AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: September 15, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
21408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORb ? SENATE
BILL CREEK. Thank you Senator. First of
all, Hall. I think that it would be very inter-
esting for our audience to know that Senator
ERVIN has been so very kind to give me a
great deal of credit for the work which has
been done in this area when, actually of
course, we all know that this work has been
done because of his decision and under his
supervision. I think that it would be inter-
esting also for our audience to know that
Senator Dorm's interest in the American
Indians is one which stems from his boyhood.
I know that he won a prize as a freshman in
college for writing a paper on the Cherokees.
He has had an abiding interest in the Amer-
ican Indians and he has focused a great deal
of attention on the Indians and other minor-
ity groups in this country who previously
have not enjoyed the benefit of congressional
scrutiny and assistance. This has been his
primary motivation since becoming chairman
of the Subcommittee on Constitutional
Rights some 3 years ago. Well, with regard
to the reservated American Indian, Senator,
I think that it is fair to say that his life
is regulated by the Federal Government from
the cradle to the grave. For, virtually every-
thing he does, if he stays on the reservation,
from the time he is born until he dies, is un-
der the influence or is in the hands of the
Secretary of the Interior. One of the things
that was most surprising to me to learn Was
that even today a reservated Indian can't
make a will without the approval of the Sec-
retary of Interior. If he makes a will and the
Secretary disapproves of it, the will is in-
valid. It may take him months, even years,
to obtain the approval of the Secretary of
Interior. By the same token, one of the
.things which you have been so much con-
cerned with is the right to counsel. The
American Indian tribes who want to employ
legal counsel?attorneys to represent them?
cannot do so without the approval of the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
Senator ERVIN. Don't you consider It un-
fortunate in many instances that the In-
dians have to deal with the Secretary of
Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs as
their guardians and, sometimes, their views
and those of the Secretary of the Bureau do
not coincide. They certainly ought to have
a capable spokesman to present their case.
BILL CREECH. Precisely, Senator. This is
one of the great problems for the American
Indians today. The subcommittee had this
pointed out at our hearings here In Wash-
ington and it was very graphically described
by the tribal representatives who appeared
before the subcommittee in Sacaton, Ariz.
At that time, one of the tribal groups pre-
sented to the subcommittee a letter which
the tribe had received from a reputable law
firm in that part of the country, saying that
though the tribe had asked the firm to
represent them some 11 months earlier, ap-
proval had not been received during that
interim by the Secretary of the Interior. The
letter further stated that inasmuch as they
had received retainers from a number of
other clients in the meantime, it could no
longer entertain the possibility of repre-
senting the tribe. So the tribe had to start
all over again to find another law firm to
represent them, because of the delay of the
Secretary of the Interior in approving their
contract with this law firm. One of the
bills which you have introduced, would pro-
vide a remedy for this. That bill would pro-
vide that if the Secretary of the Interior
does not approve a contract between a tribe
and a law firm within 90 days, that the con-
tract is valid and the Indians may proceed
with their retainer.
HALL Samrx. Bill, may I ask you a question
here? Now this is the counsel for the Indian
tribe rather than the individual Indian?
BILL CREECH. That's true, Hall, but of
course the counsel for the Indian tribe, fre-
quently is counsel for the individual Indian.
For instance, the Navajo Tribe will furnish
legal counsel to any member of the tribe
any place in the United States.
Now the Indians have had a great deal
of difficulty in obtaining legal counsel; this
frequently Is true because they are indi-
gents?they haven't the funds to employ
legal counsel. So the Navajo Tribe has a
legal staff which it will send to any part of
the country to represent members of the
tribe who are involved in private litigation.
Senator Eovirr. Don't you think the fact
that the tribal council cannot employ their
own counsel without the consent of the
Secretary of the Interior really deprives the
tribes, in many cases, of any real right to
petition the Government for redress of
grievances as possessed by all other Ameri-
cans under the first amendment?
Mid, CREECH. Yes, Senator, I do indeed. I
think that this is one of the real problems
that the Indians have because, obviously, if
they don't have adequate counsel to repre-
sent them, then it Is going to be very diffi-
cult for them to be effective in overcoming
their problems. One of the allegations
which has also been made, is that the Indian
tribes are being deprived of due process in
pursuing their various claims, or in litiga-
tion, by the Secretary of the Interior's failure
to approve counsel. If they have to wait
years just to have counsel approved, during
the interim their witnesses frequently die,
or move on, or situations change so abruptly
that it is detrimental to their case. There-
fore, they are not able to pursue their cases
as actively as they might.
Senator ERVIN. What do these bills do with
respect to the right of the individual Indian?
You mentioned the fact, on a previous broad-
cast, that the individual Indian is usually
denied the right to be represented by
counsel when he is tried before tribal courts.
In this case, you not only have denial of his-
rights by the codes that have been adopted
under the supervision of the Department of
Interior, but you have a denial of his rights
in many cases by the tribal council itself.
BILL CREECH. Yes, sir. Well Senator, of
course, you have introduced two bills which
would directly touch upon this. One of the
bills which you have introduced would pro-
vide for the strictures of the Constitution on
the tribal government, in that it would carry
to the tribal government the prohibitions
which presently exist with regard to the Fed-
eral and the State governments. These are
the safeguards for the individual which the
Constitution holds for every American citi-
zen. As we pointed out earlier, the tribal
governments have been held not to be sub-
ject to the Constitutioh with regard to indi-
vidual rights. Another of the bills which you
have introduced would provide that in all of
the law and order codes, which must be ap-
proved by the Secretary of Interior, there
shall be the provision for the same consti-
tutional safeguards' that the individual
American citizen enjoys when he goes before
State courts or our Federal courts. This, of
course, would include the sixth amendment
provision for counsel in criminal cases and
would be of great assistance to the Indian
who finds himself in the tribal courts and
in the traditional courts where he is not
permitted to have counsel of his choosing
but is'actually precluded by the tribal rules
from having legally trained counsel repre-
sent him.
Senator ERVIN. One of these bills is de-
signed to remove some of the imperfections
in the administration and in the provisions
of the Federal statutes, which a few years
ago, allowed the State to assume jurisdiction
over tribal lands under certain conditions.
BILL CREECH. Yes, sir; that is correct.
