AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 41
• Publication Date: August 14, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

196Z
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
That no licenses or permits shall be issued
under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a,-
823) nor any applications for such licenses
or permits be ,accepted for filing for the
reach of the Colorado River between Glen
Canyon Dam and Lake Mead during the
period ending December 31, 1966: Provided,
That nothing herein shall change or affect
for the purposes of any action which may be
taken subsequent to such date the present
status, equities, position, rights, or priorities
of any parties to applications pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, an al-
most identical bill has passedboth Houses
of Congress. The only difference be-
tween the bills is that the House-passed
bill stated an expiration date in 1966
while the Senate bill stated an expira-
tion in 1965.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, as I
understand, the proposal is to substitute
one bill for the other.
Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. I move that the
Senate concur in the amendment of the
House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
?,,question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Arizona.
The motion was agreed to.
FORT BOWIE NATIONAL HISTORIC
SITE
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I ask
that the Chair lay before the Senate a
message from the House of Representa-
tives on the bill (H.R. 946).
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate the bill (H.R. 946) , a bill
to authorize the establishment of the
Fort Bowie National Historic Site in the
State of Arizona, and for other purposes,
which was read twice by its title.
Mr. HAYDEN. . Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that there" be printed
at this point in the RECORD an excerpt
from page 2 of Senate Report No. 1280,
which is the military record of George
Washington Bowie, for whom Fort Bowie
was named.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Fort Bowie was named for George Wash-
ington Bowie, 1824-1901, a native of Mont-
gomery County, Md., whose military record
Is as follows: ? "
Commissioned, 1st lieutenant, U.S. Army,
at Burlington, Iowa, April 1, 1847, where
he was assigned to 15th U.S. Infantry; pro-
moted to captain July 20, 1847; brevet major
for gallant and meritorious conduct at the
battles of Contreras and Churubusco, Mexico,
August 20, 1847; distinguished himself in
command of his company at the storming of
Chapultepec, September 14, 1847; honorably
discharged at Covington, Ky., August 4, 1848.
Mustered in as colonel, 5th California In-
fantry, at Sacramento, Calif., to date from
November 8, 1861; stationed at Camp Union,
near Sacramento, until February 1862, when
, he went to southern California and was in
command at Carly Latham, near the Cienega
between Los Angeles and Santa Monica;
marched to Camp Wright, near Warner's
Ranch, San Diego County, arriving April 9;
assumed command of the Military District
of southern California with headquarters at
Fort Yuma, May 17, 1862.
Marched via Fort Yuma, Tucson, and
Apache Pass to the Rio Grande, February
and March 1863; in command of the Military
District of Arizona with headquarters at
Franklin (new El Paso), Tex., April 15, 1863;
stationed there until he was honorably dis-
charged from the service at that place De-
cember,14, 1864; brevet brigadier general of
volunteers for faithful and meritorious serv-
ices during the war.
Fort Bowie, established July 28, 1862, Bowie
Peak, and the town of Bowie, all in Cochise
County, Ariz., named for him. ?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on the third reading and passage of
the bill.
The bill was ordered for a third read-
ing, was read the third time, an1 p e
AMENDMENT OF FORE! SIST-
ANCE ACT OF 19 1
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I had
intended to ask for a quorum call in order
that my distinguished colleague might
have an audience. But since he has
stated that he does not wish to speak,
and since I stated yesterday that I would
speak at the conclusion of his second
speech, I am now put in the position
of asking for a quorum call in order that
a group of Senators might be assembled
to hear my speech. In that connection
I hope that my request will not be re-
garded as an ungracious act on my part.
My request is merely due to the fact that
my colleague has disappointed us today,
and instead of expatiating on ,the sub-
ject as he said yesterday he would do
today, for one reason on another, per-
fectly well known to him?perfectly good
reasons?he does not wish to do so. I
am now compelled, Mr. President, to
suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
that it be a live quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
[No. 546 Leg.]
Aiken Eastland Lausche
Allott Edmondson Long, Mo.
Anderson Ellender Long, La.
Bartlett Ervin Magnuson
Bayh Fong Mansfield
Beall Fulbright McCarthy
Bennett Goldwater McClellan
Bible Gore McIntyre
Boggs Gruelling McNamara
Brewster Hart Mechem
Burdick Hayden , Metcalf
Byrd, Va. Hickenlooper Miller
Byrd, W. Va. Hill Monroney
Carlson Holland Morse
Case Hruska Morton
Church Humphrey Moss
Clark Inouye Mundt
Cooper Jackson
Cotton Jaid Nelson
b Pastoreeuls
Neuberger
ni e
Curtis Johnston
Dirksen Jordan, N.C.
Dodd Jordan, Idaho Pearson
Dominick Keating Pell
Douglas Kuchel Prouty
Proxmire Smathers
Randolph Smith
Ribicoff Sparkman
Robertson Stennis
Russell Symington
Salinger Talmadge
Simpson Thurmond
19001
Tower
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Young, N. flak.
Young, Ohio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is present.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUG-
LAS] is recognized. -
DIRKSEN AMENDMENT INTENDED TO DELAY
COURT-ORDERED APPORTIONMENT UNTIL ROT-
TEN-BOROUGH LEGISLATURES CAN PERMANENT-
LY FIX THEIR PRESENT MALAPPORTIONMENT
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, as I
said earlier, I had thought my friend and
colleague, the distinguished junior Sen-
ator from Illinois [Mr. DIRK5EN], would
speak today, as he announced yesterday
that he would. I announced at that time
that I would like to follow him. Now the
junior Senator from Illinois does not wish
to speak at this time; therefore, it de-
volves upon me to speak. I shall not be
quite fighting the air, however, because
the junior Senator from Illinois, while he
did not follow the plan he announced
yesterday, has made his intention per-
fectly clear.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. A family from our
common State is outside the Chamber.
Have I the Senator's permission to leave
the Chamber and shake hands with
them?
Mr. DOUGLAS. My good friend does
not need my permission to do so. I am
sure he is a master of his own movements.
Wherever he goes, he will carry with him
my friendship and my blessing.
Mr. DIRKSEN. There is much solici-
tude about my well-being today; but joy
cometh in the night, and the ides of
March have come, but have not gone.
So I still have until midnight to talk.
One columnist mentioned that once I
left the floor when one of my colleagues
was speaking. But I went for a purpose.
Now a fine family is outside the Chamber,
and I should like to be able to say "Hello"
to them.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall not take ad-
vantage of the Senator during his ab-
sence, but I shall quote from a statement
in his speech last night.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That is good. Be sure
to get in the word "today" because I have
until midnight.
Mr. DOUGLAS. My junior colleague,
who has left the Chamber, frankly stated
the purpose of his amendment in the
closing paragraph of his speech last
night. I should like to read that para-
graph. Before I do so, I wish to com-
mend my colleague for the frankness
with which he spoke. My colleague said:
We believe that it?
The amendment which he Proposed,
and which is now the subject before this
body?
would consummate the one objective which
we have had constantly in mind?that is, to
buy time at an awkward period when ad-
journment and the end of the year is Immi-
nent, so that as the 89th Congress comes into
being, we shall be ready to launch a resolu-
tion for a constitutional amendment in the
hope that it can be expedited through the
Senae and the House of Representatives,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
and that there will be ample time for the
legislatures of the various States to iquickly
impress their will upon it. Then we shall
have found a durable solution to the prob-
lem which emanated from the decision in
Reynolds v. Sims.
This is precisely what the senior Sen-
ator from Illinois has been charging in
the days which have elapsed since my
colleague first submitted his amendment,
and since it's predecessor was first
brought out of the Committee on the
Judiciary. I have charged that this
amendment was proposed to prevent the
orders requiring reapportiorlment, of the
Supreme Court and of the Federal courts,
from going into effect for an indetermi-
nate period of time. During that period
of time the malapportioned State legisla-
tures would urge the Congress to propose
a constitutional amendment, or call a
convention for this purpose, which they
could then rush to ratification. This, in
effect, would seal into existence for in-
definite periods of time the present mal-
apportionments, before the legislatures
could be properly and justly reappor-
tioned. That intention is what the sen-
ior Senator from Illinois has been charg-
ing; and the junior Senator has frankly
admitted it.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. DOMINICK. I did not mean to
interrupt the Senator, but I have before
me the map which has been placed on
the desks of Senators.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall come to that
in time.
Mr. DOMINICK. All I wish to say to
the Senator from Illinois is that if the
Colorado State senate is as it is described
by the Senator from Illinois, it is pure
white.
Mr. DOUGLAS. These figures change
from day to day, but I think this infor-
mation was true as of June 21 of this
year. Perhaps the figures are a little
behind, but they are substantially true as
of the spring of this year. When I come
to them, I shall be glad to discuss this
point.
