AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: August 20, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
19940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 20
of the Air Force in a political campaign is
questionable, to say the least.
President Johnson's reply to all this was
calm, patient, and resolute. In a New York
speech to the American Bar Association he
said the course of U.S. policy in southeast
Asia will not be diverted by political attacks
at home. He added it has never been the
policy of an American President "systemati-
cally to place in hazard the life of this Na-
tion by threatening nuclear war."
The President went further at a press con-
ference Saturday. He said that in making
loose charges Senator GOLDWATER was doing
"a disservice to our national security, a dis-
service to peace and, for that matter, a dis-
service to the entire free world.", Mr. John-
son was right. In forcing the Government
to set out the true facts, Senator GOLDWATER
has put the country in the position of
brandishing its nuclear might. How will the
world view that?
[From the Washington Daily News,
Aug. 19, 19641
ABSURD CHARGE
If any American has lost sleep over recent
talk of holes in our defense system, he should
be reassured by the statistics of Defense
Secretary McNamara.
In long-range missiles (ICBM) we are
ahead of the Russians 800 to 200, according
to Mr. McNamara. In Polaris-type subma-
rine missiles we lead 256 to 142 and ours are
by far superior. In long-range bombers,
which are the specific subject of recent dis-
pute, our edge is even greater-1,100 to 100,
or 1,100 to 250 if you count Soviet bombers
able to reach only a fringe of the United
States.
As to Senator GOLDWATER'S fear that U.S.
deliverable nuclear capacity may be cut
down by 90 percent in the next decade, Sec-.
retary McNamara answers:
"Our strategic forces are and will remain
in the 1960's and 1970's-lufficient to insure
the destruction of both the Soviet Union
and Communist China under the worst
imaginable circumstances accompanying the
outbreak of war. There should be no doubt
about this in the mind of any American.
There is none in the minds of our enemies."
Senator GOLDWATER himself is author of a
statement, 2 years ago, which, in our opin-
ion, applies accurately to the pressent situ-
ation. We quote from his book, "Why Not
Victory?"
"During the Presidential campaign of 1960
the absurd charge was made by Mr. Kennedy
and others that America had become?or
was in danger of becoming?a second-rate
military power. Any comparison of overall
American 'strength with overall Soviet
strength reveals that the United States was
not only superior, but so superior both in
present weapons and in the development of
new ones that our advantage promises to be
a permanent part of the United States-
Soviet relations for the forseeable future."
Events proved both the bomber gap and
the missile gap to be phony. Current impli-
cations that our guard has been let down,
or is going to be let down, may be filed
away in the same envelope.
These observations are not intended to
discount BARRY GOLDWATER SS a candidate
for President. A man should be judged on
his total program, balancing the good with
the bad, and the campaign barely has
started. But we would say he comes out on
the far short end of this particular argument.
[From the Denver Post]
SENATOR GOLDWATER JUGGLES WORDS
("When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty
said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just
what I choose it to mean?neither more nor
less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether
you can make words mean so many different
things." "The question is," said Humpty
Dumpty, "which is to be master?that's all."
"Through the Looking Glass.")
Any American who pays attention to poli-
tics is certainly familiar with hundreds of
practical demonstrations of Humpty Dump-
ty's thesis. We all expect that a candidate
will take great pains to display his mastery
over not only his own words but also over
those of his opponent.
Words are stretched, phrases are twisted,
sentences are willfully misunderstood?all for
anticipated political gain. And we accept
this semantic juggling?with all its "double-
think"?as part of the political game.
The 1964 presidential game is still in the
early innings, but already the Republican
candidate, Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, has
given us two splendid _examples of political
humpty-dumptyism. The Senator, perhaps
smarting from his reputation for making
words mean so many different things, has
now attempted to show us that he is the
master of the words.
The first example came this week at the
so-called unity meeting of the GOP leaders at
Hershey, Pa. There the luminaries of the
Republican Party, many of whom only weeks
and days before had expressed doubts and
dismay about the words of Senator GOLD-
WATER, agreed after listening to the Senator
speak that his words offered no cause for
doubt or dismay, that he was, in fact, not
only the master of his words but also the
master of the Republican Party.
. Although the candidate insisted that he
took no new line and? expressed no new
thoughts, the Republican leaders?except
Governors Romney and Rockefeller, who re-
tained some doubts?embraced the candi-
date wholeheartedly and commended him
profusely for the moderation and reason of
.his words, "The question is, which is to be
master."
Such expressions of unity are, again, part
of the political game. Everyone expects them
?and would be surprised only if they did
not come.
The second example of Senator GOLD-
WATER'S humpty-dumptyism came in a press
conference after his speech. In an attempt
to show that he was also master of President
Johnson's words, the Senator contended that
the President's orders concerning the Viet-
nam crisis could be interpreted to mean that
the U.S. military commanders in southeast
Asia had been authorized to use nuclear
weapons.
From this, the Senator concluded that he
could no longer be charged with being trig-
gerhappy, because the President had done
precisely what he, GOLDWATER, had been ad-
vocating; namely, empowered field com-
manders to use nuclear arms.
At the time of GOLDWATER'S charge, the ac-
tual orders to the 7th Fleet had not been
made public, but in a statement .to the
American people on August 3, the President
said he had instructed the Navy to give its
forces orders "(A) to attack any force which
attacks them in international waters and
(B) to attack with the object not only of
driving off the force but of destroying it."
There was no mention of the use of nu-
clear weapons.
Precisely because there was neither af-
firmative nor negative reference to the use
of nuclear arms, Senator GOLDWATER was able
to fill the verbal vacuum with his own purely
political interpretation.
If anything has been clear in the U.S. nu-
clear policy?whether under Truman or
Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson?it is
that the President must specifically approve
the use of nuclear weapons for a specific pur-
pose at a specific time. To contend, as Sen-
ator GOLDWATER did, that authorization for
the use of nuclear arms can simply be in-
ferred is to attribute to the U.S. Govern-
ment an entirely unwarranted irresponsi-
bility and laxity.
The day after he mastered President John-
son's words, GOLDWATER compounded the
humpty-dumptyism by contending that his
words did not mean so many different things,
that he had, in fact, not meant to imply
that the President had authorized the use
of nuclear weapons. "Curiouser and curi-
ouser," as another Lewis Carroll line puts it.
The White House, in answering GOLD-
WATER'S original charge, took a direct ap-
proach, the sort that is practiced on this
side of the looking glass. The White House
called in reporters and showed them the
copies of actual orders to the 7th Fleet, which
orders specified the use of "conventional
ordinance only."
As the campaign proceeds, we can expect
more of this humpty-dumptyism from Sen-
ator GOLDWATER. After all, it's part of the
game. But we all know what hap ened tp
Humpty-Dumpty.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGf ASS ST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (11.R. 11380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I return
to the discussion of the Dirksen amend-
ment to the foreign aid bill.
On Tuesday, August 18-2 days ago?
I started what I had thought at the
time would be a fairly extensive speech
In opposition to the Dirksen amendment.
But, as so often happens in the Senate,
where we pay little attention to the rule
of germaneness, and tend to legislate by
fits and starts, there were a number of
subjects including conference reports,
which other Senators desired to have
brought up, and I yielded the floor, not
to regain it for some 48 hours, before I
had done more than get halfway through
my discussion of the analogy between the
Dirksen "rotten borough" amendment
and the successful effort to eliminate rot-
ten boroughs in the House of Commons .
in England back in the 1830's.
In a moment I should like to return
to the historical analogy, but first I
should like to call to the attention of
whoever may still be reading the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD these days?because
I note, not for the first time, that there
are only 3 of the 100 Senators in the
Chamber?to a couple of things that oc-
curred in connection with the rotten
borough amendment since I spoke 2 days
ago.
