACOBY.
BETHESDA.
[From the New York (N.Y.) Times,
Sept. 6, 19641
APPORTIONMENT BACKED--COURT RULING SEEN
AS AN ACT OF UNIFICATION FOR NATION
To the El:wrote:
The Supreme Court is again under assault
and this time the attack is not directed by
the radicals.
It is being challenged by a -substantial
number of legislators' qua legislators as re-
flected by the passage by the House of Rep-
resentatives of the Tuck bill which would
demi jurisdiction of all Federal courts over
reapportionment cases.
The anti-Court argument holds that as
the Court has grown into an institution
whose scope reaches beyond that conceived
by the Founding Fathers to umpire areas
of fundamental social conflict, its powers
must be reduced. Thus, the weight and
effect to be given to the individual's vote
ought to be left to the will of the majority
acting through local legislatures.
This is the argument for States rights,
and it runs in the teeth of American con-
stitutional history. For soon after our Re-
public was established, the Court found that
it had the power to measure governmental
action?whether Federal or State?against
the Constitution, and to nullify such action
when it judged it to be violative of the
Constitution.
And in its exercise of the power of judicial
review, the Court viewed the Constitution
as designed to meet the needs of a growing,
vibrant nation, and of governing a society
whose population, technology, and complex-
ity was not limited, and could not be lim-
ited, to that of 1787.
MAKING STANDARDS UNIFORM
But it is in the area of protection of in-
dividual rights from the excesses of majority
rule that the court is making its significant
contribution. For by defining the rules of
fair conduct which must be complied with
by both Federal and State Governments in
their treatment of the individual, and in
making these minimal standards uniform
throughout the country, the Court is tying
this diverse land into one nation.
? This is not to argue that the Court is
substituting its wisdoni for that of the State
or Federal Legislatures, nor to hold that
local differences and customs, whether of
short or long duration, shall, in every in-
stance, be obliterated. It is only to say that
the fundamental standards of fair behavior
which the Constitution requires shall be
observed in Mississippi as well as in Massa-
chusetts, in Maine as well as Montana.
The proposition that one person's vote is
entitled to the same effect as that to be
given to another is hardly revolutionary
theory. The consternation of the beneficiar-
ies at losing a formula which has given them
additional representation is understandable.
But it is folly?and in a basic sense insur-
rection?to attempt to make the Federal
judiciary powerless to enforce What is now
the law of the land.
DAVID M. ROSEMAN.
BOSTON, September 2, 1964.
SENATOR WILLIAMS OF DELAWARE
AND THE BAKER CASE
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that an editorial
from the Chicago Tribune complimen-
tary of my colleague's work on the
Baker case be printed at this Point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE BAKER GHOST GALLOPS AGAIN
President Johnson has been obliged, how-
ever reluctantly, to acknowledge the exist-
ence of a Baker scandal. The latest vein of
evidence unearthed by Senator WILLIAMS of
Delaware is so flagrant and well documented
that the President has ordered the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to look into it. In
essence, Mr. WILLIAMS made four charges be-
fore the Senate on Tuesday:
That the Democratic Party campaign fund
received an illegal "payoff" of $25,000 in 1960
in return for giving the $19 million District
of Columbia Stadium contract to the firm
headed by Matthew McCloskey, Jr., a prom-
inent Democrat who recently resigned as Am-
bassador to Ireland. The stadium, com-
pleted in 1962, is the home of the Washing-
ton Redskins football team and Senators
baseball team.
That Bobby Baker, who was then secre-
tary of the Democratic majority of the Sen-
ate and is the central figure in an expanding
web of scandal, received $4,000 for seeing
that McCloskey obtained his performance
bond through Baker's insurance pal, Don B.
Reynolds. This charge had been made be-
fore. Reynolds is the man who sold Lyn-
don Johnson two life insurance policies, paid
for a hi-fl set given to the Johnsons, and
paid for some advertising time on the John-
son television station in Austin, Tex., though
he had no conceivable use for it.
That William McLeod, clerk of the House
District of Columbia Committee, received
$1,500 for similar services.
And that these improper kickbacks came
out of $100,000 in public District of Colum-
bia funds which had been advanced to Mc-
Closkey, allegedly to cover the cost of his
performance bond.
Mr. WILLIAMS supported his charges with
testimony from Reynolds; with a copy of a
check from the McCloskey Co. to Reyn-
olds for $109,205.60, although the bond
premium due was only $73,631.28; and with
documents showing that the District of Co-
lumbia payment to McCloskey had been ap-
proved in August 1960, 2 months before the
check was made out to Reynolds.
- The difference between the premium due
and the amount paid was $35,574.32?an odd
figure which, Reynolds was quoted as say-
ing, was intended "to confuse the auditors."
Mr. WILLIAMS quoted Reynolds as saying
further that his commission was $10,031.56
and that he paid Baker and McLeod out of
this, and that the remaining $25,000 was
given- to Baker for Kennedy-Johnson cam-
paign expenses?$10,000 by check and $15,000
in three cash payments._
Wnixams said that this arrangement en-
abled McCloskey to violate the law limiting
political contributions to $5,000: to write
these contributions off as deductible busi-
ness expenses instead of listing them as Win-
deductible political payola, and finally to
charge the whole business to the taxpayer.
Mr. WILLIAMS promised long ago that he
wouldn't let the Democrats bury the Baker
case. Now that Mr. Johnson is running on
a promise of integrity in Government, it's up
to him?as Mr. WILLIAMS says?to demon-
strate what he means by those words.
If it's playing politics to insist that the
'Voters know the truth before they go to the
polls in November, then maybe Mr. WILLIAMS
is playing politics, as the White House
charges. But if the FBI report is completed
and made public promptly, there will be no
doubt as to who has been playing the more
disgraceful game of politics. And if the re-
port is concealed, glossed over, delayed until
after the election, or used as a dodge to
prevent Senate or grand jury action, we'll
know anyway.
SENATOR HRUSKA'S LEADERSHIP
RESPONSIBLE FOR BEEF IMPORT
LAW
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, on
August 27, the senior Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. HafaxAl appeared before
the Colorado Cattle Feeders Association
at Estes Park, Colo. His remarks there
constitute a masterful appraisal of the
long and arduous battle to obtain legis-
lation providing for quotas on the im-
port of beef.
Certainly no one in the - Congress is
better equipped to discuss this important
matter. Without Senator HRUSKA'S
steadfast leadership, there would not be
a beef imports law today. Without his
leadership, in the face of the most stren-
uous administration opposition, there
would not be today this breakthrough
signifying an awakening realization of
the adverse effects of. such agricultural
imports on our farm economy.
Mr. President, it is a source of- great
satisfaction to me that I have been
privileged to work with the Senator from
Nebraska in the signal accomplishment
which the beef import bill represents.
I ask unanimous consent to have in-
serted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the
text of Senator HRUSKA'S remarks at
Estes Park.
There being no objection, the remarks
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
REMARKS OF SENATOR ROMAN L. HRUSKA BE-
FORE THE COLORADO CATTLE FEEDERS ASSO-
CIATION, ESTES PARK, COLO., AUGUST 27,
1964
In certain respects this date for my ap-
pearance hat been most fortunately chosen.
The 2d session of the 88th Congress has all
but adjourned, and its most important de-
cisions have been taken. For the cattle in-
dustry, it has been a session of extraordinary
interest. Meeting with you on this particu-
lar date gives me an opportunity to review
with you some of those events of the ses-
sion, to summarize the results, and perhaps
also to draw a few lessons from experiences.
Declassified and Approved For: Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070019-3