At the very end of the session last
night, the senior Senator from Montana,
the majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD]
evidently felt that he should dissociate
himself from the remarks and the state-
ment of the junior Senator from Illinois.
He said:'
However, I do not agree that the purpose
of the additional time is to allow the passage
of a constitutional amendment to overturn
the Reynolds decision. In the first place,
the time allowed by this amendment, which
will in most cases end at the conclusion of
the first State legislative session after the
election this November, will probably not be
long enough to complete the process required
for the adoption of a new constitutional
amendment.
Parenthetically, this does not follow at
all, because the amendment of the junior
Senator from Illinois provides for what
is termed a reasonable opportunity; and
no one quite knows what a "reasonable
opportunity" would be.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I 'yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator has
quoted me correctly; but the term "rea-
sonable opportunity" is something which
can be defined in many ways. This par-
ticular proposal of the distinguished
minority leader and the Senator from
Montana would allow the Court great
flexibility. It faces up to a situation
which is impending in the several States,
and upholds the constitutional right of
the Court to hand down decisions such
as it has rendered in this instance.
I am delighted that the Senator has
indicated that, so far as I am concerned,
in offering the amendment there is no
idea whatsoever in my mind that we are
to seal or to delay until a constitutional
amendment can be passed in this body,
because I do not believe that is the way
to face an issue. However, I believe
something should be done to take care of
the difficulties which confront the 'sev-
eral States at the present time.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator
from Montana. I am glad he said that
I quoted him correctly. I Ian sure it
was not the purpose of the Senator from
Montana, when he gave his name to this
most unfortunate amendment, that
there would be a period of delay during
which the present malapportioned State
legislatures should finally cement their
unjust and,-in a sense, illegitimate com-
position. I know he did not mean this,
and he properly draws back, with a cer-
tain degree of repugnance and horror,
from giving?and I quote from the next
paragraph: "an alleged malapportioned
State legislature the power to validate
itself, the right to pass upon its own
validity, and the ability to perpetuate it-
self indefinitely."
The Senator from Montana went on
to say:
That does not seem just to me.
I am sure that was not his purpose;
but I want to emphasize the fact that
such was the purpose of his cosponsor,
as his cosponsor very frankly declared?
and I honor my junior colleague from
Illinois for the frankness with which
he stated his purpose.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Does not the Senator
from Illinois think it would be a fair
conclusion that it is not only the pur-
pose of the junior Senator from Illinois
to gain time in order to try to rush
through a constitutional amendment,
but that one might assume that it would
be the purpose of most of the Republican
Members of the Senate, who support the
junior Senator from Illinois, because
they would be so obviously prejudiced by
a fair one-vote-one-person provision in
the constitutional laws of the several
States that the inevitable result in most
States of a one-vote-one-person provi-
sion would be to vastly strengthen the
Democratic_Party in most, if not all,
of the States.
I know that in my own State, former
Governor Lawrence told me yesterday
that under our present apportionment,
we could carry the State this fall for
President Johnson by a majority of
August 14
600,000, but still not gain control of the
legislature.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I appreciate what
the Senator has said, but I made no such
charges last night, and I make no such
charges today. As a matter of" fact, as
I tried to explain last-night, I am not at
all certain that, taking the situation
countrywide, a fair reapportionment
would help the Democratic Party.
PROPER REAPPORTIONMENT WILL PROBABLY
BENEFIT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE
SOUTH
Let us take the South first. In the
South the country districts and farm
districts tend to be Democratic. The
cities are increasingly becoming Repub-
lican. One has only to look at Dallas
and Houston, which are two strong con-
servative Republican cities, and other
cities, as well. They are grossly under-
represented both in the Texas Legisla-
ture, as well as in the U.S. Congress. So
reapPortionment would weaken the
country Democrats in Texas and
strengthen the city Republican.
? I think this is true in many other cities
of the South. It might well be true in
Georgia. I am inclined to believe it is
true so far as western and central Ten-
nessee are concerned. In east Tennes-
see, the country districts are already
Republican.
Therefore, so far as the South is con-
cerned, proper reapportionment would
help the Republican Party. I favor
proper reapportionment even if it does
help the Republican Party.
I hope some of my Republican friends
will at least consider what the practical
consequences of their support of the
Dirksen amendment will be. But I leave
that up to them.
IN THE NORTH AS WELL, PROPER REAPPORTION-
MENT MAY BENEFIT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Now, if I may touch upon the North, I
pointed out last night that the suburbs
of the country now have more people
than the central cities.
In 1960, the suburbs had 57 million, as
compared with 58 million in central
cities. But since then, there has been
a continued drift to the suburbs. I am
confident that today the population in
the suburbs substantially outnumbers
that in the central cities.
We know that today the great
strength of the Republican Party is in
the rural areas and the suburbs, whereas
the great strength of the Democratic
Party is in the cities. I believe it will be
found that the suburbs would gain more
from proper apportionment than the
central cities would gain, because the
suburbs have grown more rapidly, and
the failure to reapportion has confined
them to the representation their areas
had many years ago. ,
The Senator -from Pennsylvania has
spoken of his State. Let me speak now
about my State.
Several weeks agd a very able political
reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, Mr.
Tom Littlewood, made a study of what
would happen to the Illinois Senate on
the basis of proper reapportionment. He
said that the downstate area?meaning
everything outside Chicago, just as in
New York "upstate" means everything
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19003
outside New York City, even if it includes
Long Island?would lose eight Senators,
and Chicago would gain two Senators.
Of the eight Senators which would be lost
by the downstate areas, two or three
would be Democrats, because we Demo-
crats are quite strong in southern Illi-
nois, Particularly in the chain of coun-
ties along Route 40, the old national
highway. The people there are largely
Kentuckians, Tennesseans, and Virgin-
ians, in origin. So the Democrats prob-
ably would lose two or three senatorial
seats downstate, but we might gain two
senatorial seats in Chicago. So there
probably would be no net increase in the
Democratic strength in the Illinois Sen-
ate, and possibly the Democrats would
have a net loss of one seat.
There would be a gain of three seats
in the suburbs of Chicago inside Cook
County. Those suburbs are strongly Re-
publican. They have been growing very
rapidly. In 1960, there were 1,7-50,000
people in the suburbs inside Cook Coun-
ty, but outside Chicago. They would
gain three seats. They are strongly Re-
publican. Although we Democrats have
hopes of redeeming the suburbs, and
although we plan to carry on a vigorous
campaign in attempting to do so, I think
there is no immediate prospect that we
shall be able to carry them. So these
three seats would be a gain for the Re-
publican Party.
Now, there is a chain of peripheral
counties which circle Chicago and Cook
County. To the south there is Will
County, of which the chief city is Joliet.
Then there is Du Page County, which is
largely residential. It lies immediately
to the west of Chicago. Incidentally, it
is the strongest Republican County in
the country?even stronger than West-
chester County, N.Y.
To the north is Lake County. It fronts
on Lake Michigan. West of Du Page
County is Kane County. In Lake
County, the central city is Waukegan.
To the west of Lake County is McHenry
County. These are mainly suburban
counties, although some of the people
who live in them do work there.
We Democrats are making strong
gains in some of these counties, par-
ticularly in Lake County and Will
County. Mr. Littlewood states that al-
most certainly the three additional
senators from those areas would be
Republicans.
So there would be six Republican sen-
ators and two Democratic senators, to
replace the two or three Democratic
senators and the five or six Republican
senators who would be lost downstate;
and, overall, the Democratic Party would
make no gain, and might suffer a loss;
and the Republican Party would not suf-
fer a loss, and might make a gain.
But the metropolitan area would be
represented in accordance with its pop-
ulation; and the senators from the met-
ropolitan area would be able to consider
more adequately the needs of that area.
SO QUESTION OF PARTY ADVANTAGE FROM PROPER
APPORTIONMENT IS SECONDARY
We have a big water problem in Chi-
cago and the suburbs. I am not sure
the Senator from Wisconsin fully ap-
preciates our water problem in northern
Illinois. We also have a problem of
smoke abatement, a problem of zoning,
a problem of taxation, a problem of re-
lief, and a housing problem. These
problems affect the urban and the subur-
ban areas alike.
Under reapportionment of our Senate,
there would be more adequate represen-
tation for the presently underrepresented
areas; namely, both the central cities and
suburbs.
So I believe the question of party ad-
vantage is minor and secondary. If re-
apportionment helped the Democratic
Party, I would still favor it; but I believe
this issue is above the questionof par-
tisan advantage. I do not believe we
should shrink from reapportionment if
it were to help the Democratic Party;
and I would not' shrink from reappor-
tionment if it were to help the Repub-
lican Party.
