October 14, 1968
Page 31495
HUMPHREY AND MUSKIE VOTED AGAINST HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 247, TO PROVIDE FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES THROUGH SUSPENSION OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT FOR THE 1964 CAMPAIGN – POLITICS, NOT PRINCIPLE, SEEMS TO GOVERN THEIR DEMAND FOR DEBATE IN 1968 AND THEIR VOTE "NO" TO A DEBATE IN 1964
HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, October 14, 1968
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty, in view of the discussions taking place on the floor with regard to the equal time suspension legislation of 1968, to point out that both Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MUSKIE, the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees, who are clamoring for a debate and for passage of the 1968 bill, in fact voted against the same bill in the 1964 presidential, election. The record shows that Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MUSKIE opposed a debate in 1964 and I think it is rather obvious as to why they have made a 180-degree shift in position in 1968 – it is blatant politics, not principle, pure and simple.
In 1964, Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, and his running mate,' Bill Miller, were repeatedly asking for debates. Mr. HUMPHREY, as a Senator, voted on rollcall No. 549, appearing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 110, part 15, page 20032, to table the conference report on House Joint Resolution 247, which proposed to suspend the equal opportunity requirements of the Communications Act for the 1964 presidential election.
The interesting aspect is that, if HUMPHREY and MUSKIE had not voted to kill the conference report, by opposing the Mansfield motion to table instead of supporting it, the motion to table would have failed and the conference report would have been adopted, making the presidential debates possible. This is obvious when the RECORD shows that, on rollcall NO. 549, the motion carried by a vote of only 44 to 41. A switch of 2, meaning HUMPHREY and MUSKIE, would have resulted in a vote of 42 to table and 43 against the motion which killed the 1964 equal time suspension bill.
In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 110, part 15, page 20032, Mr. MANSFIELD made the motion, "Mr. President, at this time, I move to table the motion of the Senator from Rhode Island." On page 20030, Senator PASTORE, in reporting on the conference, made the motion, "I move the adoption of the conference report." And, as it appears on page 20032, the result of the vote on the motion of Senator MANSFIELD to table the conference report was yeas 44, nays 41, as follows:
[No. 549 Leg.]
Yeas, 44: Anderson, Bartlett, Bayh, Bible, Byrd, Va., Byrd, W. Va., Church, Clark, Dodd, Douglas, Edmondson, Fulbright, Gore, Gruening, Hart, Hayden, Holland, Humphrey, Inouye, Johnston, Lausche, Long, Mo., Long, La., Mansfield, McCarthy, McClellan, McGee, McGovern, McIntyre, McNamara, Metcalf, Moss, Muskie, Neuberger, Randolph, Ribicoff, Robertson, Russell, Salinger, Smathers, Stennis, Symington, Talmadge, Walters.
Nays, 41: Aiken, Allott, Beall, Bennett, Boggs, Carlson, Case, Cotton, Curtis, Dirksen, Dominick, Ellender, Ervin, Fong, Hruska, Jackson, Javits, Jordan, N.C., Jordan, Idaho, Keating, Kuchel, Mechem, Miller, Monroney, Morse, Morton, Mundt, Pastore, Pell, Prouty, Proxmire, Saltonstall, Scott, Simpson, Smith, Sparkman, Thurmond, Tower, Williams, Del., Young, N. Dak., Young, Ohio.
So the motion to table the motion of the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] was agreed to.
For further information, Senator RUSSELL LONG, Democrat, of Louisiana, who has recently issued public statements piously calling for the arrest of absent Senators "if necessary to force their return to Congress to vote on an equal television time debate bill" for the reason that "a face to face debate among the candidates is something the American people are demanding," also voted against debates in 1964. LONG further stated that "it is the duty of the Senate to offer the people a chance to see a television debate among the candidates, and a duty of the candidates to appear in personal confrontation," and the Senate is "derelict in our duty unless we provide the American people an opportunity to see these debates," that is, in 1968, not in 1964. According to Senator LONG, "The people will think less of us and less of Richard the fainthearted unless the way is cleared for the debates and they are held." In view of the Senator's public statements on this issue in 1968, I call attention to the curious fact that on the rollcall vote in 1964 on this same issue, Senator LONG voted to table the conference report and thus to kill the debate bill.
With this evidence on the RECORD, it thus appears that Mr. HUMPHREY, who, On August 18, 1964, was one of the principal persons being discussed for the vice presidential nomination, and as Democratic nominee for Vice President unalterably opposed a debate in 1964. Yet, in 1968, as the presidential nominee, he has completely switched his position, now supporting the debate.
The fact that HUMPHREY had his eye on the nomination in 1964 and at the time of his vote was evidenced by the statement of Senator SCOTT in the August 18 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 110, part 15, page 20031, during the debate on the 1964 bill, in which Senator SCOTT stated:
I suggest that if the Senator is interested in debates [meaning Senator PASTORE], he should arrange debates between the senior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] and the iunior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] as to their relative qualifications for the Vice Presidency of the United States.
Are we to assume from the arguments made today by the Democrats in support of the debate that the same arguments did not apply equally to the situation in 1964? Are we to assume that presidential candidate Johnson and vice presidential candidate HUMPHREY were "afraid" to debate Goldwater and Miller – that the people are entitled to a confrontation of candidates to hear their point of view in 1968, but were not in 1964? Are we to assume that it is the duty of the Senate to vote for a debate in 1968, but it was not its duty to do so in 1964 as Senator LONG, and as HUMPHREY and MUSKIE state, all of whom opposed the debate in 1964, suggest? Are we to assume the Senate is also being derelict in its duty in 1968, but that it was not derelict in its duty in 1964?
The truth of the matter is, and I am sure the public recognizes it, that Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MUSKIE, who opposed a debate in 1964, did so because of politics and politics alone and they were obviously following the orders of President Johnson, when the Democratic Party was believed to be ahead in that election. However, now that Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MUSKIE are behind in this election, they are free to shift their political positions on this issue because they are being political and nothing more. Certainly the merits of a debate or a nondebate are about the same in any presidential election. It is quite obvious that Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MUSKIE do not want to talk about or give consideration to the merits but, as evidenced by their shift in position, are guided only by the politics of the situation. When the Democrats are ahead, as in 1964, they do not want a debate, when they are behind, as in 1968, they demand debates.
I voted for a debate in 1960, 1964, and 1968, based upon the merits, and not on politics. I thus believe that I am justified in calling to the attention of the House the obvious political positions being taken by the Democrat nominees, HUMPHREY and MUSKIE, as evidenced by their opposition to a debate in 1964, and their now politically inspired demand for a debate in 1968.