There was a statute which was passed back
in 1957, Public Law 280, which permitted the
States to assume civil and criminal jurisdic-
tion over the Indian reservated areas lo-
cated within their States. This has created
a great problem in many parts of the country
September 15
because some States have attempted to as-
sume piecemeal jurisdiction and as a result,
the Indian community is not certain under
which laws they live today. As a matter Of
fact, this is not just circumscribed to the
Indian community, there has been testimony
which the subcommittee received from dis-
trict attorneys and states attorneys indicat-
ing that the local law-enforcement officers
themselves are not certain whether they
have jurisdiction. So as a result, we have
vacuums within the law in various parts of
the country in which the Indian community
lives.
Senator ERVIN. Can it not be said in sum-
mary, that if these bills all pass, that the
American Indian on the reservation will en-
joy for the first time in our history the same
rights which other Americans have under
the Bill of Rights?
Btu. Comex:Yes, Senator; that is a very
fair statement.
HALL Sourx. Thank you, Senator Envirr.
We would like to offer our special thanks to-
day to our guest, Bill Creech, of Smithfield,
N.C., who is the chief counsel and staff di-
rector of the Senate Subcommittee on Con-
stitutional Rights. This is Hall Smith in-
viting you to join us again next week when
direct from Washington, D.C., U.S. Senator
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., reports to North Carolin
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN AS
ANCE ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11380) to amend fur-
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-.
pore. The hour of 12:20 p.m. having
arrived, the unanimous-consent agree-
ment goes into effect. The time will be
under control equally by the Senator
from New York [Mr. JAvrrsl and the op-
ponents of the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Does the Senator yield himself
time?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. President, I offer a modification to
the pending amendment, which I send to
the desk and ask to have stated.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The modification of the amend-
ment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The follow-
ing is the modification of the Javits-Mc-
Carthy-Humphrey amendment:
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 com-
position of any house of the legislature of
any State or the apportionment of the mem-
bership thereof, (1) reasonable time should
be accorded to such State to conform to the
requirements of the Constitution of the
United States relating to such composition
or apportionment, and (2) in the event that
a 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
there'of, has been duly submitted by the
Congress to the States for ratification, such
fact be taken into consideration in framing
a decree for relief.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Under the unanimous-consent
agreement, the Senator from New York
[Mr. JAvirs] has the right to modify his
amendment, and it is so ordered.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 21409
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, there are
two things wrong with the modification
offered by the Senator from New York
[Mr. JAviTsl and the Senators from
Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY and Mr.
HUMPHREY] to which I quite seriously
object.
First, the modification of the amend-
ment would give gratuitous advice by a
coordinate body of our Government, the
legislature, to the Supreme Court of the
United States, which I believe is pre-
sumptuous.
Second, the parliamentary procedure
under which this and the preceding
amendments have been offered is a legis-
lative monstrosity. There can be no
excuse whatever, in justice and equity,
in ordinary legislative .procedures, for
attaching a nongermane rider of this
sort to the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961. I doubt if it could be done in any
other legislative body in the civilized
world. It is a cynical approach to per-
haps the most serious of the problems
which confront the country, if not the
most serious, which is the proper reap=
portionment of State legislatures. Never-
theless, because of the pragmatic and
practical situation which confronts us,
I intend to vote for the amendment.
My reasons for doing so ,are two:
First, the amendment does not say
anything that the Supreme Court of the
United States would not do anyway. I
am sure that in the infinite wisdom of
the members of the Court, but also in
their dignified reticence, they will ignore
it, and I hope that to the extent that
the amendment would conflict in any way
with their judicial duties, they will ignore
it. I do not think it would.
Second, it seems tome that the amend-
ment represents a pragmatic, political
method of getting out of the way a very
difficult problem which has held the
Senate unnecessarily in session for sev-
eral weeks. I am a pragmatist. I like to
think of myself as being practical. I
'would hope that by voting for the faintly
ridiculous modification of the amend-
ment, which I shall do, we shall be able
to solve a parliamentary snarl which has
kept the Senate in session long beyond
the necessary time, and which, if
adopted, could do no serious harm.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]
yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Oregon withhold his re-
quest for a minute? I should like to
yield myself a brief period of time. Hav-
ing presented the modification, I thought
I ought at least explain what the modi-
fication is about, and then perhaps what
I would say would be a frame of refer-
ence for others to speak to the modifica-
tion.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I with-
hold my request.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the rea-
son for submitting the modification is
very well known. It is an effort to bring
together the support of as many Sen-
ators as possible for a solution of the
? problem which faces the Senate.
It is impossible to suppose that men
of conscience and fidelity to their prin-
ciples would take positions other than
those consistent with their principles.
Hence the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. CLARK] , as we have heard, thinks
that the amendment could do no harm
and it would be a way of resolving the
parliamentary dilemma. I believe it
would be a serious and meaningful ex-
pression of our desires to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which the
Supreme Court would listen to. I think
we would make very clear what we want,
and I invoke two doctrines in respect of
the effectiveness of what the proposal
represents.
The first doctrine is the so-called doc-
trine of equitable abstention under which
the Federal courts in innumerable cases
have stood aside upon occasion in order
to let other bodies, such as State courts,
interpret a State statute. We are dis-
missing cases in equity. Therefore, the
Court could, with complete authority,
based upon decided cases, state, "As-this
is the demonstrated intent of the Con-
gress expressed to us, we shall now stand
aside and let it operate."
Second-, for those who will call the
amendment?and I suspect that some
will?an apparition of an apparition, or
try to dismiss it as completely superficial,
I point" out that time and again, upon
the most serious matters, the Congress
has passed sense-of-Congress resolu-
tions.
Upon a sense-of-Congress resolution
the marines went into Lebanon. Upon
a sense-of-Congress resolution the '7th
Fleet defended Taiwan. Upon a sense-
of-Congress resolution we premised ac-
tion which resulted in oceans of treasure
being expended and the blood of Ameri-
can troops being shed in various parts of
the world. Even those who violently op-
pose the sense-of-Congress resolution
have offered such resolutions, including
my distinguished friend, the minority
leader, upon very serious questions, be-
cause we realize that there are cases in
which two branches of the Government
have coordinate powers?this is such a
case?and that is the only way in which
coordinate bodies can really express
their considered intention and desire to
each other.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The time of the Senator has ex-
pired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
myself 1 additional minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern.
pore. The Senator from New York is,
recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, in my
judgment, therefore the amendment, as
modified, would be a very meaningful
act, thoroughly in accordance with the
traditions of our country, juxtaposing
one coordinate body to the other. .