But on the basis of the figures for my
State and an analysis of those for the
country, I do not believe reapportion-
ment would help the Democratic Party.
Certainly it would hurt the Democratic
Party in the South; and, except in cer-
tain States, it would help the Republi-
can Party in the North.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield to me
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
if the one-man, one-vote principle
were put into effect in full, throughout
the Nation, although it would enable the
States to be more efficient and to do a
more competent job, it would not neces-
sarily mean that converatism would lose
and liberalism would gain; but there
would be an opportunity for those who
feel very strongly about States' rights
and about federalism and who feel very
passionately that the Federal Govern-
ment has too much power, to more ef-
fectively proceed to solve their problems
at home. Obstructionists might be ad-
versely affected?those who feel that it is
a mistake to make progress on any level;
but, in general, those who have a genuine
and sincere feeling that the Federal Gov-
ernment is too large and that the States
should assume more responsibility would
be served by this change, would they
not?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe that is true.
The Senator from Wisconsin covered this
point marvelously .in the course of his
speech today; and last night we dealt
briefly with it.
PROPER APPORTIONMENT WOULD STRENGTHEN
THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
One reason why the municipalities
have been inclined to go to the Congress
for assistance and to bypass the States
is that the State legislatures do not take
much interest in their needs. The mu-
nicipalities have been compelled to go to
the Federal Government. But if the
municipalities feel that they are fairly
represented in the State legislatures and
that the States will give them a break,
they will more and more turn to their
State governments, and will less and less
turn to the Central Government.
I have always felt that the malappor-
tionment of the State legislatures has led
to centralization, and that better appor-
tionment would lead to decentraliza-
tion. I think I can speak about this mat-
ter, for my political experience began in
city government. I believe that I realize
the importance?other things taken into
consideration?of having decisions, in-
sofar as is practicable, handled locally.
I think there is a very strong case for
national action in many fields. Probably
I would quarrel with many of my col-
leagues as to what these fields properly
are. But I believe there has been much
unnecessary calling on the Federal Gov-
ernment simply because the State legis-
latures are unrepresentative.
On the general question of liberalism
versus conservatism, it is difficult to
know what those terms mean. I desig-
nate myself a liberal, if I am permitted
to define the term. People in rural areas
tend to be suspicious of the liberals in
the "big city." But I do not regard the
suburbs as strongholds of liberalism.
Quite the contrary, I believe that, on the
whole, in regard to economic matters the
suburbs probably are more conservative
than the countryside.
It is interesting to note that while fre-
quently the farmers and dountry people
are very properly worried about certain
issues the people in the suburbs are con-
tented to have the situation continue as
it is. The essence of conservatism?as
Lord Hugh Cecil said 50 years ago?is
satisfaction with things as they are, sat-
isfaction with the situation in the past,
and distrust of things unknown. Con-
servatism flourishes best in the, suburbs.
Therefore, proper and fair reapportion-
ment would not increase the liberal
forces in the suburbs, but it would in-
crease and improve State action for the
benefit of people who are faced with
the new problems created by industriali-
zation and by the rush of populations to
the cities. I tried to document this last
night.
Those who are interested in light read-
ing will be able to study the tables which
I had printed in the RECORD. They show
the importance of the cities, the metro-
politan areas, and the counties. The im-
portance of the large counties has been
steadily increasing, and the importance
of the small counties, with populations
of less than 25,000, has been steadily di-
minishing. Yet, in the main the small
counties dominate the State legislatures.
Sometimes they do not dominate both
houses, but in nearly every State they
dominate at least one house?generally
the senate, although in New England
there is an extraordinary variation. In
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecti-
cut it is the lower house, in which the
cities are underrepresented.
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
DIRKSEN AMENDMENT IS TO PERMIT AN INDEF-
INITE FREEZE OF THE PRESENT MALAPPOR-
TIONMENT IN THE STATES '
Mr. President, if I may, I shall turn
back to the question as to what is behind
the Dirksen amendment?and I do not
like to call it the Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment; so I shall call it the Diiksen
amendment?and what its effect would
be. .1 have said that its effect will be to
prevent the decisions of the Supreme
Court from going into effect for a period
of time. During that period of time,' a
determined effort would be made to have
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
suspended, and once reapportionment of
the State legislatures is suspended.
I believe that this bill is the draft of
the constitutional amendment which is
desired. In this connection, I should like
to call attention to two other Senate re-
solutions which are very similar in na-
ture to the Tuck bill. One of them was
introduced by our beloved colleague the
junior Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
STENNIS]. It would' propose a new con-
stitutional amendment reading:
Nothing in the Constitution of the United
States shall prohibit a State, having a bi-
cameral legislature, from apportioning the
membership of the less numerous branch of
its legislature on factors other than popu-
lation.
SEC. 2. This article shall be inoperative
unless it shall have been ratified as an
amendment to the Constitution by the legis-
latures of three-fourths of the several States
within seven years from the date of its sub-
mission to the States by the Congress.
I invite the attention of Senators also
to the bill of the junior Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND]. He
submitted this bill on June 16. It would
add a new chapter to title 28 of the
United States Code, as follows:
Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new chapter:
"CHAPTER 181?STATE LEGISLATIVE
APPORTIONMENT
"Sec.
"2691. Jurisdiction.
"1 2691. Jurisdiction
"No court of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to hear or determine any action
or proceeding involving or relating to any
matter concerning the composition of any
legislative body or assembly of any State or
the apportionment of the membership there-
of, or to enter, enforce, or review any judg-
ment, decree, or order in or relating to any
such action or proceeding."
(b) The analysis of part VI of that title
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new item:
"181. State legislative apportionment__ 2691".
I believe this is a pretty clear indica-
tion of what is contemplated if the Dirk-
sen amendment were to be passed. There
would certainly be strong and influential
elements which would seek to get an
amendment through to deny the Court
the power to order any further reappor- ,
tiOnment, or to sustain or maintain in
operation any orders which they have al-
ready executed.
As we heard in the colloquy between
the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] and the senior Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. PRoxlviIRET, these ele-
ments would regard this as constitu-
tional.
THERE CAN BE NO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
\ LAWS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL APPOR-
TIONMENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES
Our friends from the South?and they
are our friends; we like them as indi-
viduals; we appreciate their problems?
never really go beyond the 10th amend-
ment of the Constitution. They quote
the 10th amendment:
All powers not specifically granted to the
Federal Government are presumed to rest
with the States and with the people.
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND] asked: "Where is the Su-
the Congress propose a constitutional
amendment which would prevent the
courts in the future from ever ruling on
the question of apportionment. The
malapportioned legislatures would rush
to ratify such an amendment. The end
purpose would be to freeze indefinitely
the present malapportionments in the
State legislatures and, indirectly, the
malapportionment of districts for U.S.
Representatives.
People have accused me?and there
were some indirect accusations last
night?of seeing hobgoblins.
Yesterday the House had a' bill re-
ported to it from the Committee on
Rules, an extraordinary procedure. The
bill was introduced by Representative
Tucx of Virginia. We have read of the
amendment in the newspapers, but I do
not believe many of us have known what
its text actually was.
We should have no inhibitions about
mentioning the name of the other body.
For some curious reason, the House never
likes to refer to us as the Senate. It
always refers to us as "the other body."
The House occupies an honored position
in the Natioual Legislature. I We are very
glad to regard the Senate as an equal,
but not superior, partner to them.
I should like to read the text of the
Tuck bill which the Committee on Rules
Yesterday referred directly to the
House?bypassing any hearings and con-
sideration by the Committee on the Ju-
diciary?and which may shortly be acted
upon by the House, if, indeed, it has not
been acted upon by the House today.
This is the text of the Tuck bill which
would add a new section to title 28 of the
United States Code:
"Supreme Court, limitation of appellate ju-
risdiction
"The Supreme Court shall not have the
right to review the action of a Federal court
or a State court of last resort concerning any
action taken upon a petition or complaint
seeking to apportion or reapportion any legis-
lature of any State, of the Union or any
branch thereof."
S. 2. Amend title 28, section 1331 of the
United States Code (28 U.S.C., sec. 1331) by
adding at the end thereof a new subsection
to read as follows:
"(c) The district courts shall not have
jurisdiction to entertain any petition or com-
plaint seeking to apportion or reapportion
the legislature of any State of the Union or
any branch thereof."
I do not know what the real purpose
of the House Rules Committee's action
was. The bill may have been intended as
a cover to run interference for the
Dirksen-Mansfield amendment. I doubt'
if it could be passed by both Houses at
this session, although, of course, it might
be. I am very dubious of its constitu-
tional effect, if it were to be passed. I
am doubtful whether Congress has the
power to suspend the action of the
courts, or to deny them jurisdiction in
constitutional matters. I hope the Con-
gress does not have such power.
