AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 34
• Publication Date: August 17, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
1964, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
big cities. I scarcely thought that the
situation would come as close to home
as it has within the past feW hours.
About 5 o'clock this morning a young
man, who is either 17 or 21?and it has
not been determined yet?broke the door
and the chain in the apartment of Miss
Joyce Morgan, who is a secretary in the
legislative section of my office. She is
not sure what awoke her. But she
thought she saw someone go by the door
of her bedroom. She got up, went to the
front door and saw that her door was
broken open. She went back to her bed-
room, and picked up a pistol which she
keeps for protection. The young man
by that time had gone into the dressing
room. When he saw that she was awake,
he turned off a light under which he was
rifling her purse. She fired one shot
through the door. He was not hit.
However, he thought he was because
some of the splinters from the door ap-
parently struck him.
I do not believe I need to remind Sena-
tors of the incident which occurred a
few weeks ago involving one of the fine
Young ladies from the office of Senator
Curtris. I am not sure that that young
lady is out of bed yet. She was horribly
beaten, and perhaps the scars, psycho-
logically as well as physically, will be
with her for the rest of her life.
I believe Miss Joyce Morgan deserves
a pat on the back, first of all, for a kind
of bravery which is very rare these days,
and for having the kind of spirit to take
the initiative upon her own instead of
waiting for what might conceivably have
happened. No one knows what might
have happened had she not had the gun
and the courage th take action.
After she had shot through the door,
the young man pleaded for mercy. He
opened the door. She held the gun on
him while she phoned for the police.
The police took the young man into
custody.
I rather believe that, no matter what
the court does in this situation, it will
be some time before this young man
attempts to enter an apartment or any
other dwelling in this city, or any other
city.
I rise. to pay tribute to Miss Morgan
for the courage she has shown. I do
not know what will stop the rampage
of crime which seems to be in, progress
throughout the country. We have spent
millions of dollars on the problem of
juvenile delinquency. We have not
solved it. The courts do not seem to be
able to deal with it. I do not agree with
some of the Supreme Court decisions of
the past few years which, I believe, over-
protect the criminal.
I say again that it is time to start
weeping for the innocent, and not for
the guilty. We must start respecting
law. We must accord to our law enforce-
ment officers the respect which is due
them. We must realize that they are
not whipping boys for the public, but
that they are our bastions between law-
lessness and anarchy and a society which
lives by law and order and is character-
ized by orderliness.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am very
glad that the Senator from Colorado
gave us that account. As a member of
'the Committee on the District of Colum-
bia, whose subcommittee has jurisdiction
over the general problem of lawlessness
which confronts us in the District, I join
in complimenting Miss Morgan for a
bravery and courage that too often is not
exhibited by many in like circum-
stances?and for very good reasons,
many times, because of the great indi-
vidual differences in people. But she
performed a very courageous act. I wish
the Senator would express to her my high
compliments and congratulations for the
courage and the high citizenship that
she displayed under very difficult cir-
cumstances.
Mr. ALLOTT. I certainly will and I
thank the Senator very much.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Is there any further rilorning
business? If not, morin
closed.
19187
tered to have the presence of the Senator
from New York, it will not be necessary
for him to remain.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE.- I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from New
York.
Mr. KEATING. I always gain from
listening to the distinguished Senator
from Oregon as long as my time per-
mits. I cannot imagine using it to
greater advantage than in listening to
the pearls that fall from the lips of the
Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. They still have their
shells on, too. I thank the Senator very
much. I am delighted.
Mr. President, I am against the
amendment, and I shall give my reasons
orthwith, but I ought to advise the Pre-
siding Officer as to the parliamentary
strategy.
I was highly complimented when the
leaders of the debate in opposition to
the Dirksen amendment called me. A
couple of them came to see me. They
were concerned about obtaining a
speaker for this morning, because for
some reason the group that is leading
the fight against the Dirksen amend-
ment found themselves with many con-
flicting engagements, some out of the
city. They asked, "Will you help?"
Within reason, I always try to help.
I said, "Are you gentlemen filibuster-
ing?" I am still the only liberal who
admits that he filibusters.
They replied, "We are going to speak
at some length." I asked, "Is this an-
other of those prolonged debate situ-
ations?"
I believe the answer, in a variety of
word forms, was in the affirmative.
I said, "I have a few things to say in
opposition to the amendment. I have a
few more things to say about foreign
aid, which would make anything that I
might say germane."
I shall speak for some time. But I
think it is a mistake to try to beat the
Dirksen amendment by a filibuster, al-
though if filibustering it would give us
some assurance that we could get rule
XXII amended so as to bring to an end
filibustering in the Senate of the type
that seeks to prevent a vote from ever
occurring, I would be willing to speak at
greater length than I now contemplate
doing.
If we could get adopted the Morse*
antifilibuster resolution, the Clark-Doug-
las-Neuberger measure, the old Lehman
amendment, or any of the others that
would have the effect of fixing a time
certain for the Senate eventually to
vote?which, of course, is what is neces-
sary in order to outlaw the filibuster in
the Senate?if there were some assur-
ance that filibustering, or prolonged de-
bate, against the Dirksen amendment
would hasten that day, for that purpose
I would speak longer than I now intend
to speak.
There are a great many reasons why
I do not find myself enthusiastic about
filibustering the Dirksen amendment, al-
though I think it must be defeated, if at
all possible, for reasons which I shall
AMENDMENT OF FCbREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, the Chair lays
before the Senate the unfinished busi-
ness, which will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
11380) to amend further the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and
for other purposes.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment (No. 1215) offered by
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]
for himself and the Senator from Mon-
tana [Mr. MANSFIELD].
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the
Presiding Officer and I will have the
pleasure of being almost alone in the
Chamber for the next few minutes.
Mr. MANSFI17.11 Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may sug-
gest the absence of a quorum without the
senior Senator from Oregon losing his
right to the floor.
The .PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Pre-
siding Officer [Mr. METCALF] and I will
have the delightful pleasure of each
other's company for a while in the Sen-
ate. I observe also my friend, the Sen-
ator from New York [Mr. KEATING]. I
hope that the Senator from New York
will find it possible to remain, although
I assure him that he need not keep a
watchdog on the Republican side of the
aisle, for I give him my word that I shall
merely talk, and ask for no action. I
shall make no unanimous-consent re-
quests or requests for votes. The Sen-
ator from New York is a very busy man
these days. He should spe'nd his time
where his efforts will be most productive.
Therefore, although I am always fiat-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
? state shortly. But I wish to confine my
attention to the question of procedure.
I good-naturedly said to those who
asked me to participate in the debate
this morning that I knew how they felt,
for I had been in that position many
times in recent years only to find my lib-
eral friends in the Senate taking on a
parliamentary cloak more pure than
snow and declining to be of assistance to
me in trying at least to assure full debate
on certain questions.
I shall never forget how Many of them
,left us in the greatest political steal in
my 20 years in the Senate?the com-
munication satellite steal. There was
an interesting series of rollcalls on the
part of the alleged liberals in the Senate.
I observed in yesterday's newspaper that
the monopolistic corporation, which was
formed with the help of many liberals
and at a great loss to the American
people, got its hand in the till, and
then put it farther into the till, to get
more free assistance from the Federal
Government to carry out the nefarious
program of the Satellite Cornmunica-
,, tions Act. But I suppose that goes
along with the parliamentary Process,
although certain liberals who joined in
that nefarious communication program
disappointed some Of us very much, for
we needed their help.
How well I remember the number of
liberals in the Senate who joined in the
gag rule at the time of the satellite com-
munications steal, and who supported a
motion for dropping in triphammer
fashion, the parliamentary guillotine on
the necks of those of us who were seek-
ing to have full debate against the satel-
lite communications program, when
? there was no rush whatever except that
it was felt that the sooner it was placed
under cover, so the American people
would know as little as possible about
that shocking legislation, the better. In
? time, it will cost the taxpayers not bil-
lions of dollars, but trillions. I remem-
ber all the propaganda, misleading in
nature, that went into that political steal
and sucked many liberals along with it.
I remembered that over the weekend
when I was asked to participate in the
debate against the Dirksen amendment.
But I never let past differences cause
me to refuse assistance in a meritorious
effort in the present.
Some of the opponents of the Dirksen
amendment stood with us on the satellite
fight. I believe all the opponents, with-
out exception, are completely right and
deserve a great deal of credit for the
fight they are putting up against the
Dirksen amendment. But I say to them
from the floor of the Senate, as I have
said to them privately, first, that they
cannot beat it with prolonged debate, or
what I call a filibuster, unless they really
can gather together a group of Senators
who will commit themselves in advance
to stay put and agree to no parliamentary
compromises.
I have been through this process so
many times that I despair of having
enough Senators who would stay put.
Three or four times I organized a fili-
buster against a wiretapping bill. There
was much enthusiasm at the beginning,
but it did not take very long until Sena-
tors who had assured me they would
stand firm found one excuse or another
to straggle off, to desert, only to appear
shortly thereafter as soldiers in opposi-
tion in the interparliamentary army.
As the Acting President pro tempore
[Mr. METCALF] will recall, we had enough
on those occasions to stop and to beat a
wiretapping bill that sought to destroy
the precious rights of privacy of freemen
and freewomen. But we were aided not
by numbers in the Senate, but by time.
The attempts were made late in the ses-
sion. The Presiding Officer will remem-
ber that the then Senator from Colorado,
Mr. Carroll, and I, on the last night of the
session, 3 or 4 years ago, opposed that bill.
The Judiciary Committee of the Senate
had held an extraordinary, special meet-
ing of the committee in the early eve-
ning of the night it was planned to ad-
journ sine die, and voted out a wire-
tapping bill. The leadership of the Sen-
ate announced that it would put the bill
on the calendar of the Senate for passage
that night. The House already had
passed a bill, which, with the passage of
the Senate bill, offered good prospects
that an agreement could easily be
reached between the two Houses to ac-
cept one or the other of the bills.