Finally, when we talk about supplica-
tion?and it has been said here that we
are "supplicating" the Supreme Court?
the Supreme Court is a coordinate body.
It is our duty and responsibility to re-
spect it as much as it respects us. If we
have no power, the least we can do is to
inform the Court of our intention. It is
my judgment?and Senators must vote
on the question yea or nay?that we
do not have power to direct the Supreme
Court to carry out a rule of the decision
in pending cases. We could not now
make the principle applicable merely to
new cases, because the apportionment of
the legislatures of 34 of the 50 States is
already before the Federal courts. So we
cannot backtrack on that. Hence, we
cannot mandate the Court, and the pro-
posed amendment is the only way in
which two great, dignified, and coordi-
nate bodies can express their intention
and desire to each other.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The time of the Senator from New
York has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
myself an additional 30 seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The Senator from New York is
recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. JAVITS. There are many things
in our Government that must work by
self-discipline. The Congress could sit
on its hands and not give-any agency of
the Government a dime. We could de-
stroy the country, and there is no pro-
vision in the Constitution which states
that we must vote money. No one could
draw a penny from the Treasury if we
did not vote for the appropriation. The
Supreme Court could do the same thing.
It will not. We shall not, provided we
are dignified and cooperative with each
other. That is the purpose of the res-
olution.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield 5 minutes?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Oregon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The Senator from Oregon is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, no mat-
ter how it is disguised nor how Senators
swear to the purity of their intentions,
the measure being voted on is, and is
intended to be, a rebuff to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Advocates of a strong
proposal along the lines of the Dirksen
measure are trying to accomplish some-
thing positive: They are trying to over-
turn the result of one of the finest
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Advocates of a meaningless substitute
are trying to replace it with only an
insult to the U.S. Supreme Court. ?
I shall be party to neither. I shall
vote for no proposal that in any way
casts disrespect upon the Federal court
system, or that in any way encourages
others to show disrespect to the courts,
or that expresses advice or disapproval
of Congress of the way the courts do
their job.
That kind of proposal is one of the
key issues in this election. The con-
fidence of the American people in their
judicial system is being undermined and
challenged in this presidential election,
and it will continue to be challenged.
No vote of mine will ever lend aid and
comfort to that kind of vote seeking.
Moreover, the back seat driving that
the Javits substitute represents is al-
ways an unsound disruption of our
constitutional system, no matter how.
innocuously it may be framed. The only
reason in the world it is offered, the only
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
21410 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
reason it is voted on, is to express at
least a concern on the part of Congress
that the courts are not acting the way
the Congress thinks they should act.
In the political context, that expres-
sion of views is of very great impact
upon public opinion. In law, it may
mean nothing; but among the public it
means a great deal and it is the public
as much ? as the courts to which this
language is directed. Senators may say:
"But it is meaningless; the courts will
ignore it." The coutts will ignore it,
but the public will not 'and the politicians
will not ignore it. For those who want
to stir up resistance to court decisions
and resentment against the courts in
general, any critical advisory opinion
from the Congress is a victory.
Once Congress starts to travel that
road, it can lead only to the destruction
of our constitutional system. We have
wisely resisted it for 10 years: For at
least 10 years, "court busting" bills have
been on this calendar in every session.
We have had bills to overturn the Nelson
decision on State subversive laws; bills
to overturn the passport decisions; bills
to overturn the protection of persons
charged as security risks; bills to over-
turn the Mallory rule; bills to limit the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts to pass
upon the right to practice law in State
courts.
We have had bills to restrict the juris-
diction of the courts in habeas corpus
cases; and we twice received from the
House the Smith bill, H.R. 3, passed by
large majorities. That "court buster"
tried to instruct the Court that all Fed-
eral statutes should be construed as not
affecting State laws on the same sub-
ject unless the statute specifically pre-
empted the State laws. We had quite
a fight on the Smith bill, whose sponsor
in the House was the honorable 'chair-
man of the House Rules Committee. It,
too, came over late in the session; a com-
panion bill had been reported from the
Senate Judiciary Committee. H.R. 3
was offered as a floor amendment to a
pending bill, and the motion to table it
failed by 39 to 46.
But we had a great and cherished
colleague then, who served with per-
petual vigilance on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. I am referring to John
Carroll, of Colorado. Senator Carroll
wisely moved to recommit H.R. 3-to the
Senate Judiciary Committee and the
Senate took his advice.
The result has been that Senators will
look in vain for any one of these "court
busting" bills on the statute books.
They have all been blocked by a small
but determined group of Senators who
were determined that no midnight Con-
gresses should interfere with our judicial
system and with our constitutional
system.
It has always been possible for a deter-
mined majority, if there is one, to come
back the next year and pass any one of
these bills. But we do not hear any-
thing any more about overturning the
Nelson case, or Cole against Young, or
the passport decisions, or the security
risk decisions, and we do not hear any-
thing today about H.R. 3. The habeas
corpus bill is still around, and so are the
Mallory rule changes, but much of the
steam has gone out of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
SON in the chair) . The time of the Sen-
ator has expired.
Mr. MORSE. I ask for 2 more minutes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator.
Mr. MORSE. If we who fought these
measures had started dickering with
their advocates to find something we
could all agree on, most of them would
have been adopted in one form or an-
other. But it is remarkable how the
American people come to understand and
appreciate the function the Supreme
Court performs for them as the unwire of
our Constitution. But they need a little
time to digest the meaning of some of
these Court rulings.
And a very important function of the
Senate is to give them that time. That
is the only reason we have 6-year terms.
We are supposed to be just enough re-
moved from popular passions to resist
snap judgments in the enactment of
legislation.
Insofar as the Supreme Court is con-
cerned, we have served that purpose very
well. In the case of Brown against the
Board of Education and other civil rights
decisions, the long-term public reaction
was in support of these decisions, and the
legislation Congress passed provided for
their enforcement. But it did not come
until 10 years later. It did not come un-
til the American people had digested the
rulings of the Court.