But I think the action of the Rules
Committee and the bill do indicate the
shape of things to come. I believe the
language of the Tuck bill indicates the
probable nature of the constitutional
amendment which would be proposed
once the present orders of the Court are
August 14
preme Court given the power to order re-
apportionment?" . What they fail to
realize and what they tend to ignore is
the existence of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment was enacted not
only after, but as a result of, the Civil
War. The Civil War started as a war to
save the Union, or to destroy the Union.
It culminated in a pledge by the North-
ern States to free the slaves. Not only
that, but after the war, there came a de-
sire to give to the States more than free-
dom from chattel slavery. The country
acted to make the Negro population of
the country?including the Negro popu-
lation of the South?full-fledged citizens
of the United States.
I quoted last night the 14th amend-
ment to the Constitution which provides
that:
All persons born or naturalized in the
United states * = = are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they
reside.
We regard that as very simple nowa-
days. It is fundamental in its nature.
First, it provided that citizenship was
national?not really local or State. Sec-
ond, it drew no differentiation between
States. It did not describe second-class
citizens or first-class citizens. All were
citizens of equal rank/ All were first-
class citizens.
There were the additional passages
which have been quoted many times in
this debate and during the debate on
civil rights. I quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or inunu-
hales of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law.
That is the salient part.
Nor deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws.
In the final section of the amendment
It is provided:
The Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of
this article.
The Supreme Court has properly, and
I believe justly, held that we cannot have
equal protection of the laws in the long
run unless -three is substantially equal
representation in the State legislatures.
If the membership of a State legislature
is disproportionately drawn from cer-
tain sections of the community, the sec-
tions which are excluded, or grossly
underrepresented, cannot have any as-
surance that they will have the equal
protection of the laws.
This is the fundamental basis of the
decisions of the Supreme Court, first in
the Tennessee case; then in the Alabama
case and the Colorado case. These de-
cisions have been criticized as being, at
least, somewhat hasty. But they were
not hasty in terms of the delay which
the legislatures of this country had prac-
ticed in refusing to reapportion.
I mentioned earlier to my good friend
from Vermont [Mr. AncEu] that Ver-
mont has its lower house apportioned
according to the Constitution of 1793.
Since that time, 171 years have passed.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator is not say-
ing that was not a good constitution?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
4:1
.1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19005
Mr. DOUGLAS. For its time, it was.
But I am also saying that the present
situation, in which 36 people elect one
representative to the lower house of Ver-
mont, and 36,000 people are permitted
to elect only one?is not proper. It gives
to one person in this lonely hamlet the
same voice that 1,000 voters in the city?
I assume it is Brattleboro?have.
I would dislike to have my good friend
go up to Brattleboro and defend this un-
fair apportionment.
Mr. AIKEN. I explained to the Sena-
tor this morning that the large towns to
which he has referred have control over
the Vermont Senate.
Mr. DOUGLAS. But they do not have
control over the house, or even a fair
voice. They are grossly unrepresented
in the House. / -
Mr. AIKEN. Why is the Senator from
Illinois trying to prevent the people of
the United States from voting on the
question before us, either through their ,
elected representatives to the Congress
or by a vote of the people through their
elected representatives in the States
themselves?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. friend realizes
that the vote on a constitutional amend-
ment would not be by a vote of the peo-
ple. It would be by a vote of the already
malapportioned State legislatures.
Mr. AIKEN. Is not the Senator trying
to prevent a vote?an expression of opin-
ion?by the people of the United States
through their elected representatives in
the Congress?or are we not supposed to
represent them? They elected us to
come here.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator from
Vermont will see that the Dirksen
amendment is introduced as a separate
bill or resolution, and if hearings are
conducted by the Judiciary Committee,
I promise that it will be given good con-
sideration on the floor of the Senate and
( not subjected to excessive debate. But
the amendment has been sprung upon us
without public hearings in the Judiciary
Committee. It has been attached to the
foreign aid authorization bill and placed
beyond the power of a presidential,veto,
in all possibility; and we are told that we
must approve it.
Mr. AIKEN. Is the Senator arguing
that the people of Illinois and New York
should have a greater voice in the Senate
than, shall we say,-the people of Rhode
Island or Montana?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I have never made
that claim. The Senator from Vermont
is completely shifting the argument. We
are talking about State legislatures.
Mr. AIKEN. I am coming to the ulti-
mate argument. The Senator knows
that if the decision of the Supreme Court
is followed to its logical conclusion, rep-
resentation of the smaller States of the
United States will be done away with in
this legislative body.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all.
Mr. AIKEN. That would be the ulti-
mate purpose. The Senator knows it;
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROX-
MIRE] knows it; the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK] knows it. That is
the ultimate purpose.
Mr. DOUGLAS. May I answer the
Senator?
No. 159-14
Mr. AIKEN. Why did not the Senator
from Illinois seek hearings on the civil
rights bill that came to the Senate from
the House of Representatives?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I somewhat sus-
pected that the Judiciary Committee
would kill it.
Mr. AIKEN. Why does the Senator
desire hearings when he wants hearings,
and avoid them when he wishes to do so?
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from
Vermont is moving from one argument
to another. He presents a movable
target. Will the Senator from Vermont
permit me to reply to his first statement?
Mr.-AIKEN. Let me repeat the ques-
. tion.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to point
out that it is absolutely impossible under
the Constitution for either Congress or
the Supreme Court to take away the
equal representation of the States in the
U.S. Senate.
The concluding clause of article V of
the U.S. Constitution is as follows: "no
State without its Consent, shall be de-
prived of it's equal Suffrage in the
Senate."
That is the one feature in the Federal
Constitution which cannot be amended.
That is a provision which the small
States not only anchored in the Federal
Constitution but also placed beyond the
possibility of amendment. That was the
price which they exacted for joining the
Union. The delegate from Delaware in
the Constitutional Convention, as Madi-
son's Journal reports, threatened at one
point that unless they obtained equal
representation in at least one House, they
would not join the Union and would
make an alliance with a foreign power,
presumably France or Great Britain.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask the
Senator one additional question. Would
the Senator from Illinois offer a consti-
tutional amendment which would allo-
cate representation in the Senate of the
United States according to the popula-
tion of the State?
Mr. DOUGLAS. No; I would not.
That is a burden which we in the big
States bear?and it is a heavy burden,
too, believe me?but we bear it in the
cause of national unity. That issue was
finally decided in 1787. It weighs very
heavily upon the big States. The Sena-
tor knows that in this body, on the whole,
Senators from the big States are second
class citizens. The Senator knows very
well that we occupy an inferior position.
He also knows that the interests of the
big States tend to be disregarded in the
Senate. That is the price which we pay
continually. The States have in their
body the nails which were driven into
them in 1787, and we have borne that
burden manfully and without complaint.
But we do not wish to have it extended
inside the States. That is the point.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Illi-
nois means that he wishes the States
themselves to be absolutely pure even if
the Federation of States is not.
Mr. DOUGLAS. No. I repeat the
same point which-has been brought out
time and time again, namely, there is no
analogy between what was adopted in
1787 for representation in the U.S. Sen-
ate and the situation inside the States.
The consent of the States was necessary
in order to form the United States. The
small States could be brought in only by
giving them equal representation and
preventing the arrangement from ever
being changed. But as we have de-
veloped time and time again, the coun-
ties inside the States are not sovereign
and the towns are not sovereign. They
do not create the States; the States
create them. The States can cut them
off, expand them, or contract them.
They are creatures of the State. It is
not necessary to give them equality of
representation in order to insure that the
State of Vermont or the State Of Illinois
will continue.
Mr. AIKEN. It still is not clear why
the Senator from Illinois is so insistent
upon hearings by congressional com-
mittees on the apportionment measure,
whereas the Senator from Illinois was
equally, insistent that there .be no hear-
ings on an equally important item of pro-
posed legislation known as the civil rights
bill.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is shift-
ing to that subject. I point out that If
the Senator is talking about consistency,
what shall we say of Senators who pro-
tested to high heaven that there were no
hearings on the civil rights bill, but who
are supporting the amendment which
comes up from the floor with no hear-
ings? I simply say "Tu quoque"?to you
also. If I am inconsistent?and I do not
believe that I am?I am not more incon-
sistent than other Members of this body.