The Senator from Colorado and I, who
had been given assurance that a consid-
erable number of Senators would stand
with us, found, within 3 or 4 hours, that
we stood alone. That never dismays me,
although one does not like it. But the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Will ShOW that we
decided to beat it by a filibuster, if neces-
sary. I said to Senator Carroll, "If you
are good for 4-hour speeches, with my
10-hour speeches, we can keep it here for
a few days, and I think that will end it."
Then we talked to the Parliamentarian
about a point of order we thought we
could raise. The RECORD will show that
late that night, or in the early morning
hours, it was agreed that our point of
order would be sustained. That ended
the invasion of the privacy of the Ameri-
can people through a wiretapping bill on
that occasion.
But, Mr. President, that is tough going.
It is not easy. It is disappointing to find
that so few Senators are willing to take
an all=out stand for civil liberties, the
preservation of which will determine in
no small measure the freedoms of the
American people.
I cite this example because it is one
of many in which I have made use of the
filibuster to prevent steamroller tactics
in the Senate. I never have engaged,
and never will engage, in a filibuster that
seeks to prevent a vote ever occurring on
a piece of legislation. In the example I
referred to steamroller tactics were used
In the 11th hour of the session. I could
cite other examples. The record was
perfectly clear that no committee hear-
ings had been held on that bill. I asked
for the citation of the name of one rec-
ognized constitutional law expert in the
entire country who had ever testified.
Certain police leaders and Department
of Justice leaders who have a prosecu-
tor's complex, were all for the bill.
There had never been adequate hearings.
The record will show that I said that
I agreed to enter into an agreement,
August 17
come the next session of the Congress,
after there had been full committee
hearings, that would limit to a reason-
able extent the debate on a wiretapping
bill and then proceed to a vote on it;
but I did not intend that night, if I
could prevent it, to let the wiretapping
bill be steamrollered through the Senate
when there had not been adequate hear-
ings.
It will be recalled that on another
occasion, late one Friday afternoon, my
good friend the then Senator from
Texas, Mr. Johnson, who was majority
leader of the Senate, attempted to get
through the Senate, without even a half
dozen Members on the floor, the Price
Daniel narcotics control bill.
I was in favor of more stringent con-
trol of narcotics, but not for a bill con-
taining a wiretapping section, and not
with a capital punishment section in it.
That bill contained a section which pro-
vided for capital punishment for anyone
who sold narcotics to anyone 18 years
of age or younger. Not only was it
irreconcilable with my religious faith and
beliefs, but I thought that proposal would
defeat the very purpose of a more strin-
gent administration of the narcotics law.
So I asked a page boy to go to the Sen-
ate restaurant and get me a red rose. I
would have the Presiding Officer note
that today I am not wearing a red rose,
which is notice that I am not engaging
in a filibuster. If I put it on, Senators
will know that the fight has started.
The page boy brought me the rose and
I put it on. My beloved majority leader
was very unhappy. He said I had not
given him any warning. I said, "When
did you give me any warning that you
were going to try to put through the
Price Daniel narcotics bill?"
Of course, I realized at that time that
Price Daniel was a candidate for Gover-
nor of Texas. This was near the end of
the session, again, and apparently it was
thought that the passage of the bill would
be very helpful to him in his race for
Governor. But I never permit the polit-
ical interests of any of my colleagues in
the Senate to interfere with what I con-
sider to be a matter of public policy and
public interest.
So I made it perfectly clear that we
would talk over the weekend. I suggested
to the majority leader that he might set
the record of being the first majority
leader to hold the Senate in session on a
Sunday. It was then 4 o'clock in the
afternoon, and I said to him, "At 6 o'clock
I shall call for a live quorum. I doubt if
you can get one this side of New York
City." It was then Friday afternoon. I
said, "I will enter into an agreement with
you that to limit debate next Tuesday
on the bill to 2 hours on a side, and come
to a vote on Tuesday, but I do not intend
to let you come to a vote tonight, be-
cause I am satisfied that a majority of
Senators are against the bill, and if I can
get them back here, they will vote against
it so far as the capital punishment and
wiretapping sections of the bill are con-
cerned."
My friend the majority leader was not
prone to give me that agreement. So I
proceeded to discuss it. In a few mo-
ments he came over and said he would
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 19189
give me the agreement. I said, "I am the next few days in order to stall action
sorry. It is necessary for me to finish on the Dirksen amendment prior to the
this segment of my speech now, because Democratic convention?although I seri-
I would not want to break it off in the ously doubt that there will be any action
middle. Some Ph. D. candidate 20 years on it prior to the Democratic convention.
from now would be puzzled if I did. This The amendment should be withdrawn.
wiretapping issue is all important." Obviously, it has no place in the foreign
He asked, "How' long will it take you aid bill. It is clearly a rider to the foreign
to finish this segment of the speech?" aid bill. I have never been happy with
I said, "A couple of hours.- Then I a procedure that called for legislating by
will be very glad to stop until Tuesday." a rider. In my opinion, the Dirksen
The majority leader accepted that un- amendment should be referred to corn-
derstanding. As the RECORD will show, mittee for hearings. The Senator from
I completed the speech. On the next Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] should call it up
Tuesday, by a substantial majority, both next January and have it referred for
the wiretapping and the capital punish- hearings. Then the Senate should be
ment sections of the bill were deleted, given the benefit of the recent discourse
and the remainder of the bill, which had about the standing constitutional law au-
had my support from the beginning, was thorities. We know that bar associa-
passed. tion after bar association, as stated by
I cite this example to point out to my the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
critics that a use of what my liberal PROXMIRE] earlier in the debate, is op-
friends in the Senate call prolonged de- posed to the Dirksen amendment on con-
bate is justifiable to prevent a steam- stitutional grounds. I believe they are
roller from pushing through the Senate, right. We know that an appropriate
without adequate consideration, a bill committee of the American Bar Associa-
which many consider not in the public tion. is. opposed to the Dirksen amend-
interest, and is also justifiable to buy ment on constitutional and legal grounds.
time, if one wishes to put it that way, to I am at a loss to understand why the
make the record on the merits of an issue Senator from Illinois is following tihs
for the information of the American parliamentary course of action. Time
people. and time again in our years of service
After all, the Senate is a great school. together in the Senate I have heard him
It is a great schoolroom not only for plead to refer a major piece of proposed
political education, but also for educa- legislation to committee for hearings.
tion on the merits and demerits of pro- Many times I have heard him defend the
posed legislation. I shall never vote in hearings process of the Senate?not al-
the Senate to deny to any Senator ade- ways, but many times. Every time he
quate time to debate the merits or de- has, he has been obviously correct proce-
merits of any pending legislation. My durally; every time he has not, he has
critics can continue to call that by any been just as wrong as he is about this
name they wish. If we are to retain the amendment.
Senate as the greatest parliamentary We all know much politics is involved
body in the world, we must strike a bal- in this amendment. It is too bad, mere-
ance between adequate and inadequate ly because an election is in the offing,
debate, between adequate and inadequate that the legislative process on the floor
protection of a minority, so that a mi- of the Senate should be used to any de-
nority may, in ample time, seek, on the gree whatsoever for election purposes.
merits, to change itself into a majority, The Senate ought to be kept immune
and to prevent a denial to the minority from political activities, so far as cam-
of adequate time for full debate. paign strategy is concerned.
Such a balance is struck fairly and These are days when there is much
equitably by any of the major proposals confusion in American public opinion.
for an amendment to rule =I, such as , The people are concerned and puzzled.
the Douglas proposal, which, If I am There is strong opposition to foreign aid,
correct in my mathematics, would pro- and rightly so. I believe there is more
vide, in round numbers, 15 days of debate, opposition to foreign aid than most Sen-
at a maximum, after a cloture motion ators fully realize. I am against the for-
had been filed, or my antifilibuster res- eign aid bill, and I shall vote against it.
olution, which I have submitted now for So when my colleagues who urge me to
a good many years, which would provide
for 100 hours of debate after cloture
had been obtained with one difference so
far as the present rule is concerned;
- namely, that the 100 hours would be 100
hours that Senators could farm out, so
to speak. In other words, a Senator
could yield his time or a part of his time
to other Senators. We all know that the
rules of courtesy in the Senate are such
that even if a Senator is opposed to a would seek either to prevent a vote on it
measure, but does not intend to use his or to send it down to defeat via the
time, he will give another Senator his Dirksen amendment. That is not a
ishare of the time, or a part of his time. ' good legislative process. We should not
If I thought that engaging in pro- work our will in that way.
longed debate for the next couple of There is enough that is bad enough
weeks would result in a modification of -about the foreign aid bill without our
? rule XXII, I might join for that purpose. adding a nongermane, ,irrelevant rider
But I do not contemplate, at least at the . amendment. to it and urging that it be
? present, joining in prolonged debate in rejected for that reason.
do more than I have agreed to do and
intend to do?at the present time, at
least?in the thought that I might be
Persuaded with a carrot that could help
to defeat the foreign aid bill, my reply
Is: I want to defeat the foreign aid bill
on its demerits. I am not interested in
, defeating the foreign aid bill, if we
could?and I do not think we could?
by way of supPorting a strategy that
I had breakfast this morning with
some Members of the House. They said,
"We think you will be pleased to know
that about 70 of us in the House have
signed a petition in which we are an-
nouncing"?I believe they have already
announced it?"that we will not vote for
foreign aid if the Dirksen amendment is
attached to the bill."
"But, I said, "you will if it is not at-
tached to the bill?"
They said that most of them would.
I said, "Then, I am not interested in
your suggestion that I in any way im-
plicate myself in any program to defeat
the foreign aid bill merely because the
Dirksen amendment may be attached to
it."
That was a rather difficult decision for
me to make, Mr. President. In my judg-
ment, if I went along with that sugges-
tion, I would be doing something that I
never knowingly and intentionally ever
do. I would be agreeing to support a
legislative expediency; and I do not be-
lieve there is any place in this body for
expediency. The American people, who
sent us here, have a right to expect us to
vote strictly on matters of principle; and
we always know when we are acting on
principle. We do not need an interpre-
ter to tell us the difference between prin-
ciple and expediency.