But had there been any "sense of the
Congress" resolutions passed calling upon
the Federal courts .to hold off on civil
rights cases, there never would have been
a Civil Rights Act of 1964, and probably
not one in 1974.
Aside from the merits of these deci-
sions-and their application, I cannot, as a
lawyer, accept the proposition that Con-
gress has any business advising the
courts. What would Senators say about
a Supreme Court opinion that expressed
the sense of the Court that Congess
ought not to pass the Dirksen amend-
ment? Or the Javits substitute? Or
that Congress ought not approve a pro-
posed constitutional amendment? Or
that Congress should not pass upon a
constitutional amendment until the
courts had time to wind up these reap-
portionment cases?
The shock and outrage of Senators and
members of the House would reverberate
throughout the country. Would we say:
"Oh, but the Court only said it was con-
cerned about what we were about to do.
It isn't binding on us?"
Of course not. We would say it was an
unmitigated interference in the func-
tions of Congress, that it was an attempt
to undermine public confidence in Con-
gress, and that the Court had plenty to
do in its own jurisdiction without butting
into ours.
That is exactly how I regard all resolu-
tions and expressions of opinion telling
the courts what we think they should do
in given cases, and how they should
handle those cases.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MORSE. Will the Senator yield
September 15
me 1 more minute? I will try to get it
back from the Senator from Montana
1Mr. MANSFIELD].
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator.
Mr. MORSE. The Federal courts are
charged by the Constitution to consider
all cases and controversies arising under
said Constitution. It was not Earl War-
ren who laid down the theorem that the
Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the
application of the Constitution: it was
a great Virginian, John Marshall. The
decision of Marbury against Madison
was not handed down by the Warren
Court, or the Roosevelt Court. It was
handed down by the John Marshall Court
in 1803. The principle that the courts
shall determine constitutional issues has
served this country in good stead ever
since, and I do not propose to change that
principle now with any Dirksen amend-
ment or Javits substitute.
It is always the right of the people,
with the help of this Congress, to change
their Constitution if they do not like its
application to a given situation. Our
job is not to coach the courts on reap-
portionment; our only job in this field
is to pass upon a constitutional amend-
ment.
If we are not going to consider a con-
stitutional amendment, let us adjourn
and go home. Let us stop interfering in
the function, the duty, and the opera-
tion of the Federal courts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MORSE. I ask for half a minute
more.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield the Senator
half a minute.
Mr. MORSE. If the American people
are adamant in their opposition to the
Court rulings on reapportionment, if
they are determined to have malappor-
tionment in their State legislatures, they
will make their will known and felt in the
years ahead. A constitutional amend-
ment can always undo what the Su-
preme Court has already done. A con-
stitutional amendment can permit States
that have reapportioned under Court
order to go back to their previous dispro-
portionment, if there really is basic,
grassroots, long-term public support for
malapportionment.
The people will not need any hasty
action in the dog days of the 88th Con-
gress to permit them to have area rep-
resentation in their States. It is only
those who do not want to put the people
to the test who want to forestall these
Court orders and decisions. It is those
who know that once popular represen-
tation is a fact the people will welcome
it, who are trying to suspend the admin-
istration of justice.
All these reapportionment propositions
are bad on their merits, and they are
bad in their effect on our system of gov-
ernment. All should be rejected, and I
shall vote against them.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. president, I never
cease to be astonished by how skilled de-
baters ,in this body can beg the question.
Yet the question has been begged almost
from the beginning of the discussion of
the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, or
the Dirksen-Mansfield amendment, and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
4.1116
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
then the proposals that are offered as a
substitute therefor.
I have freely conceded from the be-
ginning that the way to go about this is
by the constitutional process. Anyone
familiar with the Constitution knows it.
But we are up against a time factor, and
in that interim period a great many
things can happen to freeze something
that probably would require many years
to be undone.
One need only consider that there is
no time in the 88th Congress to get a
constitutional resolution through Con-
gress and send the proposed amendment
on its way to the States for ratification.
That is a job that remains for the 89th
Congress. What, then, is required to en-
act such a resolution and to send the,
proposed constitutional amendment to
the people and to the States?
First. The new Congress must be or-
ganized.
Second. The committees must be ap-
pointed, and whatever gap may develop'
must be filled.
Third. The subcommittees must be es-
tablished. Then a resolution must be
referred to committee. It must go
through that process both in the House
and in the Senate. I presume that then
would come the hearings. Then comes
the discussion on the floor of the House
and on the floor of the Senate. It takes
time. However, we are not up against a
theory; we are confronted with a con-
dition. That is the reason for the Mans-
field-Dirksen amendment, which is now
before the Senate. It is designed to pro-
vide a breather until a constitutional
amendment can be sent out to the coun-
try.
I do not know how much simpler the
question can be put. I recognize, of
course, that that power lies in the people.
People talk about court "busting." It
makes an interesting phrase. However,
I do not know that it has any significance
or meaning. This is no attack on the
Court. This is an exercise of what I
think is a constitutional power that Con-
gress possesses.
Congress can change the membership
of the Court at any time, and it has done
so many times in the history of the Re-
public. Congress can pass upon the ap-
pellate jurisdiction of the Court, and it
has done so from the days of the Mc-
Cardle decision when that Mississippi
editor was in durance before the military
authorities.
Those facts are all conceded.
All that is asked for in the original
amendment is to stay the application of
the Supreme Court's decision on the ap-
plication of a responsible person. Who
would be a responsible person?
Certainly the Governor' of a State
would have an interest. Certainly the
attorney general of a State would have
an interest. Certainly a member of the
State legislature would have an interest.
They are provided for as potential ap-
plicants under the Dirksen-Mansfield
proposal.
It is that simple.
Now it is proposed to substitute first
one proposal and then the modification
that has been submitted today by the
No. 176-4
distinguished Senator from New York
[Mr. JAviTs1
What appears in the substitute? It
is another "sense of Congress" resolu-
tion. It provides:
It is the sense of Congress that in any
action or proceeding in any court?
And so forth?
reasonable time should be accorded to such
State to conform to the requirements of the
Constitution relating to such composition
or apportionment.
How effective is a "sense of Congress"
resolution? In the international domain
it means one thing; in the field of do-
mestic policy, it means quite another.