First.was the publication yesterday of
one of the periodic opinion polls con-
ducted by Dr. George Gallup. That
poll dealt with the reaction of the people
of this country to the controversy now
raging on the subject of reapportion-
ment. We have heard in this Chamber
about the public furor which is sweeping
the country against the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States,
which, in a series of cases beginning
with Baker against Carr in 1962, and
ending with the decisions following the
basic case of Reynolds against Sims, de-
cided by the Supreme Court of the
United States on June 15, 1964, has re-
established by decree of the Supreme
Court of the United States the ancient
and honorable principle of American
democracy and support of majority rule.
These decisions establish that in the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE'
Congress, that is to say, in the House of
Representatives, in the State legislatures,
and in all statewide elections for public
office, the rule of representation is one
citizen, one vote. The Court has struck
down a number of provisions of State
law which would give the weight of 100
votes?sometimes 1,000 votes?to one
citizen living in a relatively sparsely pop-
ulated legislative or county district for
every one vote represented by those who
live in more densely populated areas.
These highly wise and salutary decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United
States?at least -in my opinion they are
salutary and wise?have been said by the
proponents of the Dirksen rotten bor-
ough amendment to have caused chaos,
confusion, and an uproar among the
people, an uprising which requires that
the Congress should go to the extreme
length of tacking a rider onto the for-
eign aid bill to staying the enforcement
of the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States.
In colloquy with the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] 2 days ago,
we contended that the so-called chaos
and confusion was nonexistent and that
it was confined to the lamentations of a
relatively small number of State legisla-
tors, their friends and protagonists who
_ are afraid that if the principle of ma-
jority rule were to be applied in con-
nection with their own election, they
would lose their jobs. However, we con-
tended that the American people as a
whole supported the Supreme Court of
the United States and thought that its
recent line of decisions was sensible and
wise.
It is a source of some satisfaction to
me to find that Dr. Gallup's poll comes
to the same conclusion as the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] and I
stated.
?The gravamen of the Gallup poll as it
was printed in the Washington Post on
Wednesday, August 19, is that a con-
stitutional amendment that would undo
the Supreme Court's rulings on appor-
tionment of State legislatures is likely to
run into trouble with the voters of the
Nation.
I have always been strongly of the view
that if the voters of America, understood
how they were being represented as a
result of malapportionment of State leg-
islatures they would rise up and, on the
whole, render three loud cheers in sup-
port of Chief Justice Earl Warren and
his colleagues who represented the large
majority of the Supreme Court in these
rulings, just as an overwhelming ma-
jority of the American people have now
risen up in support of the other outstand-
ing landmark decision of the Warren
Court, Brown against Board of Educa-
tion, in the school desegregation decision
of 1954.
The Senator from Wisconsin and I con-
tended that the Supreme Court was in
good favor with the American people,
and that those who follow the lead of
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dumsm]
in supporting the rotten-borough amend-
ment represented a minority view.
Dr. Gallup finds, in his first test of
public reaction to the Supreme Court's
ruling, that the opinion among those
who have an opinion divided 3 to 2 in
support of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
Dr. Gallup finds that at this point
about one-fourth of those interviewed
had not yet formed an opinion on this
issue. He points out that it will be de-
bated, as indeed it will, in the campaign
and in the months to come, just as it is
being debated now in the greatest de-
liberative body in the world, whence all
save two of Senators have now fled.
Nevertheless, in the long run, on the
whole, sooner or later, more or less, what
is said on the floor of this body tends to
be reported in our free press, over our
free radio, over our free television sta-
tions, and is more likely than not even-
tually to seep into the consciousness of
the American people.
There has as yet been relatively little
debate on the Supreme Court's decision?
some newspaper articles, to be sure; some
debate in the House; some debate in the
Senate; but compared to the debate
which has raged for over a hundred
years with respect to civil rights, the
debate on reapportionment has hardly
scratched the surface of the public con-
sciousness. Yet the unanswerable argu-
ments of those who support the /great
decision of this great court have ap-
parently, according to Dr. Gallup, come
home.
His pollsters?I presume that is a word
which will-soon appear in Webster's dic-
tionary as a new part of our American
language, if it has not already appeared?
asked the following questiori, which ?I
paraphrase, but I believe accurately:
"The Supreme Court has ruled that the
number of representatives of both lower
house and the senate in all State legis-
latures must be in proportion to popula-
tion. In most States this means reduc-
ing the number of legislators from the
rural areas and increasing the number
from urban areas. Do you approve or
disapprove of this ruling?"
Dr. Gallup found that the results, for
the Nation as a whole, were that 47
percent of those queried approved the
decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States; 30 percent disapproved;
and, 23 percent had not made up their
minds or had no opinion.
The survey showed very little differ-
ence between Republicans, Democrats,
and independents on this issue.
I take heart from the Gallup poll. I
think it strengthens the hands of the rel-
atively small number of Senators who
have been opposing the Dirksen amend-
ment. I think it shows that the people
of the United States are on our side.
It may he that these arguments will
be pressed home at the Democratic Na-
tional Convention at Atlantic City next
week in connection with the framing and
adoption of a platform. I am not say-
ing they will be; I am saying they may
be. As these arguments are pressed
home in the Congress, at the Democratic
National Convention, and adross the
country, I am sanguine enough to be
confident that the arguments against the
unsound proposals advanced by the Sen-
ator from Illinois [Mr. Malcom], and in
the other body by Representative Tucx,
19941
will appeal to the American people and
that, in due course, they will be defeated.
So those of us who wish to fully venti-
late this issue are encouraged to con-
tinue, in view of the results of the Gallup
poll.
The second thing that has happened
since I spoke on the floor 2 days ago and
engaged in a colloquy with the Senator
from Wisconsin, which I think is desir-
able to call to the attention of the Sen-
ate, is the forthright stand taken yester-
day by the Attorney General of the
United States, Robert Kennedy, in op-
position to tampering with the decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United
States. The Attorney General appeared
yesterday before the platform committee
of the Democratic National Convention
and stated his views on those matters of
public policy which are within the cog-
nizance of the Department of Justice,
which he has so ably headed for nearly
4 years.
After giving his views of what the
planks in the Democratic platform deal-
ing with civil rights should be, he was
asked a question from the floor. The
question was: What is the position of the
Department of Justice with respect to
whether there should be legislation or
a constitutional amendment which would
affect adversely in any way the reappor-
tionment decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States? He answered cate-
gorically: "The Department of Justice
is opposed to tampering by legislation or
constitutional amendment with the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States."
I take great heart in that forthright
and candor statement of the, Attorney
General.
We know that two very able lawyers
in the Department of Justice, Solicitor
General Archibald Cox, and Deputy At-
torney General Nicholas deB. Katzen-
bach, were called in by the minority
leader, with the consent and approval of
the majority leader, to work on the tech-
nical and legal problems involved in
drafting and modifying to some extent
the watered-down Dirkensen rotten
borough amendment.
I have always contended?and the
statement of the Attorney General makes
it abundantly clear that this contention
is correct?that those able attorneys
were called in, not as protagonists for
tampering with the decisions of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, but
merely as technicians to draft language
which in their opinion might stand the
test of constitutionality if passed by Con-
gress and challenged in the court.
Therefore, it is now very clear indeed
that no one in the Department of Jus-
tice, from the Attorney General down,
favors the Dirksen amendment, and that
no -one in the Department of Justice
wants to see the Dirksen amendment
adopted.
This, again, gives me great heart to
continue this debate in opposition to the
Dirksen amendment, for the purpose of
establishing that it is an unsound, un-
wise and, possibly, an unconstitutional
effort, whose parliamentary procedures
are unacceptable, unusual and without
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
19942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
any justification, and in violation of
sound legislative procedures.
It is a great comfort to have the At-
torney General of the United States on
our Side in this fight, which I am confi-
dent we shall win.
I hope that as a result of the Gallup
poll and the forthright stand of the At-
torney General, a number of Members of
the Senate who may have been wavering
as to how they would vote on the Dirk-
sen rotten borough amendment may con-
clude to come to our side, to the aide of
sanity, to the side of democracy, to the
side of fundamental American principles
of majority rulejo the side of the great
Supreme Court cases, and to the side of
the outstanding Attorney General of the
United States.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to
my friend the Senator from Wisconsin.