The foreign aid bill, devoid of the
Dirksen amendment, raises a clear choice
for each Senator to vote upon?wheth-
er he wants to support the foreign aid
bill in its present form or whether he
wants to support the foreign aid program
in the face of the devastating, irrefuta-
ble proof that has been mustered against
it, in many of the undeveloped areas of
the world. Senators have a clear choice
in voting on the merits and demerits of
the bill. They are put in the position of
voting their convictions on principles.
(At this point Mr. JORDAN of Idaho took
the chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, when we
encumber the foreign aid bill with the
Dirksen amendment, which has no rela-
tionship to the foreign aid prografn,
which is merely an expedient legislative
device to drag in, by its ears or its tail,
a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court, or
to place in indefinite suspension a deci-
sion of the U.S. Supreme Court deal-
ing with the precious constitutional
rights of the American people, we have a
proposal which is an act of expediency.
a I believe that every time we act on the
basis of expediency and sicrifice prin-
ciple at the altar of -expedient compro-
mise, we do something bad to our whole
legislative process.
We should not do it. We should stand
up against it. We should vote against it.
The amendment should either be sent to
committee to report back at an appropri-
ate time in the next Congress, or it should
be laid on the table, which will give Sen-
ators an opportunity to stand up and be
counted on whether they are for or
against political expediency in the Sen-
ate.
In due course of time in the debate, I
intend to make one or both of those mo-
tions, unless other Senators make them
first.,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I do not intend to support an amend-
ment which is bottomed upon a founda-
tion of political expediency. I judge
from some of the things reported in the
press and on radio broadcasts and tele-
vision telecasts over the weekend, that
some Republican strategists believe that
they have put the Democrats in a diffi-
Cult position. One referred to putting
us behind the political eight ball.
Those who hold that point of view
reflect upon and insult the intelligence
of the American voter. In my State, I
would have no hesitancy in taking my
opposition to the Dirksen amendment to
any farm group in the State. It is ob-
vious that the Republicans believe that
the Dirksen amendment will sweep the
Farm Belt like a prairie fire. I believe
that they are mistaken. The farmers
are just as dedicated to our constitu-
tional processes as are the people living
in urban or metropolitan areas.
Once the people in the rural areas
come to understand the constitutional
implications of the Dirksen amendment,
they will react against it. I do not feel
that once the farm population comes to
understand the constitutional implica-
tions of the Supreme Court decision they
are going to insist upon the perpetuation,
of an electoral system that weighs the
vote of a voter in the rural area as more
than one vote.
Do Senators know why? Because the
people of the rural areas believe in fair
play just as much as do the people in
any other area of the country. What
the Supreme Court has said, in effect, is
that the present apportionment system
violates the rules of fair play. It gives
a greater weight in many areas of the
country to the rural voter, which is hard
to reconcile with our democratic concep-
tion of majority rule. Majority rule
means exactly that. It means that each
voting citizen is allowed the same voice,
as far as his vote is concerned, as any
other citizen.
, I say to some of my Democratic friends
who seem to be of the opinion that a
compromise must be arrived at with the
election staring us in the face: "What
are you afraid of? Do you really wish
to win an election based upon that kind
of compromise of principle? Do you
have so little faith in the intelligence of
the American voter that you feel you
must support quickly a hush-hush pro-
gram in the Senate and get the matter
behind you as fast as possible?"
I say to Senators who are pushing for
a prolonged debate on the issue that
there is much which can be said in sup-
port of the strategy so far as concerns
hammering away at the facts involved
in the Supreme Court decision and the
consequences that would flow from the
Dirksen amendment.
That is why I have given the Senate
no irrevocable commitment as to .what
? my parliamentary course of action will
be, so far as speaking at length is con-
cerned, if I belief it can be constructive
in connection with the edcational proc-
esses needed with regard to both the Su-
preme Court decision and the Dirksen
amendment. In intend to deal with the
Supreme Court decision before I finish.
I shall read it and discuss its major
paragraphs, paragraph by paragraph.
I was opposed to the Supreme Court
packing of the 1930's. At that time, I
was dean-of the law school at the Uni-
versity of Oregon. I spoke out against
the plan. I thought it was a mistake.
This is a sort of Supreme Court pack-
ing plan in reverse.
The objective is the same. -Those
who wished to put favorable judges on
the Supreme Court used a rather ugly
word at the time. It was described as
amounting to prostituting the judicial
processes of the Constittuion.
Those who wish to deny the applica-
tion of the apportionment ruling of the
Supreme Court, and all of the constitu-
tional protections which the Court made
clear it was seeking to guarantee, are
really attempting to substitute them-
selves for the Supreme Coourt.
I have great respect for my colleagues
in the Senate. But it is nothing less
than ludicrous for Senators to play at
being justices on the Supreme Court,
without even a committee hearing, with-
Out even an opportunity to hear from
witnesses who are expert in constitution-
al law, and, without even listening to
nonpolitical authorities expound on the
meaning and the implication of the Su-
preme Court decision, to decide that they
are qualified to substitute themselves for
the overwhelming majority of the Su-
preme Court in this matter. That atti-
tude on the part .of the legislative poli-
ticians is highly presumptuous.
The Dirksen amendment, in effect,
would tell the Supreme Court how to de-
cide its cases. I am as opposed to it as
a matter of public policy as I was opposed
In the 1930's to the proposal of Franklin
D. Roosevelt to pack the Supreme Court.
Our system of government, consisting
of three coordinate and coequal branches
of the Government, works very well. No
other system of government in all the
history of the world has worked as well
from the standpoint of reserving for,
granting to, and protecting basic human
rights of free men and women guaran-
teed by the Constitution. The Constitu-
tion, in effect, and in practice, gives as-
surance that the people of this Republic
shall be the masters and not the servants
of the Government.
? In my judgment, the Dirksen amend-
ment is an unwarranted attack upon the
constitutional powers of the Supreme
Court. We all know that in 1803 after
a period of controversy, debate, and dis-
cussion as to where the ultimate author-
ity in decreeing constitutional rights re-
ally vested, the great Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mar-
shall, of Virginia, in Marbury ? against
Madison removed, I hope for all time,
any doubt as to that constitutional ques-
tion. He ruled that the Supreme Court
was the final arbiter of the constitutional
rights of American people, subject only
to the important check of a constitu-
tional amendment.
Mr. President, I would that the Sen-
ator from Illinois would see his way clear
to follow a suggestion that ,I read in-this
morning's newspaper offered by the Sen-
ator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY],
which, if I read it correctly, seeks to give
August 17
assurance to the Senator from Illinois
that the issue which he raises in his
amendment will be taken up forthwith
by the appropriate committee of the Sen-
ate come Jarman'.
I would go further than that, in keep-
ing with what I have already said about
having no desire to participate in a de-
bate or a parliamentary strategy that
would prevent a vote from ever occurring
on this or any other issue. I am per-
fectly willing to see if an agreement
could not be arrived at that the commit-
tee receive the instructions of the Senate
to report to the Senate not later than
a date certain?March 15 or April 1?
after there has been an opportunity to
have full hearings in the committee.
That certainly is a reasonable request.
It is certainly in keeping with the orderly
handling of the subject. I have tried to
satisfy myself that there would be some
good reason for opposing such a pro-
posal, and I have not been able to find
one. As legislators, we shall set a pretty
messy example to the American people
if we, in the absence of full committee
hearings and a report, proceed to "curb-
stone" on this subject by voting on the
Dirksen amendment.
? We lawyers believe that a case should
be tried on its merits. That is pretty
basic, particularly to lawyers, in the ad-
ministration of American jurisprudence.
Every nonlawyer in the Senate should
see the wisdom of it. Particularly, the
lawyers in the Senate should support
some such proposal as that made by the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPH-
BY].
Let me say to the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. PROXMIRE], who has just
joined us, that inimediately prior to his
'coming into the Chamber from the party
meeting that he has attended, and which
I could not attend because of my born-
mitment to hold the floor until at least
noon, I had suggested that we ought to
adopt the proposal that the press carried
this morning, offered by the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. HU/s1PHREY], which
If I read it right, suggests that the issue
be postponed until the next Congress,
when hearings could be held and consti-
tutional experts could be called upon to
testify. I said that I would propose a
modification of that suggestion, so far as
I am concerned, by agreeing that some
date certain be fixed by way of instruc-
tions to the Senate committee?March
15 or April 1?to report back to the Sen-
ate whatever the committee might decide
upon, favorably or unfavorably, or a
modified proposal. The Senator from
Illinois has supported?although not al-
ways?proposals to have a question re-
ferred to a committee. Many times he
has supported such a proposal, and I be-
lieve it is a sound practice. However, I
judge that the Senator from Illinois is
not interested in the Humphrey proposal
because, if he was correctly quoted in the
press this morning, he was opposed to it
because the proposal had no teeth in it.
Of course it has teeth in it. It pro-
vides assurance to the country that the
question will go to hearing. But mean-
while we should not play the role of Su-
preme Court and substitute ourselves for
the Supreme Court. I speak most re-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
spectfully when I say that we are not
qualified to do so on the basis of a com-
parison of our knowledge of the case and
the knowledge of the case by the Su-
preme Court.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Would the Senator
agree that on a matter which so clearly
places the Congress in the position of
moving in on the Supreme Court, direct-
ing or restraining the Supreme Court,
that it is ,particularly imperative that
we rely on our Judiciary Committee,
he Senate's committee of legal experts
that is supposed to advise the Senate?
The Senator from Oregon has served
he Senate and the country very well.
? n this issue of consistent committee re-
erral. I have deserted him at times on
ivil rights measures that would other-
? ise be killed but I think he has been
'ght in general in insisting that we rely
? n our committees on legislative matters
f great importance. There have been
imes we have not done so because it was
lear to many of us that a committee
ould bury legislation. But in this case,
view of the fact that the committee
eported a variation of this measure
? ithout any hearings, it is clear the Judi-
iary Committee would not only have not
uried it but would have hurried it
hrough. So there wold not have been
ny practical reason, let alone.reason of
? rinciple, for not having the Judiciary
ommittee consider the matter and give
its advice.