If there be any doubt about it, let us
take a look at what happened in connec-
tion with the wheat controversy, when it
was proposed to sell wheat on long-term
credits, ostensibly to be supported by
the Export-Import Bank, a Federal in-
strumentality. It became quite an issue.
Those who opposed it relied upon a
provision in the 1961 Agricultural Act,
which contained a declaration of policy
to the effect that Congress looked
askance upon a practice of that kind.
The whole matter was thoroughly ex-
amined by the Attorney General, and he,
filed a brief with respect to this matter.
What did he say? Let me read from
the Attorney General's opinion. He said:
I have examined the history of the dec-
laration with care and find no indication
that Congress itself viewed the amendment
as more than an expression of its policy, to
be given consideration by the executive in
making decisions within the framework of
the authorizations and prohibitions estab-
lished by prior law. Representative LATTA-
Parenthetically, I add that he is from
Ohio?
who offered the amendment to the 1961
act and who sponsored the declaration, him-
self stated that its purpose was to have the
Department of Commerce know what the
sense of this Congress is with respect to the
transactions in question.
What did the Attorney General say?
Here it is buttoned up in one sentence:
Congress could, of course, have' embodied
its policy in a provision of positive law, to
which the executive branch would have been
bound-to adhere. That. it did not choose to
do so is significant,' not only in establishing
that that section is without legal effect, but
in determining its proper interpretations
and application as policy.
No legal effect. Congress had an op-
portunity to speak affirmatively and posi-
tively. It did not do so. It merely said
that it was the sense of Congress, and
the Attorney General chose to ignore
that expression on the part of Congress.
So, Mr. President, where are we?
Incidentally, the Attorney General for-
tified his opinion with quite a number
of cases, and thought he was standing on
good ground.
I am content to take that as an expres-
sion of the intention on the part of the
executive branch as to what it would do
under similar circumstances.
Is it not reasonable to suppose that the
Supreme Court and the three-judge
courts that are set up under the Reyn-
olds against Sims decision would do pre-
cisely the same thing? I think it is sus-
21411
ceptible of easy proof. First, we can go
back to the opinion of the Chief Justice
with respect to whether or not the lower
courts should give some reasonable time
in order to apply the decision of Reyn-
olds against Sims.
Let me read the language of the Chief
Justice himself. It appears under title X
of the Court decision, page 50. The
Chief Justice said:
However, under certain circumstances,
such as where an impending election is im-
minent and a State's election machinery is
already in progress, equitable considerations
might justify a court in withholding the
granting of immediately effective relief in
a legislative apportionment case, even though
the existing apportionment scheme was
found invalid. In awarding or withholding
immediate relief, a court is entitled to and
should consider the proximity of a forth-
coming election and the mechanics and
complexities of State election laws, and
should act and rely upon general equitable
principles. With respect to the timing of
relief, a court can reasonably endeavor to
avoid a disruption of the election process
which might result from requiring precip-
itate changes that could make unreasonable
or embarrassing demands on a State in ad-
justing to the requirements of the court's
decree.
There the Chief Justice laid down the
guidelines for the use of the rule of rea-
son in applying the decision in Reynolds
against Sims. Did the lower courts heed
that decision? Certainly they did not.
The court in Oklahoma allowed 15 days
to convene a legislature and to pass a
new apportionment bill. The legisla-
ture convened, it had a quorum, and
then, when the legislature finished its
labors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court de-
clared the act unconstitutional.
Then the court set itself to doing the
job. Here are the order, the statement,
and revised order of the court in the
Oklahoma case. What does the court
say? On page 12, the three-judge court
order reads:
Once a State's legislative apportionment
scheme has been found to be unconstitu-
tional, it would be the unusual case in which
a court would be justified in not taking ap-
propriate action to insure that no further
elections are conducted under the invalid
plan.
That was a three-judge court quota-
tion from the Supreme Court decision
in the Simms case. Further:
It is suggested that an unusual case is
where an impending election is imminent
and the State's election machinery is already
in process.
Then what does the three-judge court
say? They say:
If confusion and hardship result from the
vacation of the primary elections, it is not
of our making.
The three-judge court disclaimed any
responsibility for it. They said:
Our duty is to reapportion the Oklahoma
legislature in acocrdance with the estab-
lished law of the land.
And in the doing, they made an unholy
mess of the whole matter.
Senators ought to read the judicial
apportionment of some of the districts.
One in particular, district No. 35, re-
quires three pages of single-spaced type-
writing to define it. When one looks at
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
21412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
? the map, he Sees, for instance, shoestring
districts, he sees squiggled districts, he
sees districts running into alleys and
streets. It is a phenomenal thing; in
fact, it is incredible. Yet there was the
Supreme Court's admonition about the
rule of reason. Did 'the three-judge
court adhere to it? Did they heed it?
? Did they take that admonition? Indeed,
they did not. They said:
The confusion is not of our making.
So when we talk about the sense of
Congress, the Attorney General said it
has no validity, it has no force, it has
no effect, it has no legal standing. The
executive branch can proceed to do ex-
actly what it wishes and pay no atten-
tion to the Senate or House of Repre-
sentatives, .or to both bodies jointly, in
? Pursuing the application of the decision
in Reynolds against Simms.
My friend the distinguished senior
Senator from , New York [Mr. JAvris]
comes to us with a new substitute. I have
already alluded to the first part. But it
is still the sense of Congress; and in that
respect, it is meaningless- to the extent
? that if a judge does not wish to -pay heed
to it, he does not have to do so, because
_ the language is not binding.
But the second part of the new Javits-
McCarthy-Humphrey amendment goes
even further and is, therefore, even more
objectionable. This is how it reads:
And (2) in the event that a proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to the composition of the
legislatures of the several States, or to the
apportionment of the membership thereof,
has been duly submitted by the Congress
to the States for ratification, such fact be
taken into consideration in framing a decree
for relief.
"In the event that a proposed amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to" this matter has been
duly submitted. Exactly when does that
event take place?