I was about to return to the historical
discussion that he and I engaged in the
other day with respect to the British re-
form acts. But this would be a good
place to pause if the Senator wishes to
ask a question or make a comment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. First, on the ques-
tion askes1 in the Gallup poll, as the
Senator read the question into the
RECORD, I am sure he was struck by the
fact that this was about as fair a ques-
tion as could possibly be designed.
Mr. CLARK. So it seemed to me.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There is nothing in
the question about whethlr a person
favors a one-man-one-vote standard. If
it had been in the question, it possibly
would have biased people against the
Dirksen amendment and in support of
the Supreme Court.
For example respondents are asked
in this question whether they approve
having State senators on a population
basis. Now if there is one simple prin-
ciple of American Government organi-
zation with which people are familiar it
is that the composition of the Senate of
the United States is not based on popula-
tion, but is based on providing two Sena-
tors from every State. -
Mr. CLARK. That came about as the
result of the great compromise, which
had to be made, with logic, justice, and
Intelligence, in order to have the Con-
stitution of the United States ratified.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes. The wording
of the question as it was asked by Gallup
interrogators was as follows:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the
number of representatives of both the lower
house and the senate in all State legislatures
must be in proportion to the population.
It Seems to me that that first sentence
would provide, if anything, a tendency
for those who are uncertain to have the
Senate proposal carry. In most States
this means reducing the number of leg-
islators from rural areas and increasing
the number from urban areas.
The next sentence in the question
reads:
In most States .this means reducing the
number of legislators from rural areas and
increasing the number from urban areas.
That sentence, too, put people on no-
tice that this process would be disruptive
and that some people would lose repre-
sentatives and that the number of rep-
resentatives elsewhere would be in-
creased.
There is nothing here to show?at least
nothing directly in this question, unless
a respondent is particularly perceptive?
that everyone everywhere should have
an equal vote, that everyone should be
treated fairly, and that no one should
have an advantage over anyone else.
These are argumnets for our position,
and nobody can deny that they are valid
arguments.
However, these arguments were not im-
plied in the question. It was a straight-
forward question. If there is any doubt
about bias, I am sure that the most ob-
jective analysis would say that there
might be a slight bias in the question in
favor of the Dirksen position.
Mr. CLARK. I agree with the Senator.
I point out to him also that the question
makes specific reference 'to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which many
of our oonservative friends in this body
identify, with the Devil, which they seem
to believe is in a state of great un-
popularity in the country _g_enerally. I
do not mean to imply that I think the
Supreme Court is the Devil. However,
there are those who do not identify the
Supreme Court with the cause of justice,
equity, and right.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Polls have been
proved wrong at times, even though they
have never been too wrong; but some-
times they have been wrong enough so
that in a close election they have picked
the wrong candidate as the winner. One
of the most highly respected is the Gal-
lup poll. At Harvard University, where
I studied public opinion and analysis,
and at other great universities also, it is
felt that this poll is about as scientifically
constructed as possible.
It is said by Gallup that this ques-
tion was put to a cross section sampling
of people across the Nation, meaning
that it was as fair a determination of
how all the American people felt as
thoughtful, objective, and scholarly peo-
ple could make.
It was very carefully designed, so that
it would not represent the opinion of all
urban people or all rural people, or all
rich or poor people, or people represent-
ing one race or another. To the con-
trary, it is a precise reflection of the
makeup of this country. The result
was 61 percent in favor of the Supreme
Court decision and 39 percent against it.
It is my conclusion, based on having
worked on reapportionment in Wiscon-
sin and having discussed it with many
people over the years in our State legis-
lature, that the more this question is
discussed and the more it is explained,
the more those who thought about it
favored the bill.
In the House yesterday, there was an
initial vote on the Tuck bill which would
deny the Supreme Court the right to re-
apportion State legislatures. The bill
received an almost 2-to-1 vote of ap-
proval. Then, after debate?and the
House never has a long debate?a num-
ber of minds were changed. In the
course of brief afternoon debate the sit-
uation was changed to the position where
August 20
many more Representatives opposed the
Tuck bill.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield
on one further point?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I agree with the
Senator. It is of great significance that
the country's leading legal officer, Attor-
ney General Robert Kennedy, has made
it crystal clear that he opposes any kind
of legislative or congressional interfer-
ence with the Supreme Court. As the
Senator from Pennsylvania has so well
said, the Department of Justice must be
relied upon for the best advice we can
get, aside from the Supreme Court. So
far as I can see, the Department of Jus-
-tice does not in this case represent any
vested interest. It has no ax to grind.
The Attorney General has available the
best legal advice in the Nation.
On the basis of all this impressive
background, the Attorney General, whom.
I consider to be a man of sound judg-
ment?he is a controversial figure, of
course, as are all people of importance?
came forth, as the Senator from Penn.;
sylvania has so well said, four square,
without qualification, without diluting
his position at all, on ?the side of those
who feel that it would be a great mistake
to enact any legislation like the Dirksen
amendment.
Mr. CLARK. There is no question
about it. I was present and heard his
words.
In an article published in the New
York Times this morning, under the by-
line of Anthony Lewis, one of the most
highly respected and accurate reporters
covering Washington today, the Attorney
General is quoted as saying:
We are very strongly against ahy steps that
might be taken against the Supreme Court
decision.
The Attorney General commented, to
be sure, rather informally, in further re-
sponse to the question he was asked, that
the Department of Justice had appeared
as a party in court to support the posi-
tion eventually taken by the Court in its
decisions beginning with Baker against
Carr and continuing through the most
recent ones.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my friend for
yielding. I was a little surprised when
I heard the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania use 2 colorful expressions.
I heard him speak of the opponents of
his position on the current Dirksen pro-
posal as associating the Supreme Court
with the devil. If I misunderstood him,
he can correct me.
Mr. CLARK. I should like to correct
the Senator from Florida to this ex-
tent: I was using the phrase, obviously,
in lighter vein. If the Senator was of
the view that it was intended seriously,
I should like to make it clear for the
RECORD that I was really "ribbing" the
proponents of the Dirksen amendment.
Perhaps I went a little too far.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator
for his gracious apology. That is all
right. ,
However,_the case is not so simple as
that. We who prefer to side with Mr.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Justice Harlan and his very fmenpinion,
in which he chastised his brethren on
the Supreme Court for trying to put
themselves in the position of overlord-
ship over the State?I believe that is the
word he used?rather than to agree with
Mr. Justice Frankfurter?retired now, of
course?Mr. Justice Brandeis, and others
whom I could mention, need not be
charged with taking a position which is
not supported by the most dignified and
most capable legal authorities.
A real question exists. I merely
wanted to invite the Senator's attention
to it. I observe that my good friend
from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] is still
in the Chamber. In the opinion of the
Senator from Florida, the authority
whom the Senator from Wisconsin
quoted, the present distinguished Attor-
ney General, Mr. Kennedy, is not to be
compared in his capacity, in his legal
ability, in his experience, in his legal
qualities, from any standpoint, with Mr.
Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
Mr. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice
Cardozo, and others who have taken a
position completely opposite to that
which is now taken by young Mr. Ken-
nedy-.
A Senator who leans upon that author-
ity for his position is leaning upon the
authority of a lawyer who, as I recall,
argued one case before one court, and
that was after he became Attorney Gen-
eral. As I recall, his first case before a
court was before the Supreme Court of
the United States. He went into it ml a
kind of family party, and I am sure that
all enjoyed it with him, when he ap-
peared against one of the Southern
States in a very popular cause in the Na-
tion generally?that is, the cause that he
opposed was unpopular?and to this day
I believe that is the only case that the
learned Attorney General has ever ar-
gued before any court at any time.