Does that make sense?
Mr. MORSE. As the Senator will see
hen he reads in the REcoan of tomorrow
y earlier remarks, that is one of the
?remises I am expressing today. I think
? he proposal should go to committee. It
hould not be passed as a rider. It should
ot be passed in the absence of hear-
gs. I respect the Senator's views, but
as he knows, I take the position that we
never have to worry about a committee
burying anything if the Senate exercises
its authority over its agents. Each com-
mittee is naught but the agent of the
Senate. If we give instructions to the
committee such as I have suggested, if
the Judiciary Committee is asked to hold
hearings starting early next session and
report either favorably or adversely on
the amendment of the Senator from Il-
lionis by March 15 or April 1, or what-
ever date the Senate in its wisdom wants
to agree upon, the measure cannot be
buried.
I have checked this procedure in pre-
vious debates. Each time the Parlia-
mentarian has assured me that never
in the history of the Senate has,a com-
mittee refused to carry out the instruc-
tion of its parent or principal body.
I do not believe that time will ever
come, for the obvious reason that Is,, a
committee ever did it, the Senate has
authority to take a matter away from it.
It also has the authority under those
circumstances to impose whatever re-
strictions upon the actions of the com-
mittee the Senate might wish to impose.
iThe suggestion of the Senator from
Wisconsin is unanswerable.
?
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I am delighted to yield
to my colleague.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. I must return to
the Agriculture Committee. It is hoped
that action can be taken today on Public
Law 480. But I wished to make a com-
ment.
I was glad to hear my colleague com-
ment about the use of the committee
being refused as a device in the Senate.
My colleague has presented r4n argument
for considering a bill of this importance
in committee, but some Senators who
said it was used as a device to kill certain
legislation are now supporting the prin-
ciple that it should go to committee. It
reminds us of the saying that the devil
can cite scripture for his own purposes.
There have been cases in which every
Senator knew what the merits of a bill
were. If it had been fully discussed by
the other body, it might perhaps be felt
that the Senate could depart from the
committee procedure. Even then I did
not approve of it. My colleague and I
come from a State which has been
through a reapportionment fight, and we
know that the shibboleths used against
it never came to be true. It never hurt
the farmers of our State. But we do not
know what the situation is in other
States. So it seems that a slap at the
courts, and a violation of the rules and
traditions of the Senate are being
attempted.
Mr. MORSE. I thank my colleague
for her intervention. While she is still
in the Chamber, I express my compliment
to her for the very able and fine speech
she made Saturday afternoon on this
subject matter. I was able to hear only
a part of it.
I have followed an absolutely consis-
tent policy in my years in the Senate of
always supporting the preservation of
the committee process. Bills should go
to committee. It is perfectly proper for
the Senate to commit under instructions
such as I am suggesting with regard to
the Dirksen amendment. But it is a good
safety valve, a good check, a safety first
measure, to have a committee examine
even bills of innocent appearance.
Sometimes even the most innocent look-
ing bill has some legislative sleepers em-
bedded in it, and I am for requiring
committee clearance of them.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
one of the prime reasons for an extended
discussion on the floor, for exploring the
subject in detail on the floor, is that
there have not been committee hearings?
Mr. MORSE. Certainly.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a highly
complicated question. It not only in-
volves deep constitutional principles on
which the Supreme Court has spoken a
number of times, but also involves a
serious effect on all our States. So if the
Judiciary Committee has not heard con-
stitutional experts, if it has not heard
arguments as to what the effect will be
on Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan and
Oklahoma, for example, it is necessary
19191
for those of us who are deeply concerned
about this proposal to explore it, to dis-
cuss it, to examine it, to try to challenge
those who are trying to have the Dirksen
amendment adopted, in much greater de-
tail than we would have had to do it if
there had been a hearing, and a record
had been made.
One of the reasons why we feel im-
pelled to have this discussion at substan-
tial length is that there is no record, and
we feel we have a duty to make a record.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator's position
is unanswerable.
My colleague [Mrs. NEUBERGER] point-
ed out in her speech on Saturday?and
I hope Members of the Senate who were
not present will read it?that we have
been through this procedure in Oregon.
It has been stated in the press that Ore-
gon has gone further in carrying out the
principles of reapportionment than has
any other State. Although Oregon will
have some problems in redistricting con-
gressional districts, that problem is some-
what ancillary to the heart of the issue.
The basic principle of the decision has
been recognized in Oregon, and bears
out what I said earlier in this speech?
namely, we have the assurance that once
the people understand, in the rural areas,
in the urban areas, and in the metropoli-
tan areas, they will not want to Perpetu-
ate an /apportionment system that vio-
lates the rules of fair play.
We are pretty thoroughly unified in
support of the proposition that democ-
racy cannot work if we seek to defend the
maintenance of discriminatory Practices
that give an advantage to certain voters
because of the location of their voting
residence in a given State.
Many of the arguments we are hear-
ing now about what the reaction of the
farmers will be have vanished into thin
air in my State. When the farmers come
to understand that what is sought to be
accomplished is that each citizen shall
have one vote, and that it shall be
weighted only as one vote, and have the
effect of only one vote, they accede to
the fairness of that principle, because it
coincides with the rules of the play-
ground on which they were brought up.
It is a homely truism, but it is true?that
when all is said and done, our demo-
cratic system rests on the rules of the
playground.
We do more teaching of democracy on
the playgrounds and gymnasiums of
America and in all the competitive en-
terprises in which boys and girls partici-
pate, than we do anywhere else; at least,
we teach young people as much about the
principles of democracy in action on the
playground?using that broad descrip-
tive term?as we do in the classrooms.
That principle is' involved in this appor-
tionment fight. Many people have not
looked at it from that standpoint. How-
ever, some people think they wish to keep
an advantage, and think they wish to
protect themselves, so to speak, from
what they call city slickers?rand we know
what kind of prejudice that involves in
connection with that kind of public opin-
ion in some areas of our country. Yet
when at last such people come to grips
with the controlling question, "Do you
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
really think that you should count for
more than anyone else in the voting
process of this democracy?" they will say,
"I do not look at it that way. I had not
thought of it that way. I did not realize
that."
We must have faith that people will in-
sist that the rules of the playground be
applied to otheils in the same way that
they are subject to those rules; just as
they are being asked in this instance to
have the rules of the playground applied
to them, so that they will not have an
unfair advantage over someone else who,
by accident of residence in our State, is
being placed at a disadvantage.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Can the Senator
Imagine what Would happen on any play-
ground if it were suggested that in a
baseball game one side should have four
strikes or five strikes instead of three; or
what would happen if it were suggested
that in a football game one side had first
and 10 and the other side first and 30?
Mr. MORSE. The advocates of the
Dirksen amendment do not want any
referee in the game.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is exactly cor-
rect. The Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS] pointed out that in some cases
the advantage in State legislative repre-
sentation is sometimes 30 to 1 or 40 to 1;
and that it is as high as 1,000 to 1, in
favor of 1 group over others.
Mr. MORSE. Under our constitution-
al system, the Supreme Court is the
referee. The referee decides whether
any transgressions have occurred against
constitutional rights. Some people do
not like the referee. They are not pro-
, Posing to substitute another referee; they
are proposing to kick out the referee.
What kind of rules would we have then?
The whole idea is really absurd. The
advocates of the amendment are taking
advantage of the parliamentary situa-
tion. Otherwise they would get nowhere.
If they had tried the same tactics last
January or February, at the beginning of
the session, they could not have pre-
vailed. Everyone would have said, "Of
course this question must go to commit-
tee. There is a great deal of time avail-
able in which to get a committee recom-
mendation."
It would be salutary to adopt the modi-
fication that I understand has been put
forward by the Senator from Minnesota
[Mr. HUMPHREY]. I do not wish to hold
the Senator from Minnesota to it, and I
will assume the responsibility of making
the suggestion myself if I do not under-
stand correctly the modification that the
Senator from Minnesota is putting for-
ward.
Be that as it may, I would offer the
proposal as my own, with the RECORD
showing that I am relying on the Sena-
tor's proposal as the original source. If
what I say is not a fair interpretation of
the proposal of the Senator from Min-
nesota, I offer it as my own. It is that
the matter go over until January, with
the understanding that the Dirksen
proposal be offered then, either in the
present form or in any modification of it
that he may wish to offer between now ?
and then; that it be referred to the
Judiciary Committee, with instructions
that hearings be held; and that a report_
favorable or unfavorable-be made to the
Senate not later than March 15 or
April 1.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor-
rect about our having a great deal of
time available, in another sense, too.
There is no question that we shall
not go home at the end of this week, or
that there will be no sine die adjourn-
ment by the end of this week. We can-
not do it. It is impossible. I am posi-
tive it is impossible, because the Com-,.
mittee on Finance has just now acted on
medicare and medichoice. By a vote of
11 to 6 it has voted not to report a bill
with medicare or medichoice in it. That
will mean an extended floor fight on one
of the most critical issues to come before
the Senate. That will take a day or two
or three. Also, there are at least two big
appropriation bills still to be considered.
They are controversial. They will ac-
count for at 'east a day or two each.
Then there will be a supplemental ap-
propriation bill to be considered, on
which hearings have started. Those bills
will have to be debated while the Senate
sets aside the present discussion. I am
as positive as of anything I know that
Congress will not adjourn sine die by
the end of the week. We have lined up
speeches for a number of days on the
Dirksen amendment. We have only
started. Many Senators feel very deeply
about this matter, and will talk for a long
time on it.