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Does not the Senator
from Illinois, the minority leader, in.A
terpret that language to mean that if
' any attempt is made to submit a consti-
tutional amendment to the States, there
will be a filibuster against submitting
anything to the states, merely because
those who are opposing the Mansfield-
Dirksen amendment are evidently deter-
mined that the people of the States shall
have no opportunity whatsoever to vote
on what they want? Does not this lan-
guage serve fair notice on us that the
opponents will filibuster any effort to
submit a constitutional amendment re-
lating to the apportionment of legisla-
tures?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I would do no injus-
tice to any Member of this body; but on
the basis of all that has been said thus
far, that is not an unreasonable assump-
tion. But I come back to the fact that
in the event a proposed amendment re-
lating to this subject has been duly sub-
mitted, that event will not take place
until a new Congress is organized, com-
mittees are organized, subconunittees are
organized, the proposal is referred, it is
finally reported by the committees, and
is finally approved by both the Senate
and House. That is when the event
would be reached; and who shall say
when that will be?
Then, of course, it shall "be taken into
consideration in framing a decree for
relief."
I have set this proposal in rather vul-
gar terms, but to me it is absolutely
meaningless. It gets nowhere. It has
no teeth in it. That. is what I object to.
If we are to undertake *to challenge the
Supreme Court decision under the 14th
amendment, as to whether or not under
the Constitution there is the power to
interfere with the States in the composi-
tion and the constitution of their legisla-
tive bodies, it is necessary, first, to stop
further action by a stay of proceedings,
and then to move toward the submission
and adoption of a constitutional amend-
ment. That is what we have undertaken
to do from the very beginning.
Moreover, I think we must demonstrate
our good faith, first, by introducing such
a constitutional proposal, and second,
by seeking to define what is a constitu-
tional approach by statute to stay the
application of the court order until the
proposal can be presented.
We do not involve the danger of
freezing a pattern which cannot be
undone.
Mr. President, that is the story in brief
compass. I hope, therefore, that the new
Javits amendment will be defeated and
that at long last we can get to a vote on
the Dirksen-Mansfield proposal which is
the pending business.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
3 minutes to the Senator from New Jer-
sey [Mr. CASE].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New. Jersey is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I thank the
Senator from New York for yielding to
me. I have asked the Senator from
New York to allow me this time so that
I may ask some questions of him in re-
gard to the effect of his amendment in
the form in which we shall vote upon it.
I am particularly concerned about that
part of the amendment which comes
after the numeral 2, which would express
the sense of Congress that in the event
"of any proposed amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States relating
to the composition of the legislatures of
the several States, or to the apportion-
ment of the membership thereof, which
shall have been duly submitted by the
Congress to the States for ratification,"
such fact be taken into account in fram-
ing a decree of relief in any action or
proceeding for the reapportionment of
a State legislature.
I believe that, as a result of the modi-
fications which have been made by the
Senator from New York and his cospon-
sors in the amendment as it was origi-
nally proposed by him, he has elimi-
nated some concern which I had felt in
regard to the interpretation of his
amendment. But I wish to get his own
views from his own lips on the floor of
the Senate in confirmation.
Am I right in understanding that
there is no intent by the resolution, in
September 15
the form in which we shall vote upon it,
to have Congress express any sense that
a court should be deterred from enforc- ?
ing reapportionment,. in any case in
which under the Constitution it is neces-.
sary, by the pendency of any constitu-
tional amendment unless such consti-
tutional amendment is to be submitted
for approval by the people, and not by
the malapportioned legislatures them-
selves?
Mr. JAVITS. My answer to that
question is "Yes." Yesterday I submitted
a proposed constitutional amendment
which is now lying on the table awaiting
the signatures of cosponsors, carrying out
the idea that the people of the State
should participate directly in what hap-
pens to apportionment. -
There are two ways in which the peo-
ple can participate. One is by constitu-
tional convention?that is, by approving
or ratifying a Federal-type legislature
by the convention method. The other
way is by making the Federal method
permissive only, but requiring the peo-
ple of every. State to vote in a referen-
dum before there can be a reapportion-
ment of their legislature on the Federal
model.
Personally, I prefer the latter method.
I do not exclude the former. The prin-
ciple is the same. Therefore, my answer
to the Senator can be "Yes." The peo-
ple will determine what will happen.
The Senator may prefer the alterna-
tive?that is, the constitutional conven-
tion method. Personally, I prefer the
permissive method, by a vote of the peo-
ple of each State respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from New Jersey has
expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that' the Senator
from New Jersey may proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.
The PRESIDING. OFFICER. The
- Senator from New Jersey is recognized
for 1 additional minute.
Mr. JAVITS. My answer is that the
people will determine, rather than the
malapportioned State legislatures.
Mr. CASE. The Senator has given me
precisely the assurance, which is to me
essential to casting an affirmative vote
on his amendment. I am most grateful
to him for the explicitness of his assur-
ance. For myself, there can be different
ways?the two ways the Senator from
New York has mentioned?by referen-
dum on which all people can vote, or by
the constitutional convention method;
provided, in the case of a constitutional
convention, that the delegates to the
convention are chosen in a way which
is representative of the whole population
and does not reflect any malapportion-
ment.
Mr. JAVITS. Of course, they would
have to be, because the Supreme Court
still has jurisdiction in respect to the
composition of a constitutional conven-
tion.
Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator. I
state to him and to his cosponsors that
I believe he has performed a most im-
portant service to the country, now and
for generations to come.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
"4.? '
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
411.
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from New Jersey for his
comments.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the origi-
nal Javits "sense of Congress" resolution
appeared to me to set a vexatious prece-
dent. This body has no right to thwart
or delay the realization of basic constitu-
tional rights, and it seems to me that we
cannot, consistent with our duty, tell the
courts to delay the realization of those
rights; nor should we instruct or seek
to influence the courts.
The Supreme Court did not ignore the
complexities of the reapportionment
problem presented by its decision in
Reynolds against Sims. It did not ask
for precipitous action on the part of the
States. It correctly recognized that it
may take some time for the realization
of those rights. It recognized "that legis-
lative apportionment is primarily a mat-
ter for legislative consideration and de-
termination?and that judicial relief be-
comes appropriate only when a legisla-
ture fails to reapportion according to
Federal constitutional requisites?in a
timely fashion after having had an ade-
quate opportunity to do so."
The Court observed that the remedial
technique be tailored to the demands of
the specific case, and that the "relief
accorded can be fashioned in the light of
well-known principles of equity." Be-
yond that the Court did not, and?I be-
lieve?could not go.