So to compare an authority of that
type with Mr. Justice Harlan and the
others whom I have named, who were
diametrically opposed in their opinion to
the judgment of the majority of their
brethren on the Supreme Court at this
time, is to lean upon a weak reed, if I
may say so to the distinguished Senator
from Wisconsin.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Florida may recall that I have
the floor.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my friend for
yielding.
Mr. CLARK. I shall be happy to yield
to the Senator from Florida in a moment.
Perhaps the Senator from Wisconsin and
I might combine our replies to the Sen-
ator from Florida. I should like to de-
fend the Supreme Court of the United
States and let the Senator from Wiscon-
sin defend the Attorney General of the
United States, although the Attorney
General needs no defense from either
of us.
I shall merely point out a couple of
inaccuracies in what the Senator from
Florida said. He has a tendency to paint
with a rather broad brush.
The basic fact is that the decision in
Reynolds against Sims, handed down on
June 15 of this year, and which has
aroused most of the controversy, was
a decision of 8 to 1. Every single Jus-
tice on the Supreme Court except Jus-
tice Harlan concurred in the result.
Many times throughout history as
small a minority as one out of nine has
proved, in the great, broad sweep of his-
tory, to be correct, and the majority has
proved to be incorrect. I have warm
personal affection as well as high regard
for the legal abilities of Mr. Justice Har-
lan. I have read with some interest his
dissenting opinion. To my mind, every
point in it was conclusively answered in
the majority opinion written by Chief
Justice Warren, an opinion which was
concurred in by every other Justice on
the Supreme Court. ? In my opinion, Jus-
tice Warren's opinion is one of the most
closely reasoned, irrefutable, and logical
arguments in support of the theory of
one person, one vote, and no more than
one vote, in connection with representa-
tion, that has ever been put on paper.
Justice Harlan's dissent is an able,
legalistic, realtively obsolete opinion,
dealing with a conception of the Con-
stitution which is quite rigid and quite
inflexible. It states a view as to the
14th amendment. I know that some of
the colleagues of the Senator from Flor-
ida, and even the Senator from Florida
himself, -believe that it was illegally
adopted. Nevertheless, it has been the
law of the land for almost 100 years. To
me, Justice Harlan's dissent is not at all
persuasive. I recognize the right of the
Senator from Florida to disagree. I see
him on his feet. In just a moment, I
shall yield to him again.
I should like to complete my thought.
It is true that former Justice Felix
Frankfurter filed a dissent in the earlier
case of Baker against Clark, which was
decided shortly before he resigned from
the Supreme Court, full of years and, to
my way of thinking, full of glory. He
came on the Court as a flaming liberal,
but left it as an ultraconservative. That
was his right. He was a wonderful judge
and a great law professor. Justice
Frankfurter took no part in the decision
of Reynolds against Sims, which is now
the subject of the Dirksen amendment,
and which the amendment seeks to
reverse.
As to some of the other judges whom
the Senator from Florida undertook to
identify, Justice Brandeis took no part
in the case of Baker against Carr. He
has been off the Court for years. He
probably sat in the Green case, which in
effect was reversed by Baker against Carr
at a later date.
Justice Cardozo was one of the Court's
great Justices, but he took no part in
these decisions.
So while everything the Senator from
Florida said was, in a broad sense, cor-
rect, he did not attempt to pin down
the fact that the decision which the
Senator from Wisconsin and I are de-
fending was an 8-to-1 decision. The one
dissenter based his dissent, to my way of
thinking, strictly on technical grounds.
Let me say to the Senator from Florida
that if he wishes me to yield to him, I
shall be happy to do so; but I should
like the Senator from Wisconsin at some
point to rise in defense of that great
Attorney General, Robert Kennedy.
19943
Mr. PROXMIRE. I rise now for that
purpose.
_ Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator will
permit me, before he begins, let me say
that I appreciate the admission by the
Senator from Pennsylvania that Justice
Harlan took a strong position against
the other eight. The point I make is
that those of us who choose the logic
and wisdom of Justice Harlan are clearly
entitled to the good faith which he dis-
played in his opinion. He did not refer
to his eight brethren as "devils," or to
the majority of the Court as such. It
was a good faith difference of opinion.
Insofar as Justice Frankfurter is con-
cerned, let me add to what the distin-
guished Senator from Pennsylvania said,
that he not only grew older in years but
also wiser in judgment as he became
older, and that his opinion in the case to
which he referred is one of the land-
marks on this particular matter.,
Mr. CLARK. This must, of course, be
a matter of opinion.
Mr, HOLLAND. Exactly. Since it is
an opinion, no bricks should be thrown.
So far as the Senator from Fl6rida is
concerned, he is not going to throw any
bricks at anyone, but he will say that
those who maintain the position which
he maintains, that the decision is both
unfortunate, unwise and not in accord-
ance with the Constitution, have respect-
able reasons for saying so, and that our
position cannot be challenged except up-
on the question as to who is right and
who is wrong. That is the only basis
upon which -we can discuss it.
Mr. CLARK. I quite agree.
I now yield to the Senator from Wis-
consin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
Senator from Pennsylvania has said that
the Attorney General of the United
States needs no defense from me or from
the Senator from Pennsylvania. At-
torney General Kennedy is a man who,
again and again, has demonstrated rare
courage in all kinds of ways and has used
excellent judgment. He is a man who,
as Attorney General, does not have to
spend years in court. This applies to all
U.S. Attorneys General. He is primarily
an administrator. Mr. Kennedy is a fine
administrator. But as an administrator
he must select able lawyersito advise him.
He has done so. He has done that on the
basis of advice of the ablest lawyers in
government, and he has come to this
conclusion on the relation of Congress
and the Supreme Court. I believe that
he has the kind of judgment of men and
of issues which would suggest that this
conclusion should be given great weight.
Let me say to the Senator from Flor-
ida that when he says the eminent Jus-
tices to whom he refers have completely
disagreed with what the Attorney -Gen-
eral has said, I disagree completely with
him, because what the Attorney General
has said is that Congress in this case
should not interfere with the Supreme
Court. I believe that Justice Harlan
would say the same thing.
The Senator from Florida said that
he chooses the logic and the wisdom of
Justice Harlan. Justice Harlan had
never indicated that if Congress dis-
agreed with the decision of the Supreme
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
19944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Court, Congress should feel free to pass
legislation nullifying it. It seems to me
that Justice Harlan, being the kind of
scholar he is, would recognize that at
times he is in the minority, as many able
judges have been throughout history,
and that he would seek the opportunity
to reverse the decision of the Supreme
Court, but to do it through the judicial
process. This is the procedure the At-
torney General defends. The Attorney
General and the nine Supreme Court
Justices are all in agreement on this
issue.
Mr. HOLLAND. The two Senators
who have just spoken are not in accord
with me. They may be right and I may
be wrong. The Senator from Florida
has a very strong conviction that he is
right in this matter. He agrees with his
friend the Senator from Wisconsin, that
Justice Harlan would never suggest what
the legislative branch should do, that he
has too fine a sense of proportion. He
is too great a believer in preserving the
principles of government. But I wish to
say, before I am called from the floor?
and I do have to leave?that a good por-
tion of the time the Senator from Flor-
ida has spent since he has been in the
Senate has been spent in correcting
things that the Supreme Court has done.
He fought the- Tidelands case for years
to overcome what he thought was an
improper decision. It was not strictly a
- constitutional matter, but it was a mat-
ter .in which we finally prevailed on the
floor of the Senate. The Court, with an
exception or two, followed us. The
Senator from Florida did the same thing
in connection with the railroad strike
case, and in connection with the insur-
ance case, with which I am sure my-
friend the Senator from Wisconsin is
familiar. So when the time comes
when the elected representatives of the
people are said not to have any right to
stand up for what they believe is sound
under our system of government, on a
constitutional question, that will be a
poor time for Our country.
The Senator from Florida feels that
those who are taking the position which
he takes are just as much entitled to be
respectfully heard, and to have their
good motives recognized, as are Senators
who are on the other side of the fight, anct
not in any sense to be downgraded as to
their reasons for being in the fight.