Under those circumstances, it seems
to me it would certainly serve the in-
terest of Senators if the advice of the
Senator from Oregon were followed
promptly, with the Dirksen amendment
being withdrawn and the Judiciary Com-
mittee giving it its prompt attention,
with the understanding that it will be
returned to the Senate. I would greatly
prefer to see happen what the Senator
has suggested. The fundamental prin-
ciple that the Senator is arguing so well
is that the Judiciary Committee give its
attention to the matter in hearings, that
it call experts, and persuade them to
testify. Then we would have something
to act on, and then at least a big part of
our procedural objections to the bill
would have been met.
Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin. There is no pos-
sibility of a sine die adjournment before
the Democratic convention, or, as was
suggested in one newspaper article, by
Labor Day. I believe that we Shall do well
to get out by October 1. Some Senators
are running for reelection and are con-
cerned about that. The Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] is running
for reelection. But I have some gratui-
tous advice to give them. I remember
when I was a candidate for reelection in
1962, and had the short space of about
3 weeks for campaigning. That was cut
down a few days because I was called
back on the Cuban crisis. So I had about
two and a half weeks or so. I was wor-
ried; I thought it might be unfortunate.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
August 17
Perhaps it was fortunate. I turned over
a substantial part of my campaign speak-
ing and itinerary to my wife and one of
my daughters. I am sure they did a
better job than I could have done. The
results were highly favorable. My per-
centage of victory was increased over
what it had been 6 years earlier.
We have a task to perform here. I
am for staying until it is completed. ? If
it means staying here until October 1
then it will be October 1. We shall d
everything we can to accommodate Sen
ators by granting pairs and by giving
much notice as we can, so that Senator
who live at least no farther away tha
does the Senator from Wisconsin ma
go out and campaign over long weekends
But we are inclined to overrate the im
portance of long, stretched-out \_cam
paigns. Perhaps the American peopl
would appreciate it if we reduced th
amount of campaigning, and would par
ticularly appreciate it this year if w
stayed here and attended to legislati
business. Speaking from a partisa
viewpoint, and possibly with a bit of prej
udice, I do not believe a long campaig
is needed this year, so far as the Demo
cratic side of the aisle is concerned. W
can send out the information. The peo
ple will reach their own intelligent judg
ments without any protracted campaign
Mg.
Time spent in opposition to the Dir,
sen amendment would probably be tim
well spent. That is why I am willing t
set forth in this speech today my broa
general position concerning it. When
come to the decision itself, I shall s
forth some of my more specific leg
objections:
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, w
the Senator from Oregon yield on a poin
he made earlier?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Does Oregon hay
population apportionment in bot
houses of its legislature'?
Mr. MORSE. The State- constitutio
requires it for both houses. For man
years, that requirement was ignored
but in recent months we have proceede
to enforce the principle of population ap
portionment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Some Senators with
whom I have spoken have expressed the
concern that if both houses of State leg-
islatures are elected on the basis of pop-
ulation Apportionment, the farmers will
be forgotten; that the rural areas, which
are losing population, will lose influence
in the State government.
The Senator from Oregon is a native
of my State of Wisconsin. We are proud
of him. He knows that Wisconsin has
always had population apportionment in
both houses of the State legislature. In
1848, under the Northwest Ordinance,
we were required to provide it. Wiscon-
sin has always had strong agricultural
representation in the legislature in spite
of the fact that it has been on a popula-
tion basis. That representation has not
been weakened.
Wisconsin's State Department of Agri-
culture is one of its strongest depart-
ments. It still is.
I am sure that on this basis, the Sen..-
ator from Oregon might agree that the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
armer has nothing to fear from putting
verybody on the same basis and giving
veryone in this ball game three strikes,
*nstead of giving some four or five strikes.
Mr. MORSE. I completely agree. Let
e add the other argument that goes
long with the argument of the Senator
rom Wisconsin, which he states he has
eard in the cloakroom. Some of the
pponents of population apportionment
ay that there might as well be unicam-
? ral legislatures if both the senate and
ouse are, selected upon the basis or
rinciple of population apportionment,
ith one person having only one vote,
nd not a vote and a quarter or a vote
nd a half. As the Senator from Illinois
Mr. DOUGLAS] has pointed out, due to
he inequities that the Supreme Court
truck down, some rural areas have sev-
ral votes per person, in weighted effect.
Giving that kind of advantage to rural
eas is not necessary to guarantee them
legislative treatment. One sees
at in the Wisconsin Legislature. I
as brought up on the great progressive
ecord of the Wisconsin Legislature.
he farmers of Wisconsin have never
ffered, and the farmers of any other
tate would not suffer, because the in-
resting thing is that some of the lead-
s in the legislatures from the metro-
olitan areas are the first to go to the
efense of the agricultural interests.
ey recognize how important it is to
ave a strong agricultural influence in
e State for the benefit of the economic
elfare of the whole State.
The argument that is being used
gainst population apportionment is
urely an argument from fear; it is
likely a bogyman. It is a scarecrow
rgument. In my judgment, two
ranches of the legislature are necessary
carry out the system of checks and
alances on the State level, because, as
e know, it makes much difference in
he checking system whether one sits
epresenting the whole State in Congress
r representing a congressional district
f a State. The individual Member of
ongress often gets, on a district level,
nformation that a Senator does not get.
t works out the same way on the State
a,sis. That is an important part of our
system of legislative checks and balances.
I am not at all moved by the argu-
ment that if there is the same type
of selection, populationwise, of two
branches of a legislature, we might well
do away with one of the branches. That
does not make sense at all. It completely
overlooks the interplay of political rep-
resentative forces within the State, com-
munitywise, countywise, districtwise, and
ultimately -statewise. The framers of
Oregon's constitution certainly did not
think population as the basis for both
legislative bodies rendered either of them
useless. The different length of terms
and the difference in areas represented
makes the houses different, from each
other, even though both are apportioned
according to population.
A more legitimate and reasonable
exercise of congressional authority in
prescribing for the judicial branch of
No. 161-4
the Government than the pending Dirk-
sen amendment would be the resurrec-
tion of the Roosevelt Court-packing plan
of 1937. Increasing the number of
judges is a less blatant interference in
the activities and decisions of the Su-
preme Court than is the effort to direct
a verdict. That is all the Dirksen
amendment is?a directed verdict. -
There is no congressional authority
over the composition of State ? legisla-
tures. This body is not competent to
legislate on matters of State apportion-
ment. Yet that is exactly what is called
for in this amendment. I am astonished
that Members of Congress who for years
have bemoanedand condemned the ex-
pansion of Federal laws into matters
traditionally reserved to the States are
now pressing for a statute that will once
and for all create a precedent for Federal
legislative action in the most vital area
of all?apportionment of the State legis-
lature.
The whole reapportionment issue has
arisen between the States and the Fed-
eral courts. Its source is the mandate
of the 14th amendment that the States
shall not deny to their citizens the equal
protection of the law.
How, then, does Congress "get into
the act?" It is being dragged into it by
the back door. It is apparently being
dragged into it through that section of
the Constitution which authorizes Con-
gress to constitute tribunals inferior to
the Supreme Court, and that section
which authorizes Congress to regulate
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Perhaps the enforcement clause
of the 14th amendment could serve as a
basis for congressional action, but this
is not an enforcement measure.
The Dirksen amendment does not con-
stitute or organize any inferior tribunals;
and it does not authorize or deny specific
appellate jurisdiction to the high court.
It does not enforce the equal protection
clause.
Instead, it tells- the Federal district
courts how they shall dispose of a cer-
tain class of cases; namely, State reap-
portionment cases.
I should say that it seeks to tell them
how to dispose of certain cases, because
I am highly skeptical that a statute of
this nature can be binding on any Fed-
eral court.
Listen to the language:
Any court of the United States having
jurisdiction of an action in which the con-
stitutionality of the apportionment of rep-
resentation in a State legislature or either
house thereof is drawn in question shall,
upon application, stay the entry or execu-
tion of any order interfering with the con-
duct of any State government, the proceed-
ings of any house of the legislature thereof,
or of any convention, primary, or election,
for such period as will be in the public
interest.
(At this point Mr. MCINTYRE took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, then, the
Dirksen amendment continues: "the stay
for the time necessary to permit reap-
portionment shall be deemed to be in
the public interest in the absence of
19193
highly unusual circumstances." The
Dirksen amendment calls for a stay "for
the period necessary?to allow the leg-
islature of such State a reasonable op-
portunity in regular session or the people
by constitutional amendment a reason-
able opportunity following the adjudica-
tion of unconstitutionality to apportion
representation in such legislature in ac-
cordance with the Constitution."
That is a stay which Congress is going
to tell the courts is "in the public in-
terest."
So, having directed a verdict of stay.
of execution, Congress helpfully advises
the courts that the duration of the stay
shall be for such period as will be in the
public interest.
I am sure the Federal courts are going
to find that advice most useful. It as-
sumes that the courts do not now pre-
scribe for the public interest. -It as-
sumes that the courts do not understand
or recognize the public interest until
Congress points it out to them.
I do not know of a single reappor-
tionment case in a single State where the
courts have not patiently waited for the
State legislatures or the State courts to
take care of reapportionment them-
selves. I do not know of a single in-
stance where "the public interest" does
not call for enforcement, after consid-
erable delay, of the equal protection
clause.
It is interesting that the Dirksen
amendment makes no mention of that.
It is interesting that the Dirksen
amendment says nothing about the pub-
lic interest to be served by enforcement
of the equal protection clause. I ask
the question: Why not?
If we are to advise the courts on how
to do their job, we at least should advise
them to uphold and enforce the Consti-
tution, not to postpone and further delay
Its enforcement.
Section (a) of this amendment is a di-
rected verdict. But the standard it
uses wherein it calls for a stay "for such
period as will be in the public interest"
is a useless advisory opinion.
So is all of section (b) an advisory
opinion. It calls for an undertermined
period of stay which would permit the
States to act themselves. But I do not
know of a single case where the courts
have not given the States opportunity
after opportunity to act for themselves.
Read the history of these cases. The
courts have stayed the execution of reap-
portionment orders time and again in
the hope the States would act.