Mr. President, it is with reluctance
that I support this resolution as now
modified and I do so only because of the
greater danger involved in our failure to
meet this situation. More specifically,
I support it only to escape the proba-
bility or at least a high degree of possi-
bility of a direct affront to the Supreme
Court, if we fail to adopt this modified
"sense" resolution. While I do not like
it, in its present form it will not serve to
thwart or delay the realization of basic
constitutional rights, recognized by the
Supreme Court.
While I do not like it, I know that
many Senators who now propose to sup-
port it are also reluctant. In its present
form, it will not serve to thwart or delay
the realization of the constitutional
rights recognized by the Supreme Court.
All Senators should express to the Sen-
ator from New York and the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY] the
acknowledgement that much thought
and deep concern has been given to the
inherent respect of the Court which is
reflected in the efforts they have con-
tributed to bring the Senate to this mo-
ment in debate.
Mr. JAVITS. I am grateful to the
Senator from Michigan for his comments.
Mr. President, under my agreement with
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS],
I noW suggest the absence of a quorum,
the time to be charged equally to each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further pro-
ceedings under the quorum call may be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
myself 4 minutes.
The fundamental point which I be-
lieve separates us from the so-called
Mansfield-Dirksen forces is ' a very im-
portant and critical one to the whole is-
sue. It is simply that we do not believe
that the Congress has the power to di-
rect the Court as to what it shall do with
pending cases.
Obviously, those who are opposed to
us believe that Congress has such power
and that, therefore, it is a question of
discretion which we are arguing about
as to whether Congress will exercise or
withhold such power. It is true that if
it were a question of discretion, I my-
self would urge the Congress to exercise
its discretion to withhold the exercise of
the power. But I do not premise my
argument for the substitute presented
by the Senators from Minnesota [Mr.
MCCARTHY and Mr. HUMPHREY] and my-
self upon that ground.
It is very clear to me, from the de6ded
cases, that if we endeavored to assek au-
thority to require the Court in pending
cases to stay its hand, which is the pur-
pose of the Mansfield-Dirksen amend-
ment, the Court must say, because that
would be dictating a rule of decision to
the Court, that it is unconstitutional;
and once the Supreme Court strikes
down such an enactment we would have
a direct confrontation between the Su-
preme Court and the Congress which no
responsible official in his right mind, in
my judgment, would invite.
That is the very thing which constitu-
tional lawyers, Presidents, Senators, high
officials of our Government, historians,
and other thoughtful Americans have
always feared?that our system could
break down at exactly the point where
there was a confrontation between the
power of a coordinate branch and that
of another branch. Each could work ir-
reparable mischief with the other if it
chose. So such confrontations ought to
be avoided like the plague. That is what
we mean when we speak of a constitu-
tional crisis. Therefore, Senators who
believe that we do not have the Power to
deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdic-
tion in the pending case and who take
the view that the Court should afford
more time to enable the States to con-
form and that there should be an oppor-
tunity for the Congress, if it chooses, to
develop a constitutional amendment,
should see' the course of the modified
amendment which we have submitted as
the only course which can both prac-
tically and legally be taken by the Con-
gress.
Mr. President, I should like to answer
some of the points which were raised
with respect to our argument upon the
subject. In discussing the question, the
21413
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Moan] spoke
of the fact that Court "busting" bills
have always failed. In my judgment,
that is not quite an accurate statement,
and for the following reason: Court
"busting" bills which would overturn the
institution of the Court and the Court
as an institution have failed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PASTORE in the chair) . The time of the
Senator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 2 addi-
tional minutes. So, too, have Court
"busting" bills which sought to carry out
the exercise of powers which we do not
have. But it is not a fact that the Con-
gress has not acted to change law in
cases in which it was dissatisfied with
the decisions made by the Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court decision indi-
cated that a change of law could be made
by the Congress.
For example, it is a fact that we
changed the law in the Subversive Activ-
ities Control Act in respect to the deci-
sion in the Yates case. It will be re-
membered that in the Yates case the
Court raised certain problems of defini-
tion under the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Act. We found it desirable to act
in respect to that subject. We redefined
our definitions in order to make them
more precise, and to answer what we
thought were points made by the Court
which would invalidate what we con-
sidered to be the proper thrust of the law.
It seems to me that that case is distin-
guishable from what we are contending
with here, because in that case we had
the power, and the Supreme Court made
it very clear that we had the pow-
er, to amend the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
sort in the chair). The time of the Sen-
ator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield
myself 1 additional minute.
The Supreme Court made it clear that
we had the power to amend the law in
order to deal with a situation which was
presented to us by that decision. Now
we are dealing with a constitutional in-
terpretation within the inherent power
of the Court as a coordinate branch of
the Government. In my judgment, we
are not dealing with a statute which
should be enacted, because we ourselves
know, or we should know, that we do
not have the power to enact such a stat-
ute. Therefore, it seems to me, there is
a clear distinction between the action of
the Congress to the extent that it can act
and the Congress withholding its hand
where it cannot act;- and the argument
made by the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Moan], it seems to me, bears us out for
contending for the substitute rather
than the contrary.
Mr. President, before I take my seat, I
should like to acknowledge the great con-
structive and creative work of drafting
the language of what is now the modi-
fied amendment before the Senate, and
revising the language of the amendment
which the Senators from Minnesota [Mr.
Hummazy and Mr. MCCARTHY] and I
had submitted, on the part of the dis-
tinguished present occupant of the chair,
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NEL-
SON] and the distinguished Senator from
Declassified and Approved For: Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5
21414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS]. I understand
that both Senators worked upon the lan-
guage which is now before the Senate.
I also wish to pay my tribute of re-
spect to the Senator from Montana [Mr.
METCALF], our Acting President pro tem-
pore, who was most influential in bring-
ing about such wide acceptance of the
proposed formula as the way in which to
resolve the controversy.
Mr. President, again pursuant to my
agreement with the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DIRKSEN], I suggest the absence of
a quorum, the time taken for the call to
be charged equally to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield 1,minute to the
Usnator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA].
APPALACHIA BEEF SUBSIDY UNFAIR
TO REST OF UNITED STATES
Mr. HRUSICA. Mr. President, the Sen-
ate has followed a wise course in striking
section 203 from the Appalachia bill, S.
2782.
Section 203 would provide special Fed-
eral subsidies to build up beef cattle pro-
duction in the Appalachia area. The
section is entitled "Pasture Improvement
and Development," and, in the form re-
ported by the Public Works Committee,
would have authorized Federal grants
for improving the pastures in that re-
gion.