MrI AIKEN. There is a great differ-
ence between a bill introduced in the
Congress and a simple amendment
which is being proposed to the pending
bill.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, is this a simple
amendment? On the contrary, it is a
very important, complex, and far-reach-
ing amendment. It would anesthetize
the courts so that presently unrepresent-
ative State legislatures could perpetuate
themselves with their present unjust and
inequitable representation.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. HART. I was present while the
Senator from Illinois and the Senator
from Vermont were discussing the con-
cern that some had with the civil- rights
bill being referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary for hearings, and the re-
sistance that some of us voiced to that
proposal. That action was contrasted
with the situation we are in today. I -
should like to ask the Senator from Illi-
nois whether or not the Committee on
the Judiciary has held any hearings on
the amendment offered by the junior
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. To the best of my
knowledge, it has not. The Senator from
Michigan is a member of that commit-
tee. He can answer his own question.
What is the answer?
Mr. HART. If I am not charged with
a speech, I shall be glad to answer the
question.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Very good.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. HART. The Committee on the
Judiciary held no hearings on the bill.
There is no record of such hearings.
My next question in the comparison is
as follows: Does the Senator from Illi-
nois know whether or not the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare held any
hearings on the amendment offered by
the junior Senator from Illinois?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Not that I know of.
Mr. HART. But that committee held
extensive hearings on a substantial part
of the civil rights bill, did it not?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is true. It con-
ducted hearings on the fair employ-
ment practices section.
Mr. HART. Did the Committee on
Commerce hold any hearings on the
measure introduced by the junior Sena-
tor from Illinois?
Mr. DOUGLAS. No, not at all; but it
held careful hearings on what is called
the public accommodations section of
the civil rights bill.
Mr. HART. That is a distinction
worth noting. Extensive hearings were
held on the public accommodations sec-
tion of the civil rights bill by the Com-
mittee on Commerce. Extensive, though
inconclusive, hearings were held by the
Committee on the Judiciary on the basic
civil rights bill. Hearings were held on
the fair employment practices section of
the civil rights bill by the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare. But no such
record is available to the Senate with
respect to the pending bill.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator
from Michigan for his very valuable
contribution, which I believe is a better
answer than the one I gave. He has cor-
rectly pointed out that while the Judi-
ciary Committee did not hold specific
hearings on the entire civil rights bill
as it came from the House, it had held
hearings on similar proposals before;
concurrently, the Committee on Com-
merce had held hearings on a public ac-
commodations bill and the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare had held hear-
ings on the fair employment practices
section of the bill. I believe that is a
very good answer, and I am sure it will
convert my friend the Senator from
Vermont.
DIRKSEN AMENDMENT THE BETTER OF TWO EVILS
AT BEST
Mr. President, I have been discussing
the Tuck bill and the cognate bills here
in the Senate. Yesterday my colleague
the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] quoted the statement by the
able chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, Representative CELLER, that
he preferred the Dirksen bill. This
statement was correct, but the full con-
text was not given. What Representa-
tive CELLER said was that he chose the
Dirksen bill as the lesser of two evils; and
that, as between the Tuck bill and the
Dirksen bill, the Dirksen bill was not as
bad.
I suggest that this was not a real
choice. Suppose one were told by the
authorities, "You are going to be killed.
We are going to kill you. Which do you
choose? Will you be killed by hanging
or by shooting?" Suppose that person
replies, "Well, shooting is the lesser of
the two evils. It is done more quickly
and it is not as drawn out and painful."
I think that is about what Representa-
tive CELLER said. The point is that I
think we should have neither the Dirk-
sen amendment nor the Tuck bill. I am
somewhat suspicious that the Tuck bill
may be a cover, a threat, to induce some
Members of the House to accept the
Dirksen measure lest they be pushed to
take the Tuck bill. Then if the Dirk-
sen measure is put through the House?
and I hope it will not be?and if the
courts are anesthetized and prevented
from continuing to order reapportion-
ment, and if the State legislatures con-
tinue to prevent and refuse reapportion-
ment, a bill modeled on the Tuck bill will
be rammed through and submitted to the
legislatures. This, in the words of the
-majority leader himself, would be in-
equitable.
The majority leader said:
That would give an alleged malappor-
tioned State legislature the power to validate
itself, the right to pass upon fts own validity,
and the ability to perpetuate itself in-
definitely. That does not seem just to me.
It does not seem just to me. I do not
think it seems just to anyone. But that
is what the majority leader has gotten
himself in for by sponsoring this amend-
ment. I regret that, but those are the
facts.
GREAT GROWTH OF, THE URBAN AND SUBURBAN
AREAS
Yesterday I pointed out that this prob-
lem had largely arisen from the growth
of cities in big counties and the failure
of the State legislatures to reapportion
the legislatures in keeping with the
movements of population. I cited the
fact that from 1910 to 1960, 50 years,
the population in the roughly 2,000
counties with a population under 25,000
had diminished from 27,421,000 to 23,-
064,000, or a decrease of 4.3 million, or
roughly 14 percent.
At the same time, our population had
increased from 91 million to 178 million,
or had virtually doubled. ?
In other words, the small counties
were losing 14 percent in population
while the United States as a whole was
doubling in population.
If we consider the counties of over
500,000, which numbered 15 in 1910, but
64 in 1960, their population increased
from 14.8 million to 65.7 million; or had
more than quadrupled by 1960. The
population of the counties over 500,000
was 41/2 times as much in 1960 as in
1910, or an increase of about 350 percent.
Or if we take the counties which are
next to the metropolitan counties, coun-
ties with a population of 100,000 to
500,000, their number increased from 87
in 1910 to 238 in 1960. Th population
had risen from 17 million to 48 million,
or had increased almost 3 times.
Or if we consider all the counties with
populations of 100,000 or more we find
that their total population had risen
from 31 million in 1910, a little over
one-third of the population, to a popu-
lation of 114 million in 1960, over 60
August 14
percent of the population. It is Close
to 64 or 65 percent of the population.
Those figures, along with the others
I have given and shall give, tell the story
of the population movement to the cities
and the refusal of legislatures to reap-
portion in accordance with the move-
ment of population.
Yet people are still thinking of Amer-
ica as a country of villages, where the
village blacksmith works under a spread-
ing chestnut tree. They are still think-
ing of the monthly packet boat which
sailed from Boston Harbor to Liverpool.
Their thinking has not kept up with the
population growth and movement. Not
only has their thinking not kept up with
the population movement, but the action
of the State legislatures has failed to
keep up, as we have shown by citing the
facts for case after case showing the
failure of the legislatures to apportion
according to population.
MALAPPORTIONMENT IN THE LOWER HOUSES OF
THE 50 STATES
Messrs. Paul T. David and Ralph Eis-
enberg produced a very valuable study
on this subject, and I would like to dis-
cuss their findings State by, State, tak-
ing first the houses of the 50 States and
then taking the 50 senates. They used
census and apportionment figures as of
1960.
Let me start by saying that, in gen-
eral, the lower houses in the States tend
to be more equitably proportioned than
the senates, with the exception of the
old New England States of New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, and Connecticut.
There are peculiar reasons for this,
which I mentioned last night; namely,
that originally the States were in com-
petition, they had to bid for the allegi-
ance of the border towns, and so prom-
ised them equal representation in the
lower house.
ALABAMA
Let us start with Alabama. In the
lower house, the smallest population per
member was 6,731; the largest popula-
tion per member was 104,767. In other
words, one voter in the smallest district
had 15.6 times the effect of one voter in
?the largest district. Putting it in an-
other way, the representation in the low-
er house was 1,560 percent more concen-
trated per person than it was in theeup-
per house.
-Let us take the new State of Alaska.
Alaska came into the Union recently, but
their smallest population per member
is 1,619; the largest, 10,354. One person
in the smallest district had as much rep-
resentation as 6.4 people in the largest
district.
Consider Arizona, about which we have
heard so much. The smallest popula-
tion per member is 5,754; the largest
population per member, 30,438. In oth-
er words, one person in the smallest dis-
trict had as much representation as 5.3
in the largest, or an overrepresentation
by 530 percent.
In Arkansas, the smallest district has
4,927; the largest district, 31,686. One
voter in the smallest district has the
same representation as 6.4 persons in the
largest district.
I am speaking now of the lower houses.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
CALIFORNIA
In California, 72,105 persons are in the
smallest district; 143,892 in the largest.
In the smallest district, one person had
6.2 times the representation of a person
in the largest district.
As to Colorado, these figures were true
as of the beginning of the year. The
junior Senator from Colorado earlier im-
plied that redistribution, ordered by the
courts, has changed the ratio somewhat.
Let us take the figures as of 1960.
The smallest district had a population
of 7,807; the largest, 63,766. One person
in the smallest district had the same
representation as 8.1 people in the
largest district.