Mr. PROXMIRE. , The Senator is
absolutely correct. I -do not know of any-
one who has questioned the motives of
the Senator from Florida, or-aher Sena-
tors who disagree with us. Indeed, other
Senators may well be in the majority. I
believe that most of them are confident
that they are.
Mr. HOLLAND. I would hope that
that is the case.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The whole reason
for the existence of the Senate is so that
Senators may voice their opinions and
speak their minds. But the argument I
am making is that if the Dirksen amend-
ment is to stay the Supreme Court from
protecting for a year or more the right
which they regard as constitutional and
fundamental?I say that not Justice
Frankfurter, not Justice Harlan, not
Justice Brandeis?no Justices of the Su-
preme Court could be summoned to sup-
port that kind of legislative position.
The Senator from Florida is entitled to
completely disagree with the Supreme
Court Justices, but I say that his agree-
ment with Justice Harlan as supporting
the Dirksen amendment does not make
any sense to me, because the worst part
of the amendment is that it would tell
the Supreme Court what it could and
could not do in protecting basic Ameri-
can rights.
Mr. HOLLAND. It is time for the peo-
ple to be heard. When we reach the
point where we cannot ask for time for
the people to be heard, this country will
be in a sorry state. I have seen the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin argue for causes
which were lost before he even started
arguing for them, so I know he sub-
scribes to the principle that we must
stand up for what we believe in, to the
best of our ability, and defend what we
believe in.
I believe with all my heart that our
Constitution does not mean what the
Supreme Court decision by a majority of
the Court says it means. I believe that
if it did, the 14th amendment would
never have been adopted, because each
of the States outside the South adopted
it and had bicameral legislatures in
which different standards of elections
were prescribed. How can it be said with
any reasonable degree of accuracy that
those States would have approved the
14th amendment if they had known that
the people voting for ratification in many
instances were voting themselves out of
office, voting out of existence the very
basis upon_ which the legislatures were
founded. So the question, after all, is
one which I believe the Senate and the
House can decide. Both sides are en-
titled to recognition as having the best
motives.
A while ago the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania used a term which I believe he
was not using seriously, because I believe
that he knows that no Member of the
Senate regards the Supreme Court as
a group of devils. The Senator from
Florida does not. He has appeared be-
fore the Supreme Court. He has argued
before the Court. He goes over there
from the Senate to sponsor friends who
wish to be admitted to practice before
the Supreme Court, and he does it with
a great sense of respect for the Supreme
Court and, of course, for the dignity that
prevails there?and he has always had
that feeling. But he does not agree in
advance with the Supreme Court on
everything that it does. He has not done
so in this instance.
I am sorry, but I must leave now to
join a conference in my office. I hope
that my two distinguished friends will
excuse me.
Mr. CLARK. -The Senator has made
a good speech. God bless the Senator
from Florida.
(At this point MT. SALINGER took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Florida is very eloquent in many ways,
and I say this in all sincerity. I do not
question his integrity for one moment.
I should like to say that we must not get
away from the fact that the' heart, the
August 20
core, the central objection to the Dirksen
amendment is what it would do to sus-
pend the rights of the Supreme Court to
protect a constitutional right. No mat-
ter what the oratory may be, this is the
core and the heart of ciur objection.
The Senator cannot get away from
that. I am sure he must know that he
cannot properly call on any Supreme
Court Justice who has ever served to sup-
port the position that Congress should
move in on the Supreme Court, as is pro-
posed in this amendment.
Mr. HOLLAND. One former member
of the Supreme Court, recently retired, is
Voicing that kind of sentiment all over
the Midwest at this time.
I am very grateful to the distinguished
Senators. I believe we understand each
other completely. I recognize that they
have great integrity and ability in this
matter. And I hope they will recognize
that the opponents have the same quali-
ties.
Mr. PROXMIRE. We certainly do. I
yield to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, I
congratulate the Senator for making it
very plain and clear for the record that
neither the Attorney General ? of the
United States nor any of his staff ap-
proved of the Dirksen amendment.
The record might possibly reflect the
impression that the Senator is bringing
the Attorney General into this matter.
I believe the RECORD should show?and
I am sure the Senator from Pennsylvania ?
[Mr. CLARK] agrees?that the Attorney
General and his staff were brought into
this controversy by the proponents of the
Dirksen amendment. They tried to cre-
ate the impression that the amendment
was approved by very important people
on the staff of the Attorney General. We
did'not bring the Attorney General into
this matter. He was brought in by the
opposition.
I congratulate the Senator from Pehn-
sylvania for bringing that point up at
this time and stating the position of the
Attorney General.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Michigan very much.
I would like to copper finish that state-
ment, if I might. Before the Senator
entered the Chamber, I pointed out that
yesterday the Attorney General, before
the Democratic platform committee,
brought himself into the controversy
when, in response to a question, he stated
categorically in the words of Anthony
Lewis, of the New York Times. "We are
very strongly against any steps that
might be taken against the Supreme
Court."
Robert Kennedy, the Attorney Gen-
eral, said that. I heard him say it. He
pointed out that Mr. KatZenbach and
Mr. Cox, very able lawyers, were brought
into the effort to modify the original
Dirksen amendment in a way that, in
their judgment, might make it constitu-
tional. But they expressed no views of
the Dirksen amendment whatever.
Now that the Attorney General has
stated his wholehearted opposition to the
Dirksen amendment, one must assume
that Messrs. Cox and Katzenbach con-
cur in the view of their chief. ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
' Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. President, before I return to the
historical aspects of this rotten borough
amendment, and continue my analogy
between the history of the first reform
bill in England in the 1830's and this ef-
fort to overturn fair representation, 132
or 133 years later, I should like to note
for the RECORD that I have?and these
figures are perhaps 2 days old at the pres-
ent time?received 92 communications
with respect to the public position I have
taken on the Dirksen amendment.
Eighty-eight of these confirm the posi-
tion I have taken in opposition to the
amendment. Four of them object to my
stand and support the Dirksen amend-
ment.
These communications come from
pretty highly regarded sources in the
United States. I shall not read them
all. But I would like to call attention to
them.
I ask unanimous consent that these
telegrams and letters may be printed in
full at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the tele-
grams and letters were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
August 17, 1964. .
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.: ?
I am sending the following telegram to
President Johnson:
"Senator DIRKSEN'S proposed amendment
will delay our program for adequate legisla-
tive reapportionment in Pennsylvania con-
siderably.
"The Supreme Court's action was the one
hope for the 70 percent of Americans who
now live in our urban centers.
"We in Pennsylvania, and in Philadelphia
particularly, are vitally affected by the failure
of the Republican legislature to apportion
legislative districts equitably.
"We do hope that the administration will
be helpful to our big cities in America so
that we will ultimately get adequate repre-
sentation.
"The Republican Governor of Pennsylvania
has failed not only to give us fair repre-
sentation, but only recently gerrymandered
many legislative districts in Philadelphia to
our disadvantage. If Senator DIRKSEN'S
amendment is approved, our legislative pro-
gram for Philadelphia will be jeopardized for
another generation."
I am further advised that Mayor Tucker,
of St. Louis, and other officials of the U.S.
conference of mayors are also opposed to
Senator DIRKSEN'S amendment.
JAMES H. J. TATE,
Mayor, City of Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
August 13, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Pending proposal to stay court orders af-
fecting reapportionment of State legislatures
is derogatory 'of U.S. Constitution which
provides for separation of powers between
branches of Federal Government. It is un-
thinkable that the Congress should deem a
suspension of constitutional rights to be in
the public interest, as this amendment spe-
cifically states. The Senate is considering
this revolutionary proposal without any
hearings whatsoever. The most elementary
considerations of due process require that
interested citizens be granted an opportunity
to present their views to the appropriate
committee. AFL-CIO executive council is
unanimously on record opposing any legis-
lative interference with the judicial branch.