In fact, if I were to offer any criticism
of the courts in this matter it would be
that they have stayed execution of some
of these orders for too long. Justice
delayed is still justice denied, and all the
Dirksen amendment proposes to do is to
delay justice a little longer.
I see not a word in this amendment
that would be of any guidance to the
courts at all, even if it were in the prov-
ince of Congress to give guidance to the
courts, which it is not.
The amendment is nothing more than
a heavy-handed attempt to intervene in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the administration of justice. It is in-
tervention - far more direct than the
court-packing plan of nearly 30 years
ago. I wonder what the backers of this
amendment would have said 30 years
ago, had Franklin Roosevelt urged Con-
gress to pass a bill directing the Su-
preme Court to stay execution of its de-
cisions overturning New Deal statutes.
The objections to that kind of interfer-
ence would have been even more violent
than were the objections to the additions
to the Court sought by Roosevelt.
So my basic objection to the Dirksen
amendment is that it seeks to put Con-
gress into the judicial business, in addi-
tion to its legislative business. This is
a flagrant violation of the separation-of-
powers clause of the Constitution.
? But I also oppose the amendment be-
cause far from protecting the States in
any of their functions, it is destructive
of the powers and function of the States.
The decline of the State as an effective
unit of Government has been in direct
ratio to their refusal, or perhaps their
inability, to reflect the interests and
opinions of a majority of their people.
The control of State legislatures, year
In and year out, by rural and smalltown
minorities has compelled the metropoli-
tan areas to turn to the Federal Govern-
ment for assistance in coping with the
rising problems of urban growth.
Malapportionment has cost this coun-
try the effective services of our States.
It has thrown a burden upon the Federal
Government that has not always been
sought by the Federal Government. It
has brought big-city mayors to the Na-
tion's Capital to obtain what should have
been done at the State capital.
The Federal courts have done the
States the greatest service of the century
by requiring them, at long last, to get
back into the mainstream of American
life. Baker against Carr, and the deci-
sions that have followed it, will do more
than any Congress could ever do to re-
store vitality to the States.
I am at a great loss to understand why
those who tout themselves as advocates
of States rights should be trying to stop
the one thing that has reinvigorated the
States. They should be cheering Baker
against Carr. They should be trying to
speed up the application of these de-
cisions, because they are the salvation of
the States.
Let it be remembered that the prairie,
the mountains, and the small towns of
America are no long representative of our
people. Their virtues are many, and
rural and small town life is cherished by
many of us. But the great bulk of the
American people no longer live on the
farm or in small towns. If the Ameri-
can people, as they move into metropoli-
tan living, do not take control of politi-
cal affairs at the State level with them,
they will appeal to Washington.
In any case, the effort by minorities
to retain control of the State legislatures
is a losing effort. If they succeed in
controlling their States they will steadily
lose power to Washington.
The needs of the,American people are
going to be served. If they cannot be
served at the State level, they will be
served at the Federal level. '
? In my own State, we did not wait for
the courts to point out our duty. The
Oregon Constitution calls for apportion-
ment of both houses by population. But
the legislature itself did not abide by the
directive of the State constitution. It
took the people, by use of the initiative,
to carry out reapportionment.
The press indicates that Oregon is the
only State that will not be affected by
Baker against Carr, and I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
an article published in the New York
Times entitled "Oregon Is Spared Redis-
tricting Job."
I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed a telegram I received today from
Mayor Willard Marshall, of Salem, Oreg.,
in oppositionto the Dirksen amendment.
There being no objection; the article
and telegram were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Aug. 9, 19641
OREGON LS SPARED REDISTRICTING JOB
SALHM, OREG., August 8.?Oregon is watch-
ing smugly as other States face the respon-
sibility of reapportioning State legislative
districts.
So far as Oregon is concerned the recent,
decision by the U.S. 'Supreme Court requiring
States to realine legislative districts on the
basis of population merely formalized a
system adopted by the State in 1961.
As a result Multnomah County, which in-
cludes Portland, the State's largest city,
elects 17 of Oregon's 60 representatives and
8 of the State's 30 senators.
On the other side of the State, where the
population is lower, one State senator, An-
thony Yturri, represents a four-county area
of nearlk 28,000 square miles?and area equal
to that covered by Vermont, New Jersey,
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island combined.
In the same part of Oregon, State Repre-
sentative Robert Burns represents a two-
county area of 20,000 square miles?an area
nearly the combined sizes of Maryland,
Hawaii, and Connecticut.
Mr. Yturri represents about as many peo-
ple as each of the eight Multnomah County
senators. And Mr. Burns' vote is backed up
by about the same number of people as each
of Multnomah County's 17 representatives.
It does give legislative weight to the cities.
But that's what it's supposed to do, because
that's where most Oregonians live.
SALEM, OREG.,
August 14, 1964.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:
Request you oppose by all possible means
any restriction on Federal court authority
or any delay regarding State legislative re-
apportionment.
WILLARD C. MARSHALL,
Mayor of Salem.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this
amendment should be rejected. If there
is to be any change in the relationship
of the Federal courts to the States, it
should be accomplished by constitutional
amendment. That is the recourse for
those who wish to overturn or vitiate
Baker against Carr.
I do not believe any foreign aid bill
Is worth the Dirksen amendment. There
is more than $6 billion in the foreign
aid pipeline. As I shall point out mo-
mentarily in another subsection of this
speech, it is closer to $7 billion than $6
billion. The country could get along
without a foreign aid bill until January.
We could get along without a foreign aid
August 17
bill until well on into the spring. We
have ample time to consider a new bill.
And I shall discuss that momentarily.
After all, it was the end of December last
year before action on foreign aid was
completed. There is nothing we ge
from foreign aid that is worth this de-
structive and flagrant violation of the
separation of powers, this rejection o
the equal protection clause, this effort t
retain minority control of the Sta
legislatures.
Better that foreign aid go over to Jan
uary than that we upset so many ele
merits of our constituteional system i
order to get it passed. I am not talkin
about filibustering. I am simply saying
that if the Dirksen amendment is ap
proved, the foreign aid bill ghould b
defeated by Congress or vetoed by th
President. I hope it will not come t
that because the Dirksen amendmen
deserves to be voted down.
Mr. President, that causes me to coin
ment on the foreign aid bill, vis-a-vis th
Dirksen amendment. About an hou
and a half ago I deplored the attem
to shackle the foreign aid bill with th
Dirksen rider.
? I point out that when one of my goo
friends in the Senate tried to argue wit
me that I should give unlimited suppo
to what he called a prolonged debate i
order to help kill the foreign aid bill b
battling away against the Dirkse
amendment, I good-naturedly remarke
to him that we should keep the issu
separate. I am against the foreign a
bill. I shall vote against the foreign ai
bill for reasons that I shall summari
shortly. That will not cause me to co
nect the Dirksen amendment with m
desire to beat the foreign aid bill. Th
foreign aid bill ought to be beaten o
its own demerits. That is my positio
And I shall hold fast to that positio
And the Dirksen amendment should b
defeated on its own demerits.
The Dirksen amendment is anothe
form of a Court-packing proposal. It i
really an attempt on the part of th
Congress, through a legislative rider b
the Senate, to play the game of pretens
that we are Justices of the Suprem
Court.
We do not have the qualifications to
be Justices of the Supreme Court in this
matter. We are not versed on it. To be
frank about it, we do not know. That is
why I said that I could not understand
how lawyers in the Senate could vote
for it. They would be guilty of what we
try to teach young lawyers never to do?
to "curbstone" on a complicated legal
question before they have been to the
law library, before they have done their
legal research.
This amendment needs a great deal of
legal research. The place to have such
legal research done is in A, committee
hearing, in which we can bring in the
leading legal experts on constitutional
law and on legislative process to advise
us as to the merits and demerits of the
Dirksen amendment.
One of the front leaders of the Ameri-
can Bar Association who has been very
active in the American Bar Association
activities, particularly in the field of the
doctrine of separation of powers and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
964. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the field of criminal law administra-
ion and public law administration, is a
stingushed lawyer from St. Louis,
o.?Arthur Freund. As long as 6
eeks ago, he foresaw that this subject
ould arise. Arthur Freund wrote me
nd said, in effect:
Be on guard against an attempt to get
egislative action that will scuttle Baker V.
arr.
I was surprised. I wrote back. I
id:
I have doubt that any such attempt will
e made before this session of Congress -
djourns.
That did not satisfy him. He sent
e some more material on this sub-
et matter. He informed me that many
embers of the American Bar Associa-
on were alarmed about what they were
atisfied were plans?as he put it?to
uttle the Supreme Court decision.
He was right. I was mistaken in being
doubting Thomas. I do not know why
was such a doubting Thomas. I sup-
ose the reason was an abiding faith
at such parliamentary tactics as are
volved in this rider would not be at-
pted on a matter as far removed as
reign aid. ,
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
?enator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. I congratulate the Sen-
tor on his excellent speech. Unfor-
ately. I could not be present in the
amber to hear him deliver most of it.
heard the closing portion of his speech.
had an opportunity to read the re-
arks which the Senator prepared for
elease. I believe it is an excellent ex-
ition of a number of the most impor-
ant reasons why this incredibly bad
mendment should not be approved by
he Senate.
The senior Senator from Oregon has
? een a distinguished law school dean.
e is known to be one of the outstanding
xperts in the Senate, not only on con-
titutional law, but also on legislative
? rocedure.
Does the senior Senator from Oregon
agree with my view that the legislative
procedure utilized to bring the modified
Dirksen amendment to the floor of the
Senate is not only highly unusual, but is
also practically indefensible?
Mr. MORSE. I said that earlier in
my speech. I believe the whole procedure
is indefensible. We ought not to be a
party to it.
- Before the Senator came on the floor,
I knew that he and other colleagues were
at a Democratic conference meeting
that was held at 11 o'clock this morning,
which I could not attend.