CONNECTICUT
Now we come to Connecticut, which
we discussed last night. The smallest
district of Connecticut has only 191 peo-
ple; the largest district, 81,889. In other
words, 191 people ir_ a Connecticut ham-
let have as much representation in the
lower house as 81,000 people have in
one of the cities. In other words, they
have 424 times as much representation;
or, in percentage terms of comparison,
42,450 percent greater representation.
Can anyone claim that that is fair? Can
anyone speak of the superior virtues of
those 191 people in the Connecticut
Berkshires and say that they are that
much greater than the 81,000 people in
the towns and cities of Connecticut?
Those figures cause the argument which
my good friend from Vermont [Mr.
AIKEN] tried to advance to fall complete-
ly to the ground.
I am proceeding State by State, alpha-
betically. Vermont comes toward the
end of the list. But we have even more
shocking figures for Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thought I would
stir up my good friend from Vermont.
The argument he made about Vermont
falls to the ground.
Mr. AIKEN. But truth crushed to
earth will rise again.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I said that the 81,000
people in the largest district of Connec-
ticut had as much right to equal repre-
sentation as the 191 people in the small-
est district. The present arrangement
is unfair. I cannot believe that the Sen-
ator from Vermont would ever defend it.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver-
mont likes his State. He likes the way
his State is operated. He likes the way
the United States is conducted, and he
intends to stand up for both the United
States and Vermont.
Mr. DOUGLAS. .Is he going to stand
for the present apportionment of the
Vermont House?
Mr. AIKEN. Yes. I will stand for
the right of Vermont to reapportion its
lower house in an orderly and constitu-
tional manner. If I can help it, lam not
going to let any organization, set up for
any purpose whatsoever, try to chisel
away the rights of the people of my State
or the United States.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator from
Vermont approves the Dirksen amend-
ment, would he refuse to permit Vermont
to reapportion and cause it to perpetu-
ate itself in the same condition of rep-
resentation which has existed since 1793?
Mr. AIKEN. That is not in accord
with what I said earlier. The Senator
from Vermont said that we wanted to
get time in order to solve our own
problem.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Vermont has had 171
Years in which to do that. Vermont is a
fine State, and the senior Senator from
Vermont is a fine Senator and a fine
man. It so happens that this happens
to be an Achilles' heel in the government
of Vermont, of course, we have our
Achilles' heels in Illinois.
Mr. AIKEN. I understand there is a
tremendous one in Chicago. About4 the
rest of Illinois, I have not heard so much.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I will defend my city
and my State.
Mr. AIKEN. I realize that Chicago is
unique.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If my friend wishes
to expatiate on that subject, I shall be
glad to come later to the general emo-
tional charge and prejudice which lie be-
hind charges of that kind. But I shall
pass over it for the time being.
DELAWARE
Consider the little State of Delaware.
In the smallest district, 1,643 people elect
1 representative; the largest district
requires 58,228. In other words, one
person in the smallest district has more
than 35 times the influence of a person
in the largest district.
FLORIDA
Florida is a most interesting State.
In the smallest district, only 2,868 peo-
ple; in the largest district, 311,682. One
person in the smallest district has 109
times the representation of a person in
the largest district, or in terms of per-
centage, has 10,090 greater representa-
tion.
GEORGIA
Let us pass on to Georgia. The small-
est district has 1,876 people, the largest
district, 185,442; orl person in the small-
est district has 99 times the voting in-
fluence of a person in the largest district.
This is characteristic of Georgia.
There is underrepresentation in Atlanta
and, indeed, all the other cities of Geor-
gia, but overrepresentation of the hill
counties. This situation has charac-
terized Georgia politics for a long time.
We all know this. A suit before the U.S.
Supreme Court led to a change. A
change was ordered, but adaptation has
not fully resulted.
HAWAII
Consider the little State of Hawaii.
The smallest district has 7,044 people;
the largest district has 15,163. Com-
pared with other States, that is not too
bad, but one person in the smallest dis-
trict has 2.2 times the influence of a
person in the largest district.
IDAHO
Now we come to an interesting State?
Idaho. The Smallest diStilict has only
915 people, the largest, 23,365. One
person in the smallest district has 25.5
times the influence of a person in the
largest district, or has 2,555 percent
greater influence than a person in the
19007
largest district, which I presume is
Boise.
ILLINOIS
Take , my own State of Illinois. It
does not have the worst record of any
State in the country, but the smallest
district has 34,783 people, the largest
district, 126,850?and this after a reap-
portionment in the middle 1950's. One
person in the smallest district has 3.6
times the weight of a person in the larg-
est district, or 360 percent greater.
It should be realized that I am now
talking about lower houses of the var-
ious State legislatures.
In Indiana, there are 14,804 people in
the smallest district; 79,538 in the lar-
gest. One person in the smallest dis-
trict has 5.4 times the influence of n
person in the largest district.
The next State is Iowa, about which
my good friend, the junior Senator from
Iowa iMr. MILLER] spoke last night. The
smallest district in Iowa has only 7,469
people; the largest district has 133,157
or 17.8 times as many.
It would take 17.8 persons in the lar-
est district?presumably in Des Moines?
to have the same influence in electing a
member to the State legislature that a
person in the smallest district would
have.
KANSAS
, In 1960, the smallest district in Kansas
had 2,069 persons; the largest district,
68,646 persons?or 33.2 times as many.
One person in the smallest district had
the same influence that 33 in the largest
one had.
KENTUCKY
I am sorry the gracious and beloved
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] ,
who was in the Chamber earlier today,
is not here now. In the smallest district,
11,364, could elect a member of the lower
house; in the largest district, 67,789; or
one person in the smallest district had
as much influence as 6 persons had in
the largest district?an influence 600
percent greater. -
LOUIS/ANA
In the smallest district, 6,909; in the
largest district, 120,205. So it took 17.4
times as many people in order to elect
a representative from the largest district,
as compared with the number required
in the smallest district.
MAINE, THE PINE TREE STATE
In the smallest district, 2,298; in the
largest district, 15,211; or it took 6.6
times as many people in order to elect a
legislator from the largest district, as
compared with the number required in
order to elect a legislator from the
smallest district:
MARYLAND
The situation in Maryland is interest-
ing. Even in the lower house, the small-
est district had 6,541 per member; the
largest district had 82,071 per member;
or it took 12.5 times as many persons in
order to elect a representative from the
largest district to the lower house in
Maryland, as compared with the number
required in the smallest district.
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts is sometimes held up
? as a model State; but I wish to read the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
figures for the lower house of Massa-
chusetts: 3,559, in the smallest district;
49,478, in the largest district; or each
person in the smallest district had ap-
proximately 14 times as much repre-
sentation as each person in the largest
district had?and that was the situation
in Massachusetts.
MICHIGAN
As for Michigan, to which reference
has been made, these figures are for the
situation prior to the recent reappor-
tionment, which was carried out under
the threat of Court orders. In the lower
house, which certainly has not been as
inequitably apportioned as has the upper
house, in 1960 it took 34,006 persons in
the smallest district in order to elect a
member; it took 135,268 persons, in the
largest district; or 1 person in the
smallest district had 4 times the repre-
sentation which was had by 1 person
in the largest district. '
MINNESOTA
Minnesota, which is so excellently
represented by its two Senators in this
body: In the smallest district, 7,503 per-
sons were required in order to elect 1
legislator; in the largest district, 99,446
persons were required; or more than 13
times as many were required in order to
elect a representative from the largest
district, as compared with the number
required in order to elect a representa-
tive from the smallest district. I hope
this summary will cause the two Sena-
tors from Minnesota to vote against the
Dirksen amendment.
MISSISSIPPI
For the smallest district, 3,576 per-
sons; for the largest district, 59,542 per-
sons?or almost 17 times as many per-
sons were required in order to elect a
representative from the largest district,
as compared with the number required
in order to elect a representative from
the smallest district. I shall not discuss
the question of the proportion of persons
who were permitted to vote there. I shall
simply deal with the population figures,
not the registration figures.
MISSOURI
In Missouri, 3,936 persons were re-
quired in order to elect a legislator from
the smallest district; 87,474 persons were
required in order to elect a legislator
from the largest district. So more than
22 times as many persons were required
in order to elect a representative from
the largest district, as compared with
the number required in order to elect a
representative from the smallest district.
MONTANA
Montana, the State of our majority
leader, the cosponsor of the Dirksen
amendment: In the lower house, 894 per-
sons were required in order to elect a
representative from the smallest district;
12,537 persons were required in order to
elect a representative from the largest
district. So 14 times as many persons
were required in order to elect a legisla-
tor from the largest district, as compared
with the number required in order to
-elect a legislator from the smallest dis-
trict.
? NEBRASKA
Nebraska, as all of us know, is
the one State in the Union which has
a unicameral legislature. That was
put into effect by George W. Norris.