Therefore I strongly urge you to vote against
any such proposal and to exert every effort
to assure adequate hearings on this highly
important question.
ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,
Director, Department of Legislation,
AFL-CIO.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
August 13, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington,
We urge you to vote against new compro-
mise proposal for holding up reapportion-
ment of State legislatures. Produced without
hearing in secret conferences unrepresenta-
tive of any broad range of Senate views,
it still amounts to congressional Interference.
with judicial process. The whole matter de-
serves a great deal more consideration than
it can be given this late in the session. We
urge you not to be stampeded into acting
hastily.
WALTER P. RETJTHER,
President, Industrial Union Depart-
ment, AFL-CIO.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, _
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I strongly urge your opposition to the
amendment, now being considered by the
Senate, providing for a stay of proceedings
for reapportionment of State legislatures.
Such an amendment raises serious long-
range constitutional questions which de-
mand a careful and judicious hearing by an
appropriate Senate committee?not the hasty
action now underway. I hope you will exert
every effort to defeat this proposal.
JACOB S. POTOFSKY,
General President, Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
ALTOONA, PA.,
August 17, 1694.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We urge you to oppose any legislation in-
terfering with the judiciary and urge that
adequate hearing of any reapportionment
legislation be held before floor action is
taken.
A. L. RHODES,
President, Local 180, UWUA, AFL-CIO.
PITTSBURGH, PA,,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
On behalf of the, membership of District
No. 16, United Steel Workers of America, I
urge you to vigorously oppose any legislation
aimed at reversing the Supreme Court deci-
sion regarding reapportionment of State
senate and ,legislatures. Would appreciate
your comments.
PAUL R. NORMILE,
Director, District No. 16, United
Steel Workers of America.
CLEARFIELD, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We urge you to oppose any legislation in-
terfering with judiciary, also that adequate
hearing of any reapportionment legislation
be held before floor action is taken.,
ANTHONY J. SPAGNOLO,
Secretary, Local No. 75.
19945
CLEARFIELD, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding pending reapportionment legis-
lation, we urge you to oppose any legislation
interfering with judiciary, also that adequate
hearings of all legislation be held before
action is taken.
CORINNE C. ANDERSON,
ACW A, Local 118, Curivensville, Pa.
CANTON, PA.,
August 15, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Urge you oppose by every means Dirksen
amendment hoax.
HENRY N. HALLETT.
UNIONTOWN, PA.,
August 15, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Members Uniontown Typographical Union
No. 262 strongly urge opposition to legisla-
tion interfering with judiciary. Urge ade-
quate hearings be held on any reapportion-
ment legislatjon.
NORMAN C. HALL,
President.
ALTOONA, PA.,
August 15, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Our central body considers the attempt
to negate the Supreme Court ruling on re-
apportionment as being un-American, un-
democratic and in a sense dishonest. Such
unfair tactics breed resentment and we look
to you to prevent this abuse.
GEORGE G. RussELL,
Chairman, Legislative Committee Cen-
tral Labor Council.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
More than 25,000 members of the AFL-
CIO in Philadelphia urge that you oppose
the Dirksen amendment postponing proper
reapportionment in conformity with the U.S.
Constitution, no action by Congress should
infringe upon citizens right guaranteed un-
der the State or Federal Constitution.
PHILADELPHIA COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
JOSEPH T. KELLEY,
Secretary-Treasurer.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.,
August 15, 1964.
SENATOR JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
You have our support, defeat the "rotten
?borough" amendment.
Mr. and MTS. WALLACE FRIEDBERG.
BETHANY. OKLA.
MIAMI, FLA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Thanks for filibustering against mal-
apportionment rider to foreign aid bill. If
you delay passage until convention believe
grassroots opposition to rider can be mus-
tered. Please do not give up. If your fight
fails, hopes of millions of disenfranchised
citizens are killed. Don't let us down.
AUBREY V. KENDALL,
President, Young Democratic Club of
Dade County.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2914/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
19946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE . August 20
LEBANON, PA.,
August 16, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
I hereby request that you uphold Federal
court decision on reapportionment of State
legislature.
HENRY L. GENSLER,
Secretary-Treasurer of United Labor
Council of Lebanon County.
YORK, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Our council urges you to oppose any leg-
islation interferring with judiciary, and in-
sisting that adequate hearings of any re-
apportionment legislation be held before
floor action is taken. Your cooperation will
be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
EUGENE H. GROVE,
Secretary, York Building and Construc-
tion Trades Council, AFL?CIO.
AMBRIDGE, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Preservation of principle of proportionate
representation in election process essential.
Your every resistance to legislative efforts
to revamp recent court decision upholding
this principle will be appreciated.
- - KAY KLUZ,
Director, District No. 20, Unted Steel
Workers of America.
LANCASTER, PA.,
August 17, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Request your support of the Supreme Court
reapportionment of State legislatures and
urge you to oppose any legislation inter-
ferring with the judiciary and urge adequate
hearings of any reapportionment legislation
be held before flock" action is taken.
WILLIAM MYERS,
President, Lancaster Labor Council.
MEADVILLE, PA.,
August 17, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Crawford County Labor 'Union Council
urges you to oppose any effort to suspend
Federal court orders on reapportionment of
State legislatures until after adequate hear-
ings have been held.
WALTER B. ANDRE,
Secretary.
BRISTOL, PA.,
August 17, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Bucks County Council, AFL?CIO, is urging
that you oppose any legislation interfering
with the judiciary and urging that adequate
hearings of any reapportionment legislation
be held before floor action is taken,-
FRANK FLATCH,
President.
PITTSBURGH, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, Jr.,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We oppose any action to interfere with
judicial court orders requiring reapportion-
ment of State legislatures. Ask that you use
your influence and knowledge to require that
adequate hearings be held on reapportion-
ment legislation before floor action is taken.
We support the judicial action on this matter
and oppose legislative action to suspend
court orders on reapportionment.
Your support requested and appreciated.
Was. J. HART,
President, Allegheny County Labor
Council.
JAMES PUGLIN,
Executive Secretary.
UNIONTOWN, PA.,
August 15, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Members of Carpenter Local No. 1010 re-
quest your opposition to any legislation in-
terfering with judiciary. Strongly urge ade-
quate hearing on any reapportionment
legislation.
RAY E. GLOVER,
President, Carpenters Local No. 1010.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.,
August 16, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.:
We want to indicate our support of your
efforts to defeat the Dirksen amendment to
the foreign aid bill which seeks to delay
reapportionment of State legislatures.
CHARLES L. ODOROPP.
SETTA ODOROFF.
ALLISON PARK, PA.,
August 16, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Am against attachment court rider to
foreign aid bill. Issue should stand on own
merits.
R. C. BLACKMOND.
POTTSVILLE, PA.,
August 16, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: Please do not suspend hear-
ings on reapportionment of State legislature.
Please oppose the above and bring to the
floor for a vote thereby going along with the
decision of the Federal court as this will be
in the publics interest and distribute reap-
portionment fairly. Please confirm your
position on the above and please vote yes
for reapportionment in our State.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
VINCE ZimMERS,
Union Delegate, Local Union 517.
CRESSONA, PA.,
August 16, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Sm: Please do not suspend hearings on
reapportionment of State legislature. Please
oppose the above and bring to the floor for
a vote, therefore, going along with the win-
ning of the Federal court's decision on the
above, as this will be in the public interest
and will distribute representation fairly.
Please confirm your position on reapportion-
ment, this council asks your vote favorably
on the above.
CLARENCE DUSTY KRAUSE,
President, Schuylkill County Building
& Construction & Trades Council.
UNIONTOWN, PA.,
August 15, .1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building, .
Washington, D.C.:
Members of Local 131, ACWA, strongly urge
opposition to legislation interfering with
judiciary, urge adequate hearing of reap-
portionment legislation be held.
MARIE GEORGIANA,
President.
DONORA, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
United Steel Workers legislative committee
of Washington County strongly urges that
you oppose any legislation which pertains
to reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's de-
cision regarding the reapportionment of the
State senate and State legislatures.