I have already discussed the wisdom of
referring all these proposals to commit-
tee, with some directive that they will be
reported back at a time certain. We
need the benefit- of legal scholarships on
the many issues imbedded in the amend-
ment and we can only get it by the hear-
ing procedure of a committee.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Is the Senator aware
that the original Dirksen proposal which
came from the Judiciary Committee not
only was subjected to no hearings then,
but also that the meeting of the com-
mittee in which the Dirksen original
amendment was ordered reported lasted
only 45 minutes?
Mr. MORSE. I was not aware of the
time factor that the- Senator has out-
lined. I was aware of the fact that the
committee had not subjected the
amendment to thorough hearings.
Mr. CLARK. I have been advised by
members of the Judiciary Committee
who voted against reporting the amend-
ment that there was really no discussion
of the wording of the amendment what-
ever, that a large majority of the com-
mittee apparently had made up their
minds to report the amendment favor-
ably?it was then in bill form?and that
there was only desultory discussion in
which the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART] and the Senator from North Da-
kota [Mr. MIRDICK] indicated their seri-
ous dissatisfaction and suggested hear-
ings. They pointed out the constitu-
tional implications and the vast amount
of literature which is extant on the sub-
ject from the civic organizations which
have interested themselves in the sub-
ject for many a long year.
I happen to have in my hand three of
those pamphlets. One is entitled "Re-
apportionment and Redistricting," is-
sued in 1962 by the Institute of Public
Administration of the Pennsylvania
State University, and two separate bro-
chures issued under the authority of the
National Municipal League, one of them
by William J. D. Boyd entitled "Pat-
terns of Apportionment," and the other
entitled "Reapportionment and the Fed-
eral Analogy," by Robert B. McKay.
Surely this type of careful scholarly
work is entitled to consideration by the
Judiciary Committee.
I would hazard a guess?and perhaps
I am being unfair to my colleagues?
that not all members of the Judiciary
Committee have taken the trouble to
read the outstanding opinion of Chief
Justice Warren in the Reynolds case or
even the concurring or dissenting
opinions of the other judges. There was
no indication, so I am informed, at the
Judiciary Committee meeting that the
question had been given any considera-
tion in depth. ?
The Senator from Oregon is aware,
I am sure, of the vast differences be-
tween the present Dirksen amendment
and the original Dirksen amendment;
is he not?
Mr. MORSE. Yes. It seems to me
that if the Senator from Illinois thought
that his original amendment was sound,
he should have wanted to take that to
the committee rather than the compro-
mise amendment that he has agreed
upon in an endeavor to get a vote on the
proposed rider.
Mr. CLARK. The so-called compro-
mise amendment which is now before the
Senate has never been considered by any
committee of the Senate.
? Mr. MORSE. That is correct.
Mr. CLARK. My understanding,
which I have obtained only from the
press, is that the amendment was con-
cocted with the assistance of able counsel
19195'
whom the minority leader was able to
command, and the Solicitor General and
the Deputy Attorney General, Messrs.
Cox and Katzenbach?working under
some pressure to try to concoct some-
thing that would be less objectionable
than the original amendment and might
conceivably stand the test of constitu-
tionality.
It is my understanding that hardly
anyone among those who would be ex-
pected to take a strong view against the
amendment was called into consultation.
Certainly I was not. I wonder if the
Senator from Oregon was.
? Mr. MORSE. The Senator can take
judicial notice that the Senator from
Oregon would not be consulted with re-
gard to such a question. I can best de-
scribe it as an amendment that was sired
by expediency and born from the womb
of politics.
Mr. CLARK. I wonder if my friend
from Oregon does not think it odd that
a measure purporting to reverse, at least
in part, carefully considered opinions of
the Supreme Court of the United
States?not one but almost 8 or 10 opin-
ions. including Baker against Carr, the
Wesberry case, the Gray case, and all the
decisions handed down on the 15th of
June and the decisions which have come
down since then?has not been given the
slightest consideration by the Judiciary
Committee in the first instance or in the
second instance.
I wonder if the Senator from Oregon
does not believe that in terms of legis-
lative procedure the subject is one which
would result in justifiable criticism from
those who do not believe that either the
original proposal or the substitute is in
any way sound?
Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Sen-
ator. I hold in my hand the landmark
decision protecting the basic constitu-
tional rights of all the American people?
the Baker against Carr decision. Earlier
I had said that I intended to discuss
large segments of that opinion, but I
have been so full of my subject since 10
o'clock this morning that I have not been
able to reach the decision, which means
that in a subsequent speech I shall have
to discuss the decision.
Let me say to the Senator from Penn-
sylvania that the decision is a scholarly
piece of juridical work. I would not re-
flect on anyone. I merely ask a rhetori-
cal question. I wonder if the advocates
of the Dirksen amendment have read the
decisions that have been cited by the
Supreme Court setting forth the histor-
ical and the constitutional background
of the decision itself.
I quickly add that I have not read
them all yet. I intend to do so before the
debate is over. But I have made sub-
stantial progress in reading them; and
as one reads this great juridical account
of American constitutional history set
forth in the long line of Supreme Court
decisio/ls, he becomes all the more
aghast over the opposition that we are
running into at the suggestion that we
let that great landmark decision go to
Senate hearings, for that is all we are
asking when we suggest hearings on the
issue. We are really suggesting that
Senators latow what they are talking
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
19196
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
about before they vote. I do not speak
disrespectfully when I say that the Sen-
ate would not know what it was doing if
it voted on the subject before Senate
hearings.
There is a whole line of Supreme Court
decisions that should be submitted to
a committee seminar, over a period of a
good many committee sessions, because
we are dealing with a matter that is very
precious to the perpetuation and protec-
tion of the constitutional rights of the
American people. 11 Senators will read
the decisions I have already read, they
will find it is true not only in respect of
the 14th amendment but in respect of
many other parts of the Constitution.
I am pleading as a lawyer in the Senate
to my colleagues, not to turn themselves
into "curbstoners," because the odds are
all against them if they start to curb-
stone on anything both as basic and pre-
cious to the rights of the American peo-
ple as Baker against Carr. This is not
a subject that ought to be a matter of
legislative rider on a foreign aid bill,
without any hearings on it.
Mr. CLARK. I concur in what my
friend from Oregon has just said about
the desirability, if we are to legislate in
a mature way, of Members of the Sen-
ate familiarizing themselves with these
great decisions of the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, the line of decisions start-
ing with Baker against Carr arid ending,
for the time being at least, with the
Reynolds case, represents one of the great
landmarks in constitutional law in my
lifetime, the Other being the case of
Brown against Board of Education,
which established the right of every
American child to go to an integrated
school. In two of these landmark cases,
Reynolds, and Brown ,against Board of
Education, in which the Chief Justice
wrote the opinions, the great Chief Jus-
tice took the lead when Congress showed
Itself to be the sapless branch in not
taking the lead.
Instead of striking down the Chief
Justice of the United States, without
giving an opportunity for an appearance
before a committee, I concur in the opin-
ion of the Senator from Oregon that
this amendment should go back to the
Judiciary Committee for serious hear-
ings, not only as to its effect, but also as
to its constitutionality.
I will detain the Senate only a moment
longer to ask the distinguished Senator
how there can be any legitimate justifi-
cation for proposing a matter of such
grave constitutional import as this with-
out hearing, with only 45 minutes of dis-
cussion, the amendment being \entirely
rewritten and offered in its present form
on the floor, as a rider to the foreign aid
bill. What kind of procedures do mature
men utilize in the Senate? They could
not get away with it for one-half a min-
ute in the House of Representatives. I
do not believe they could get away with
it for one-half a minute in any one of the
legislatures of the 50 States. Yet they
come in here?and I use the word ad-
visedly?and have the effrontery to tack
a proposed measure of such great con-
stitutional importance to a foreign aid
bill. Their motivation is clear. I do not
ordinarily discuss the motivations of my
colleagues, and I shall not do so now.
But the inevitable result of what they
want to do would_be to hold a gun at the
head of the President of the United
States and say, "you shall not veto what
you know is unconscionable." The Sen-
ate should not let that happen.
Mr. MORSE. It cannot be justified,
but Senators had better take a look at
what they are trying to do. They are
seeking to put legislative clothing on
what I consider to be an illegitimate
child born out of legislative wedlock as
a result of parenthood of illegitimacy.
Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator for
yielding to me.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, before I
turn to a matter related to the general
proposition, I make my last point in
this speech before I discuss Baker against
Carr at a later time.
am greatly concerned about what will
happen in the thinking off the American
people,, if this rider is passed by the
Congress, with regard to their respect
for the courts. Let us face the issue. If
the Congress of the United States is will-
ing to deliver this slap in the face at
the Supreme Court of the United States,
what do Senators think popular reac-
tion to such action will be? It is unfair.
It is unjustified. It starts raising serious
questions of doubt as to the good faith
of the Supreme Court, and as to its
"-courageous, serious attempts to carry out
Its constitutional responsibility.
There is very much of an emotional
reaction to a decision of the Court; and
that cannot give birth to sound legisla-
tion. I fear that this course of action
would divide us more in this country,
develop more and more lack of respect
for our judicial processes, create more
schisms in our body politic, and be a dis-
service to the whole juridical system.
Unless there is high respect for the
courts, unless a legislature always takes
the position that when the courts speak,
that is the law until the people, by way
of their checks, by way of their con-
stitutional amendment process, take ac-
tion, in my judgment it would weaken
the citadel of government in this great
Republic. We have a constitutional sys-
tem built upon the foundation of the
establishment of three coordinate and
coequal branches of government. This
proposal is an attack on that system. I
think we would pay dearly, so far as
public reaction to judicial processes is
concerned, for those who do not want
to pay respect to the courts are going to
build this issue up into a balloon type
attack upon government by law.
Government by law requires obedience
to court decision until the constitutional
processes have run their course. Gov-
ernment by law would never justify an
expedient course of action on the part
of the Senate in this case, or on the part
of the House if it takes the Tuck bill,
seeking to make itself legislatively su-
preme in connection with constitutional
determination.