Several weeks ago, I had made known
my opposition and my intention to fight
the provision on the floor of the Sen-
ate. In fact, an amendment was for-
mally proposed and put in print on Aug-
ust 18, for myself and six cosponsors, to
accomplish that purpose. The Senator
from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] had a similar
amendment. Others had likewise made
known their opposition, including lead-
ing Members of the House. It is good
to know that the administration appar-
ently finally got the word. One must as-
sume that the administration concurred,
since the amendment to strike section
203 was actually offered by a member of
the majority and adopted without op-
position.
However, we have been told very open-
ly by the Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RANDOLPH] that even if this pasture
improvement program is not enacted this
year, he intends to revive the proposal
next year, or at the earliest opportunity.
His forthrightness is to be commended.
We have been fairly warned. Under the
circumstances it is appropriate to re-
emphasize some of the objections to the
proposal.
Certainly it is not necessary to tell
the Senate all over again about the prob-
lems of the beef industry. We have just
completed a lengthy consideration of
that situation. After the most extended
debate and the most thorough hearings, ?
we finally enacted Public Law 88-482 to
place some restrictions on imports of
foreign beef.
That legislation was passed only after
a last-ditch fight against it by the ad-
ministration. Secretary Freeman testi-
fied against it before the Finance Com-
mittee?he was almost the only witness
who did so?and stated flatly that he
was opposed to any legislation imposing
quotas or other restrictions on imports.
His idea of how to solve th'e beef
problem was a typical New Deal one?
take it out of the taxpayer, and give it
away to some worthy foreign recipient.
It seems absurd, but the facts are that
while we have permitted these tremen-
dous quantities of beef to be shipped in
here from abroad to invade our markets,
at the same time the Department of
Agriculture has been buying up and giv-
ing away choice American beef to coun-
tries like Egypt.
Simultaneously, the Appalachia bill
wat being pushed by the same Depart-
ment of Agriculture, providing special
Federal grants to help one section of
the country build up its production of
beef cattle.
The bill would authorize the Federal
Government to pay 80 percent of the
cost of the development or improvement
of 'pasture for 25 acres for any land-
owner in the Appalachian region. The
bill would place no dollar limit on the
amount of Federal money that might be
expended for the benefit of any one
farmer.
As a matter of fact, the bill was not
even very clear as to how the benefits
were to be restricted so that each land-
owner would have not more than.25 acres
of pasture created or improved at Gov-
ernment expense. The statement of mi-
nority views points that out clearly. For
example, if four members of one family
each owned 25 acres of a 100-acre farm,
than all 100 acres could be improved,
largely at Federal expense.
The administration program proposed
that 9,500,000 acres in Appalachia be im-
proved in this manner. At least, that is
the version described by the Under Secre-
tary of Commerce, Mr. Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Jr. He spoke of an increase
in the value of beef cattle production in
the region amounting to $230 million
annually, which would be equivalent an-
nually to something over 1 billion pounds
of livestock on the hoof, additional to
our present production.
Mr. President, for weeks and months
the Secretary of Agriculture went up and
down the land, arguing that ?the real
source of our troubles in the cattle in-
dustry has been domestic overproduction.
Again and again, we have been told, on
the basis of expert analysis by the statis-
ticians of the Department of Agriculture,
that increased imports were of only
? minor importance in their impact on the
niarket price of cattle. The real prob-
lem, we have been told, is the overpro-
duction of cattle here at home. Now, in
this Appalachia bill, it was proposed to
stimulate a substantial increase in beef
cattle production, which would come into
immediate competition with the feeders,
produced by the stockmen and ranchers
throughout the Middle West and West,
including such areas as the Nebraska
sand hills.
Mr. President, in the course of our
frequent debates in the Senate on the
September 15
beef import quota legislation, most of the
discussion has focused around the col-
lapse in the market prices of fed cattle.
I hope that no Member of the Senate
on that account was under the impres-
sion that the market for stockers and
feeders had been insulated from damage.
On the contrary, feeder prices have de-
clined disastrously along with the prices
for slaughter animals. Furthermore,
whereas the market for fed cattle has
started to improve encouragingly, that
has not happened for the feeder cattle.
The fact is that feeder cattle and calves
today are quoted from $5 to $6 a hundred
pounds below the levels of 12 months ago.
We are also told that these additional
feeder calves and cattle from Appalachia
would substitute for the imported feed-
ers we now receive from Mexico and
Canada. What an argument of sophis-
try that is. We have been importing
feeder cattle from Mexico and Canada
for a good many years. It is not because
we could not produce enough stockers
and feeders here at home. The number
of beef calves and of feeder steers pro-
duced in this country has steadily in-
creased but imports have continued to
come in. In practice, Mexico and Cana-
da will continue to send us their surplus
feeder cattle and calves as long as our "
tariff remains low and as long as we are
receptive to such imports. Any increase
In numbers of feeders from Appalachia
will simply add that much supply to the
market and compete directly with our
own feeders produced here at home.
Furthermore, it must be recognized
that it is absurd to give Federal funds to
landowners of one region to bring land
into production, while simultaneously
landowners in other regions are being
Paid to take better land out of produc-
tion.
Mr. President, it is my earnest hope
that the Federal Government will re-
frain from injecting itself into every sit-
uation which appears troublesome to any
group of people anywhere in the United
States. It is not hard to sympathize
with people in Appalachia or elsewhere
who are having problems that they find
it difficult to solve. It is easy to say,
"Let us help them," and then plunge in
hastily with Federal money and Federal
programs. But we have an obligation to
give these problems thoughtful consid-
eration. It is simply absurd to use Fed-
eral funds to induce more people to go
into the cattle business. It is unfair and
discriminatory to tax people in other
parts of the country in order to give as-
sistance to one selected region. If the
,people of Appalachia need help, so do
the people of various other parts of the
country. We have no right to play fav-
orites, to help one area at the expense of
others, to worsen the market for the
cattle producers of the West and Mid-
west in order to help out the farmers of
the East.
I ask unanimous consent that an ar-
ticle from the Stockman's Journal of
June 24, 1964, and a release from
the Department of Agriculture dated
June 18, 1964, be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
' and release were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070026-5