A. P. DELSANDRO,
Legislative Representative.
?
HARRISBURG, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We respectfully urge that you oppose any
effort to suspend any Federal court orders
requiring reapportionment of State legisla-
tures and that you further oppose any legis-
lation limiting or ' interfering with the judi-
ciary. We will also appreciate your demand-
ing that adequate hearings on any reappor-
tionment legislation be held before same is
referred to floor action. Your confirmation
and acknowledgment will be deeply appre-
ciated.
HARRY BOYER, ?
President.
MICHAEL JOHNSON,
Executive Vice President.
? ,
WILKES-BARRE, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
"Washington, D.C.:
Urging you oppose any legislation inter-
fering with judiciary and urging that ade-
quate hearings of any reapportionment
legislation be held before floor action is
taken.
HENRY DEpOLO.
UNcAsvn.LE, CONN.,
August 15, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, Jr.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.:
Please help defeat Dirksen and all similar
delaying proposals. Thanks,
ROBERT H. BARNES.
CRESSONA, PA.,
August 16, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Sm: Please do not suspend hearings on re-
apportionment of State legislature. Please
oppose the above and bring to the floor
for a vote, therefore going along with the
winning of the Federal court's decision on
the above, as this will be in the public's
interest and will distribute representation
fairly. Please confirm, your position on re-
apportionment. This council asks your vote
favorably on the above.
CLARENCE DUSTY KRAUSE,
Recording Secretary of United Labor
Council of Schuylkill County.
TALLAHASSEE, FLA,
August 14, 1964.
U.S. Senator JOSEPH'CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Our deep appreciation to you and col-
leagues for maintaining ceaseless opposition
to Dirksen efforts to delay or thwart long
overdue legislative reapportionment. South-
ern Democrats supporting Dirksen rider are
precisely same ones already surreptitiously
working for general election defeat of Presi-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
1964,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
dent Johnson. He could carry most, if not
all of South is supported by southern Demo-
cratic Senators for whom the party has made
possible 'rich political and personal rewards.
JIM and ANN ETHRIDGE.
WLLKES-BARRE, PA.,
, August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Urging you oppose any legislation inter-
ferring with judiciary and urging that ade-
quate hearings of any reapportionment leg-
islation be held before floor action is taken.
HAROLD COSLETT.
WILKES-BARRE, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Urging you oppose any legislation inter-
f erring with judiciary and urging that ade-
quate hearings of any reapportionment leg-
islation be held before floor action is taken.
EDWARD MCHUGH,
Business Agent, Ironworkers Local No. 489.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I respectfully request you to oppose any
legislation that would further delay the ap-
portionment of State legislatures as ruled
by the Supreme Court.
HUGH CARCELLA,
Director, District No. 7, United Steel-
workers of America.
SEATTLE, WASH.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Please keep fighting DIRKSEN'S redistricting
amendment. How can we forestall this
threat to democratic government?
ANN WIDDITSCH.
AUGUST 14, 1964.
JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
More than 50,000 members of the IUE
AFL-CIO in Pennsylvania urge that you op-
pose the Dirksen amendment postponing
proper reapportionment in conformity with
the U.S. Constitution. No action by Con-
gress should infringe upon citizens' rights
guaranteed under the State or Federal Con-
stitution.
HARRY BLOCK,
President, District Council No. 1, IUE,
AFL-CIO...
WILKES-BARER, PA.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Urging you oppose any legislation inter-
fering with judiciary and urging that ade-
quate hearings of any reapportionment legis-
lation be held before floor action is taken.
WYOMING VALLEY TRADES COUNCIL.
PITTSBURGH, PA.,
August 8, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,
Senator from PennsylVania,
Washington, D .0 .
? DEAR SENATOR CLARK: Once again the Su-
preme Court has come to the rescue of our
? liberties, this time by decreeing that repre-
sentation in State legislatures shall be,based
on the principle of "one citizen, one vote,"
and by ordering that legislative districts be
made to contain as nearly, as possible equal
numbers of voters. And once again forces
No. 164-13
of reaction are attempting to reverse the
Court's decision. Special interest groups
that have for too long held power through
Inequitably apportioned State legislatures
are 'trying to maintain that power by legis-
lation and constitutional amendment. We
urge you to oppose all such attempts.
In particular we ask that you vote against
Senator Dirksen's bill to postpone the reap-
portionments ordered by the Court, and
against any constitutional amendment to
permit districting either house of a State
legislature on any basis other than popula-
tion.
Yours truly,
BARBRO HELSTROM.
CARL W. HELSTROM.
STATE COLLEGE, PA.,
August 13, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I approve of your stand on 'reapportion-
meht.
HELEN-STRIEDIECK,
Faculty Wife and Secretary.
. STATE COLLEGE, PA,
August 14, 1964.
Senator JOSEPH CLARK,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.:
I heartly approve of your efforts for equal-
ity in the redistricting controversy.
R. T. DUQUET.
ROCKVILLE, MD.,
- August 13, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Just heard you on CBS re Dirksen amend-
ment and debate. More power to you.
ALICE HOSTETLER.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
August 14, 1946.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,
Washington, D.C.:
Compromise of Dirksen plan to delay re-
apportionment of State legislatures is not
acceptable. Please do all possible to insure
both early reapportionment and pasSage of
foreign aid bill.
NORVAL REECE,
Executive Director, Americans for Dem-
ocratic Action, Southeastern Pennsyl-
vania Chapter.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN,
Washington, D.C., August 7, 1964.
Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, JR.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: We have read in the
press of Senator DuutsEres- intent to add a
rider to the Foreign Assistance Act authoriza-
tion bill, S. 2658. We believe such a rider
would be likely to influence votes on the
foreign assistance bill to its detriment. The
American Association of Univeristy Women
has this year, as in the past, supported this
legislation as a vital instrument of U.S. for-
eign policy in carrying on economic and social
assistance programs to promote conditions
favorable to democracy, security and peace
throughout the world.
We urge Senate approval of the authori-
zation recommended by the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee and appropriation of the
full amount authorized. In our opinion
this "bare bones" request for next year's pro-
gram should not suffer further reduction.
We oppose the Dirksen rider for several
reasons: first, that it could harm the AID
legislation; second, that the rider on reap-
portionment is not germane to S. 2658. We
also firmly believe that such a serious mat-
19947
ter as representation and reapportionment,
so long overdue in many States, should be
discussed on its own -merits rather than as
a rider to an unrelated and important piece
of legislation.
In addition to our opposition to the addi-
tion of Dirksen's rider we also wish to express
our sincere hope that any further amend-
ments to S. 2658 which would complicate the
implementation of the AID program can be
avoided.
Respectfully,
Dr. ALONA E. EVANS,
Area Representative, World Problems.
MI'S. GEORGE C. HAHN,
Chairman, Legislative Program Committee.
Mr. CLARK. The first telegram is
from Mayor James H. J. Tate, of Phila-
delphia, in which he states:
Senator DIRKSEN'S proposed amendment
will delay our program for adequate legis-
lative reapportionment in Pennsylvania con-
siderably. The Supreme Court's ?Vion was
the one hope for the 70 percent of Americans
who now live in our urban centers. We, in
Pennsylvania, and in Philadelphia; partic-
ularly, are vitally affected by the failure of
the Republic legislature to apportion legis-
lative districts equitably.
Mayor Tate advises me that his posi-
tion is shared by Mayor Tucker, of St.
Louis, and other officials of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, who are also op-
posed to Senator DIRKSEN'S amendment.
He urges me to continue my opposition
to the amendment.
The next telegram, which I shall not
read, takes the same position. It is from
Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, director of the
Department of Legislation of the AFL?
CIO.
Next is a telegram from Walter P.
Reuther, urging me to vote against the
new compromise proposal for holding up
reapportionment. I have a similar tele-
gram from Jacob S. Potofsky, general
president of the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL?CIO.