That is what is sought to be done. It
is sought to supplant the Supreme Court
in regard to the determination of Con-
stitutional rights. In my judgment,
there is only one way to do that. If the
people themselves do not like a decision
August 17
of the Supreme Court and feel that a
decree of the Supreme Court in regard
to the Constitution should be reversed,
let them amend the Constitution, for
there is no denying the fact that ever
since Marbury against Madison in 1803
the Supreme Court has had the juris-
diction and authority to hand down th
decision in Baker against Carr. Whe
Chief Justice Marshall spoke in Marbur
against Madison, he bespoke decade
ahead the jurisdiction of the Court i
Baker against Carr. That decision o
the Supreme Court remains final, unde
our Constitution, until the people them
selves decide that they want to revers
it by way of a constitutional amendment
In my judgment it is improper, it i
out of place, and it is a false assumptio
of legislative power on the part of th
Senate to seek to reverse the Suprem
Court, short of the people themselve
acting on a constitutional amendmen
We reverse the Supreme Court if we se
aside for 1 hour, for 1 minute, or for
second the application of a Suprem
Court decision in respect to a decre
dealing with the constitutional rights o
the American people.
As politicians we may not like it,
politicians we may not support a con
stitutional amendment, but as a politi
cian, even though elected to the Senat
I charge that it is an abuse of our sena
tonal prerogatives to seek to substitut
ourselves for the Justices of the Suprem
Court and to set aside for any period o
time a decision of that Court dealing wit
the constitutional rights of the America
people.
I shall speak at a later date on m
interpretation of the legal effects o
Baker against Carr. However, I wish
say a word about foreign aid. Then
shall close for the day.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, wil
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I congratulate th
Senator from Oregon for his extremel
able address. The Senator from Ore
gon is one of the great constitutional
lawyers of this body. He knows whereof
he speaks. I am very much impressed
by the fact that the views which the
Senator from Oregon has advanced con-
cerning the unconstitutional nature of
the proposed action of the Senate as
embodied in the Dirksen amendment is
also increasingly the judgment of the
most respected newspapers of the coun-
try.
I wonder whether the Senator from
Oregon would permit me to ask that, at
the conclusion of his address, excerpts
from recent editorials in the Atlanta
Journal, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Providence Journal, and the Philadel-
phia Inquirer may be printed in the
RECORD.
Mr. MORSE. I am delighted to have
the Senator do that.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the excerpts from editorials be
printed in the RECORD at the, conclusion
of the Senator's remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. DOUGLAS. I also ask unanimous
consent that there may appear in the
RECORD at the conclusion of the Sena-
tor's remarks an article on this subject,
written by Mr. Anthony Lewis, which
discusses primarily the constitutional is-
sue, and which appeared in the New York
Times, of August 16, 1964.
The PRESIDING OteriCE'll. Without
abjection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I appre-
late very much the kind words of the
?enator from Illinois. I thank him for
s leadership in opposition to the Dirk-
en amendment. He knows the very high
egard in which I hold him as a legislator
nd the deep affection I have for him as
friend.
Once again he has been willing to row
ainst the current, in seeking to stop
hat I am satisfied would prove to be a
orrendous legislative mistake on the
art of the Senate if it should adopt
he Dirksen amendment. I am delighted
at he and Senator CLARK, Senator
ROXMIRE, Senator HART, and other Sen-
tors seek to have this question post-
oned for committee meetings come
anuary.
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
nanimous consent that there be pub-
ished in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a
etter to the editor which appeared in the
ashington Post of recent date. Let the
? ECORD show that the writer of the let-
er to the editor of the Washington Eye-
ing Star is Mark W. Cornelis. It deals
ith the Vietnam situation.
There being no objection, the letter
as ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
follows:
RESPONSE ON VIETNAM
To those who have taken the time and
ffort to inform themselves on the back-
ound of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and
he alternatives which were open to us- to
esolve the situation, the military escalation
directed by President Johnson comes as an
appalling shock.
With only Senators MORSE and GRIIENING
voicing opposition to our policy, at this
writing, it occurred to me to inquire at their
respective offices as to the response being
registered by their constituents, via letter
and telegram, to their dissenting position. I
was informed that senator MORSE had re-
ceived 200 telegrams by 11 A.m. on the morn-
ing of August 6, and that all but one or two
congratulated him on his stand, taken the
previous afternoon, condemning the actions
In Vietnam. Senator GRUENING'S office re-
ported on the same morning that of several
thousand letters received during the past
few weeks on Vietnam the percentage was
between '400 and 500 to 1 in support of the
Senator.
It may be that the constituents of Senators
GEV-ENING and MORSE are better informed
than most of the American public, but a poll
of the general electorate in this country
might well reveal, on the basis of the above
statistics, that our war in Vietnam is not
only stupid and unjust, but lacks the sup-
port of the average American citizen.
MARK W. CORNELIS.
WASHINGTON.
Mr. MORSE. In yesterday's Washing-
ton Post Mr. Jack Anderson wrote an
article on the Tonkin Gulf snafu dealing
with the fact that the captain of the
Maddox did not know that the South
Vietnamese were raiding the coast of
North Vietnam.
I shall ask later to have the entire
article published in the RECORD, but first
I should like to make a few comments
on it.
The research of Mr. Jack Anderson,
whether he fully realizes it or not, has
borne out completely the position which
the senior Senator from Oregon took at
the time of the speech in opposition to
the South Vietnam resolution and at the
time of his protesting the provocative ac-
tivity of. the United States in not only
Tonkin Bay but in southeast Asia at the
time of the attacks upon the Maddox
in Tonkin Bay.
The RECORD will show that I said at
the time that the briefings indicated that
the captain of the Maddox was not aware
of the bombing of the two small North
Vietnam islands by South Vietnam naval
ships. The RECORD will show that I
pointed out that these naval ships were
supplied by the United States as a part
' of the American military aid, in com-
plete violation of the Geneva accords.
Many proponents and apologists of
the administration's action in South
Vietnam did not like to face the ugly
fact that we have violated the Geneva
accorcthor almost 10 years. The state-
ment of that fact has always met with
hush-hush, and has always met with a
coverup. We do not help the cause of
peace by trying to cover up our wrong-
doing. Of course, Red China and North
Vietnam and the Pathet Lao in Laos
have been violating the Geneva accords.
But I never thought I would live so long
as to hear the apologists for this admin-
istration seek to justify outlawry on the
part of the United States because Red
China:, North Vietnam, and the Pathet
Lao in Laos are also outlaws.
The supplying of such arms and naval
ships to the South Vietnamese was it-
self a violation of the Geneva accords.
It is an old story that two wrongs can
never make a right. What I pointed out
at the time of that debate, I reassert
now. It is verified again, by the An-
derson article. Before I am through, it
will be verified by an article in the Man-
chester. Guardian, as it has been veri-
fied by writer after writer since the
bombing of the coast of North Vietnam.
It is true that the captain of the Mad-
dox did not know of the bombing of the
two South Vietnam islands. But of
course he was operating under con-
stant, complete, 24-hour-per-day radio
communication and electronic communi-
cation with the American officials in Sai-
gon and in Washington. They knew
about it. Let us get this fact before the
American people once again. Their
American officials, who have been aiding
and abetting our dictator puppet in.
South Vietnam, knew in advance of the
escalating of the war into North Vietnam
by the bombing by South Vietnamese
naval ships of the two North Vietnam
islands. We aided and abetted; we are
implicated, and we have helped to pro-
voke an act of outlawry against those two
Vietnamese islands. I said so at the
time, and every verification since bears
19197
out the soundness and accuracy of the
report of the Senator from Oregon.
McNamara finally had his way. This
has been McNamara's war from the be-
ginning, and still is. He is still calling
the tune and the shots.
As I said the other day, as we now
remember to the discredit of the United
States, the slogan "Remember the
Maine," grew out of an unfortunate inci-
dent that 'threw the United States into
a war with Spain, when the United States
had little cause to go to war with Spain,
so I am satisfied that historians of the
future in regard to this dark page in
American history will record the slogan,
"Remember McNamara." In history,
McNamara will have to assume the chief
bla'.ine for the unconscionable and inex-
cusable action of the United States in
joining with the South Vietnamese int-
escalating the war into North Vietnam.
American officials knew where the
Maddox was. There had been a bombing
of the North Vietnamese islands, carried
,out by that shameful military dictator
puppet in South Vietnam?General
Khanh. American officials knew where
the Maddox was. She was entirely too
close to those islands not to hav pro-
duced the result that her presence as a
provocateur produced.
I said days ago that the United States
was a provocateur in connection with
the bombing of the North Vietnamese
islands. I repeat that statement today.
The hands of the United States are
bloody because of our provoking action
by escalating the war in North Vietnam.
American leaders have protested that
they have been against escalating that
war; but what their lips have said is
quite different from what their hands
have done. The United States has par-
ticipated in the handiwork of escalating
that war into North Vietnam.
The presence of the Maddox in Tonkin
Gulf waters, even though they were in-
ternational waters, was perfectly proper.
National waters extend only 3 miles.
Nevertheless, the fact is that the Maddox
was allowed by American military and
diplomatic leaders in Saigon to be in
Tonkin Gulf so close to the mainland of
North Vietnam that no one should have
been surprised that the North Vietna-
mese looked upon the action as provo-
cation?and they obviously did.
The evidence is also Clear that when
the PT boats of North Vietnam started
out to the vicinity and location of the
Maddox, the Maddox took to sea and
was not overtaken by the PT boats until
she was some 30 miles out. There is
a dispute as to how far out she was, but
I say that '75 miles would have been too
close. The Maddox was satisfied from
intelligence reports that had been ob-
tained that the PT boats with their tor-
pedos were after her. She had a per-
fect right to fire when attacked. I
have always said that. Also, at the time
of the second attack, she had the right
to sink the boats. But the United States
had no right under international law to
commit war against the mainland of
North Vietnam, for that was an act of
aggression. That act was not TleCeSSarY
to protect the Maddox or any other
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080034-5