I have a telegram from the Phila-
delphia Council of the AFL?CIO, signed
by Joseph P. Kelly, secretary-treasurer
of the Philadelphia Council, AFL?CIO.
I have a similar telegram from William
J. Hart, president of the Allegheny
County Labor Council. There is a tele-
gram from Harry Boyer and Michael
Johnson, executive vice president of the
Pennsylvania State AFL?CIO.
There is a well-worded letter from
the area representative and the chair-
man of the Legislative Program Commit-
tee of the American Association of Uni-
versity Women, from their Washington
headquarters, representing the national
organization.
I believe that as the gravamen of this
debate is made manifest through the
country, we shall find the American
people expressing to their Representa-
tives in Congress, in no uncertain terms,
their distaste of and opposition to the
rotten borough amendment.
Mr. President, I now return to the
scene of the 1830's and the analogy be-
tween the controversy over the first re-
form bill in the House of Commons and
the efforts at that time to give England
a fair and equitable legislative repre-
sentation in the House of Commons, and
the efforts of those who support the Dirk-
sen amendment to turn back the clock in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5
19948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD' ? SENATE
our country and deny to the people of
the States that equitable representation
in their own State legislatures which the
Supreme Court of the United States has
held they are entitled to as a matter of
constitutional right:
In my comments on this subject, which
appeared at pages 1931,f3 19382, and
19383 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for
,Tuesday, August 18, I had reached the
point where the general election in Eng-
land of August 1831, had brought in a
Whig majority in the House of Com-
mons- which installed Lord Grey as the
new Prime Minister and turned out the
Duke of Wellington, who had been a Tory
Prime Minister in the preceding Cabinet.
Lord Grey, who served in the House
of Lords, introduced the first reform bill,
which abolished a large number of rot-
ten boroughs?and I described in my
earlier remarks what a rotten borough
was?and distributed their seats in the
House of dommons among the British
cities which had hitherto been unrepre-
sented in Parliament, and enfranchised
about one-half of the British middle
class. Since Prime Minister Grey was in
the House of Lords, Lord John Russell
managed the first reform bill in the
House of Commons.
The bill created a real controversy in
the England of its day, a controversy not
unlike, and probably a good deal more
severe than the controversy which arose
in this country as a result of the decisions
in the Supreme Court of the United
States starting with Baker against Carr
in 1962 and ending for the time being,
so far as a comprehensive exposition of
the constitutional and equitable points
involved are concerned, with Chief Jus-
tice Warren's opinion in Reynolds
against Simms, decided on June 15.
In those days in the House of Com-
mons a major debate was held on sec-
ond reading. The ,debate continued for
3 weeks. When the bill was called for a
vote on second reading, it was passed by
1 vote. Under the procedure then in
existence in the House of Commons the
bill was referred to committee after hay-
ing passed second reading, a principle
which Senators will note we honor in
theory in this body today. We give bills
two readings before we refer them to a
committee, but we do not ordinarily en-
gage in debate until after the commit-
tee has reported, although there are ex-
ceptions td that practice.
When the bill was defeated in the
House of Commons, after having passed
second reading, the Grey cabinet re-
signed. King William then sat on? the
throne of England, and at that point
the status of the British Crown gave
the king a good deal more power than
he has today, although substantially
less power than George III had at the
time of the American revolution. King
William had to make DO his mind, for
he had the complete right to determine
whether to dissolve Parliament and call
for new elections or to send for another
member of either House of Commons or
the House of Lords and ask him to form
a new cabinet. Lord Grey asked him to
dissolve Parliament_ and call for new
elections, which he finally did. ?
In the ensuing election almost all of
what were then called the open constit-
uencies, which were largely English
county seats, where the people on the
whole got a fair vote, supported Lord
Grey and Lord, Russell. In fact, they
carried 74 out of the 80 English county
seats. That gave the reform bill a clear'
majority in the House of Commons, and
the bill was passed.
Then it went over to the House of
Lords. I remind Senators that in those
days the House of Lords was of at least
equal preeminence with the House of
Commons, and no bill could become law .
?of which the House of Lords did not ap-
prove. It was almost 80 years later that
the British constitutional procedure was
amended so that any bill which passes
the House of Commons three times will
become law whether or not the House of
Lords approves.
In those days the House of Lords had
to approve or there would be no legisla-
tion. The House of Lords threw ,out
the bill on second reading.
Then the strong advocates of parlia-
mentary reform urged King William to
create enough " additional peers to give
him the votes to pass the bill in the
House of Lords. The closest analogy to
that suggestion of which I can think was
the effort of President Roosevelt to pack
the Supreme Court. One can well
imagine what an uproar that suggestion
caused in the England of 1832. Lord
Grey did not ask King William to appoint
those peers, but he brought in a new
bill in the House of Commons modified
to meet some of the reasonable criticisms
which had been advanced during the
course of the debate, and also in order
to save a few faces and thus get a few
more votes for the bill. But the new bill
did not Weaken as a democratic measure
in any significant way the first reform
bill. The new bill was promptly passed
by the House of Commons, and in April
of 1832, it got by the House of Lords on
second reading by nine votes.
Things' looked pretty good, but the
next month the House of Lords attempt-
ed to take the bill out of the hands of
the minister in charge?that would have
been Lord Grey?and to amend it in their
own way.
That action resulted in the resignation
of Lord Grey and his Cabinet, creating
another constitutional crisis.
At that point the King asked the Duke-
of Wellington, the head of the Tory
Party, who opposed reform, to come
back and form a Tory Ministry for the
purpose of carrying the bill through the
House of Lords in the same way that
the Duke of Wellington had pushed
Catholic emancipation, which he also
opposed, through the Parliament 3 years
earlier.
Wellington, who was a great patriot
and a strong partisan of the monarchy,
agreed to undertake that task, which
he did not like, but he could not get the
leading Tories in the House of Com-
mons to cooperate with him by going
into the Cabinet. So he had to tell the
King that he could not form a cabinet.
That action forced King William to go
back, to Lord Grey, who said at that
August 20
point that he would serve again as Prime
Minister only if the King gave him a
written promise to pack the House' of
Lords to the extent necessary to get the
bill through.
This threat was made known to the
existing Lords, who were not very happy
at the thought of having mere common-
ers join them in their aristocratic body,
and they caved in. The reform bill be-
came law.
To be sure, the situation today is not
nearly as desperate as it was in England
in 1832. But the bold tactics of Lord
Grey, Sir John Russell, and King Wil-
liam might well provide models of poli-
tical conduct for liberal leadership in
both the House and the Senate, and at
least a suggestion for the presidential
action which would be necessary in order
to assure the success of congressional
reform?not that the President could
"pack" the Senate, but that he could'
bring the influence of his office to bear
in support of the Supreme Court of the
United States and, indeed, in opposition
to the Dirksen amendment.
Mr. President, this concludes my dis-
cussion of the analogy between the first
reform bill in England and the consti-
tutional crisis which confronts us today.
'My, friend the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr: MONRONEYJ , has asked me to yield
to him. I ask unanimous consent that
I may yield to him without losing my
right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered. The. Senator from Oklahoma
LiLLvognized.
ESTATE OF MARY L. McNAMARA
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oklahoma yield me
half a minute?
t Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
turn to the consideration of Calendar
No. 919, Senate bill 83.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 83)
for the relief of the estate of Mary L.
McNamara.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the
purpose of S. 83, a private bill for the
relief of the estate of Mary L. McNamara,
is to permit the estate, notwithstanding
any statute of limitations, to file a claim
for credit or refund for overpayment of
income tax for the taxable year ending
October 31, 1956. The executor of the
estate filed a tax return for the year
ending October 31, 1956, disclosing a tax
of $5,555.03. More than 3 years after
the date of the filing of the return, a
claim for a refund in the amount of
$2,891.86 was filed. The claim_was
executed by the First National Bank of
the Black Hills, the special- administra-,-
tor of the estate.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080016-5