It has not worked quite as well as he
hoped it would; but; on the whole, it
has worked quite satisfactorily. As the
Senator from Wisconsin has said, the
decisions by the Nebraska Legislature
are no worse, and probably are some-
what better, than those of the average
State legislature.
For the Nebraska unicameral legis-
lature, it requited 18,824 persons in
order to elect a member of the legisla-
ture from the smallest district; it re-
quired 51,757 persons in order to elect
a legislator from the largest district.
So even in that model State, insofar
as representation was concerned, one
person in the smallest district had 2.7
times the influence that one person in
the largest district had.
Nevada has the two cities of Las
Vegas and Reno, which are well known
throughout the country. Five hundred
and sixty-eight persons were required in
the smallest district in order to elect a
member of the legislature; 17,829 were
required in the largest district; or 1 per-
son in the smallest district had more than
31 times the importance, in the election
of representatives, than a person in the
largest ;district had.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire?and the situation
there was surely extraordinary. Last
night I placed in the RECORD?and, so
far as I know, they have not been de-
nied?figures showing that in New
Hampshire the smallest number of per-
sons required per member of the legis-
lature was three. I repeat, Mr. Presi-
dent, only 3 persons?not 3,000, not 300,
not 30, but only 3?in 1 district only 3
persons were required in order to elect
a member of the lower house of the
New Hampshire Legislature.
That is somewhat like the parliamen-
tary situation of Old Sarum, of which I
spoke last night?located, in the days
before the reform bill in England, outside
Salisbury Cathedral. Old Sarum had
no inhabitants, but it elected two Mem-
bers of Parliament.
In New Hampshire, the largest district
required 3,244 persons in Order to elect
a representative. In other words, one
of the three persons in the smallest dis-
trict had 1,081 times as much influence in
electing a member of the legislature as a
person in the largest district had?or, in
percentage terms, 108,000 percent great=
er influence than the influence had by a
person in the largest district.
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey?and I point out, Mr. Presi-
dent, that I am presenting the figures
State by State, because there was ob-
jection on the ground that I was speak-
ing only about general figures, and was
not discussing the situation system-
atically. I am referring to the figures
State by State so that we can see the dis-
parities which exist in virtually every
State in the Union.
In New Jersey, in the smallest district,
it required 48,555 persons in order to elect
a representative; in the largest district, it
required 224,499 persons. In other
words, one person in the smallest district
had 4.6 times the importance, in the elec-
August 1.4
tion of members of the legislature, that
a person in the largest district had.
NEW MEXICO
In New Mexico, the smallest district
has a population of 1,874. The largest
district has a population of 29,133. It
takes 151/2 times as many people in the
largest district to elect a member of the
lower house of New Mexico as are re-
quired in the smaller district.
NEW YORK
Let us now take New York. New York
is held up as a model. The New York
Legislature has stubbornly refused to re-
district these upstate legislative districts.
And in this way they have perpetuated
control over the New York assembly in
the hands of the Republican Party for
decades. The Democratic Party has in
the past generally carried New York in
presidential elections. I believe they
have never carried the legislature since
1915. This malapportionment upstate
is really the source of the 'Republican
strength which they exercise through
their control over the New York Legis-
lature. The smallest district has a Pop-
ulation of 15,044. The largest district
has a population of 222,261. The person
in the smallest district in New York, un-
doubtedly an upstate county, has 14.8
times the influence of a person in the
largest district?probably in Manhattan,
or possibly even in the suburbs.
NORTH CAROLINA
We come next to North Carolina. The
smallest district in North Carolina has
a population of 4,520 people. The largest
district has a ponulation of 85,674. In
other words, one Person in the smallest
district has the same influence in rep-
resenting a member of the lower house of
North Carolina as 1,900 in the upper
house, or 1,900 percent greater repre-
sentation.
NORTH DAKOTA
In North Dakota, the smallest district
has a population of 2,812. The largest
district has a population of 20,955. One
person in the smallest district has 7.5
times the influence in the election of a
representative of one person has in the
largest district.
OHIO
We come next to Ohio. The smallest
district of Ohio has a population of
10,274. The largest district has a popu-
lation of 148,700. It takes 14.5 people
in the largest district?in one of the
Ohio cities or metropolitan districts?
to have the same influende that one per-
son has in the more rural areas.
OKLAHOMA
Next is Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the
State over which the previous Presiding
Officer served as chief executive for a
time. In my judgment, he served very
well. In Oklahoma, the smallest district
has a population of 4,496. The largest
district has a population of 62,786. One
person in the smallest district in Okla-
homa had 14 times as much influence as
a person in the largest district.
OREGON
Next we come to Oregon, which is in
many respects almost an ideal State?
not perfectly ideal, but an ideal State.
Oregon may have been reapportioned
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
964
since 1960. But these are the latest
figures that I could obtain. In Oregon,
the smallest district has a population of
13,108 people. The largest district has
a population of 39,165. One person in
the smallest district had three times the
influence of a person in the largest dis-
trict.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19009
PENNSYLVANIA
Next we come to Pennsylvania, to
which the Senator from Pennsylvania
recently referred. In the smallest dis-
trict, there was a population of only
4,485 people. In the largest district,
there was a population of 139,293. One
person in the smallest district had 31
times the influence in the election of a
representative as a person in the largest
district.
RHODE ISLAND
Next we come to Rhode Island. Rhode
Island is malrepresented in both the
House and the Senate. But I am speak-
ing now.of the House. In Rhode Island,
in the smallest district there was a popu-
lation of 486 people. There was a
population of 18,977 in the largest dis-
trict. One person in the smallest district
had 39 times the influence in an election
to the lower house of the Rhode Island
Legislature as one person did in the
-largest district.
SOUTH CAROLINA
In South Carolina, there was a popu-
lation of 8,629 in the smallest district.
There was a population of 20,013 in the
largest. So 3.1 times as many people
were required to elect a representative
in the largest district as in the smallest
district.
SOUTH DAKOTA
? In South Dakota, there was a popula-
tion of 3,531 in the smallest district.
There was a population of 16,688 in the
largest district. It required 4.7 times as
many people to elect a member of the
lower house of South Dakota as it re-
quired in the largest district.
TENNESSEE ,
Next is Tennessee. It was in Tenne-
see that the crucial apportionment case,
Baker against Carr arose. In Tennessee,
for the lower house?the smallest dis-
trict had a population of 3,454 people.
In the largest district, there was a popu-
lation of 79,301 people. One person in
the smallest district had the same influ-
ence as 23 people in the largest district.
TEXAS
Next we come to Texas. There was
population of 23,062 in the smallest dis-
trict. There was a population of 155,-
394 in the largest district. It required
6.7 times as many people to have a repre-
sentative to the legislature in the larg-
est district as in the smallest district.
UTAH
Next is Utah. The smallest district
had a population of 164. The largest
, district had a population of 33,280. It
required 27.8 times as Many people to
elect a member of the lower house of
Utah in the largest district as were re-
quired in the smallest district. -
VERMONT
Now we come to' Vermont, to which,
brief reference was made last night, and
briefly this morning.. I regret that my
good friend, the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. AIKEN] has left the Chamber. Let
us get the Vermont figures. In the
smallest district in Vermont, there was a
population of only 36 people. In the
largest district there was a population of
35,531. It required approximately 1,000
times as many people to elect a member
of the lower house of the Vermont Legis-
lature in the largest district as were re-
quired in the smallest district.
Mr. AIKEN. Will the Senator yield
once more?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. I am glad that
the Senator from Vermont has emerged
from the cloakroom.
Mr. AIKEN. I think a great deal of
the State of Vermont, just as I think a
great deal of the United States. And I
want to say once and for all that when
the Senator from Illinois can assure us
that all crime, violence, and political
chicanery are cleaned out of the State
of Illinois, I shall grant his right to make
snide remarks about Vermont.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not making
snide remarks. I am merely reciting fig-
ures.
Mr. AIKEN. Any kind of remarks.
Mr. DOUGLAS. And my figures strike
home. By going over each State, I am
not singling out any State. I am not
singling out any one of the States. Ver-
mont is a fine State. I have spent time
there. I have visited the community in
which the Senator lives. I like the State.
The community produces fine people.
I grew up impressed with the Green
Mountain boys. Ethan Allen was one of
my boyhood heroes. I do not agree with
all of his theological views, but he was
a great hero. The Senator from Ver-
mont is a fine man. But he has a justifi-
able inferiority complex on the subject
of the malapportionment in-the State of
Vermont Legislature, which is still ap-
portioned on the same basis that was laid
down in 1793. It set up the original dis-
tricts in 1793. But I do not think they
had to continue it for 171 years. It is
extraordinary that the Senator from
Vermont defends this.
? Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver-
mont must deny having an inferiority
complex.
Mr. DOUGLAS. On this point.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver-
mont has very frequently and openly
acknowledged that the community in
which he lives is the intellectual center
of the world. And I am glad to know
that people from other sections? of the
country can come to Putney, Vt., once in
a while in order to get some of that in-
tellect rubbed off on themselves.
, Mr. DOUGLAS. Sometimes an infe-
riority complex disguises itself as an
apparent superiority complex. I do not
suggest that my good friend, the Senator
from Vermont, go to a psychiatrist. I
am sure he does not need that attention.
But I think a psychiatrist might offer
that analysis to my good friend, that
sometimes an apparent superiority com-
plex is designed to cover up an inferior-
ity complex?no relation to the present
discussion is intended.
Mr. AIKEN. I am glad the Senator
has just said what he did. His phi-
losophy is perfectly understandable now.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Next is Virginia.
Mr. AIKEN. That is better.
Mr. DOUGLAS. In the smallest dis-
trict of Virginia, there is a population of
20,071. In the largest district, there is
a population of 142,597. One person in
the smallest district has over 7 times
the representation of a person in the
largest district.
Let us move toward Washington.
There was no animus in my mention-
ing Vermont. I was merely considering
the States alphabetically and came to
Vermont relatively late in order.
I point out that in the smallest dis-
trict in Washington, there were 12,399
people, and in the largest district 57,648
people, so in Washington 4.6 times as
many people were required to elect a
member of the lower house in the largest
districts as in the smallest district.
At one time the situation in Washing-
ton was much worse than it is. For a
long time?I think it was from 1891 to
1931?it did not redistrict.
The figures for West Virginia, which
sends two very good Senators to this
body, show that there were 4,391 people
in the smallest district, and 39,615 in the
largest district, so one person in the
smallest district has 9 times as much in-
fluence in electing a member of the State
legislature as in the largest district.
CHARLESTON GAZETTE OPPOSES DIRKSEN
AMENDMENT
Today I was informed that one of the
great newspapers of the country, the
Charleston Gazette?and it is truly a
great newspaper, though it is located in
a comparatively small city?has pub-
lished an editorial which I am seeking,-
to obtain. The editorial is strongly
against the Dirksen amendment. It op-
poses it on the ground that the amend-
ment would permit the legislatures of
West Virginia and other States to freeze
their present malapportioned represen-
tation.
I congratulate the publisher and editor
of the Charleston Gazette, Mr. W. E.
Chilton III, one of the great newspaper
publishers of this country. It is reassur-
ing to know that the Charleston Gazette
has joined the ranks of the great news-
papers of the country now opposing the
Dirksen amendment.
WISCONSIN
In Wisconsin, which is indeed a very
good State?and I am speaking of the
time prior to the last reapportionment;
I am speaking of 1960?the smallest dis-
trict at that time had 22,268 people and
the largest district 87,486 people, or one
person in the smallest district had ap-
proximately four times the representa-
tion of the one in the largest district.
This morning, the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. PROXMIRE] pointed out that
this inequitable condition, together with
the pressure of court decisions, led the
Wisconsin Legislature to reapportion. I
congratulate them on that. The Sen-
ator from Wisconsin also expressed the
fear that if the Dirksen amendment were
adopted, it would invalidate the appor-
tionment which has already taken place
and which was designed to cure the con-
dition which I have described.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-14DP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The last State is Wyoming. There
are 2,930 people in the smallest district
and 10,024 in the largest, so that one
person in the Smallest district has 3.4
times the representation of the person in
the largest district.
In order to refute the charge that I
merely selected a few horrible examples,
I have considered the lower house of
every State in the Union and have con-
trasted the number of persons in the
. smallest district and the number of per-
sons in the largest district.
MALAPPORTIONMENT OF THE SENATES OF THE 50
STATES
Now I should like to do the same thing
in /respect to the senates, the upper
houses. In general, representation in
the senates Of the country is appor-
tioned in a much worse fashion, and in
a more unjust fashion, than even the
houses, with the exception of the three
New England States which I have men-
tioned?Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Connecticut. But let us take the figures
for the senates.
In Alabama, the smallest district re-
quired 15,417 people to elect one mem-
ber. The largest district?presumably
the Birmingham district?has a popula-
tion of 634,864 people; or 41 times as
many people were required to elect an
Alabama State senator in the largest
district as in the smallest district.
That was one of the facts which caused
the Supreme Court in the Alabama case
to order reapportionment. I read a
quotation from that case earlier in the
day and it is already in the RECORD. But
it is a fact that that malrepresentation,
both in the house and in the senate, but
particularly in the senate, caused Fed-
eral courts to order reapportionment in
Alabama.
In Alaska, the smallest district had a
population per member of 3,236; the
largest district had a population per
member of 34,864, which required almost
11 times as many people to elect a State
senator from the largest district as from
the smallest.
ARIZONA ?
I ask Senators to note the following:
Arizona: the smallest district has a pop-
ulation of 3,868; the largest district, 331,-
755. I repeat. The smallest district has
a population of 3,868 people; the largest
district, 331,755. One person in the
smallest district had 422 times as much
representation as a person in the largest
district. It required 422 people in the
largest district to have the same effect
in electing a member of the Arizona Sen-
ate as one person in the smallest district.
When people speak of turning things
back to the State government of Arizona,
what are they speaking about? They
would turn things back to the small
counties and small districts, the sage-
brush counties, denying adequate repre-
sentation to the cities of Phoenix and
Tucson.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield.
Mr. HART. I know that the Senator
is familiar with a question which is often
asked. I should like to use Arizona as an
example rather than Illinois or Mi chi-.
gan. I have just had a delightful .visit
with two constituents of mine off the
floor. They raised the following ques-
tion: Why do we want to turn the deci--
sions in our State governments over to
the people in Tucson and Phoenix? The
question is often asked in that form.
The reaction is that unless there is
maintained this -disproportionate repre-
sentation, we would turn State decisions
over to the metropolitan senators. Has
the Senator often been confronted with
that question?
PREJUDICE AGAINST CITY FOLK
Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. I shall deal
with the question later, but this reaction
is fundamentally based upon the assump-
tion that a person in the city is not as
good a person as a person in a country
district. It is fundamentally based upon
the premise that a person in a small
county is more virtuous than a person
in a city. That is the basic assumption.
People do not like to disclose it, but that
is what is assumed. This reaction fun-
damentally comes from prejudice against
city folk and a belief that they are in-
ferior. I shall deal with the question in
more detail later.
Mr. HART. Is it not true that there
are people of good will who feel that per-
haps, unconsciously, those are the rea-
sons, but who feel, and quite sincerely,
that the questions which affect them
most intimately in their small communi-
ties could not be understood by the rep-
resentatives in their State capitals which
we would assemble if there were one vote
for one man?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Country folk may feel
that way, but the people in the cities
feel that their problems are not under-
stood by those who live in smaller com-
munities. Whether such misunderstand-
ing must necessarily result or not, we
must still ask: Which is the larger num-
ber whose problems are not understood?
Mr. HART. Is it not true also that
the only way that the dilemma can be
resolved?the suspicion, that is what it
is?is the way which the Supreme Court
has directed in the Reynolds case?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe that is cor-
rect. After I state the statistics, I shall
then take up the question, "Why have
the State legislatures refused to reappor-
tion? Why can we not expect them to
reapportion in the future?"
Mr. HART. Does the Senator hope
that he may develop that aspect of his
argument at a later time when there is a
greater attendance of Senators, in the
Chamber?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, if necessary.
On the question the Senator has raised,
let me say also that Jefferson has often
been quoted in that respect. It is true
that Jefferson did not like city people.
He feared the cities. But Jefferson
would not have denied to the cities equal-
ity of representation, as his writings
clearly show.
ARIZONA
In Arizona, one person in the smallest
district has approximately 86 times as
much influence in electing a member of
the upper House as a person in the larg-
est district.
Now we come to Arkansas. The small-
est district had a population of 35,983,
the largest district, 80,993; or 2.3 times
August 14
as many persons are required to elect a
legislature from the largest district as
from the smallest.
(At this point Mr. EDMONDSON took the
Chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is unfortunate
that when I refer to Oklahoma, the Sen-
ator from California [Mr. SALINGER] is
in the Chair; when I refer to California,
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED-
MONDSON] is in the Chair. I know that
this is an unpleasant stint for both of
them, but I shall now discuss the figures
related to California. They are truly
startling.
In the smallest central district of Cali-
fornia, only 14,294 people live. They
elect one senator.
In the largest district, Los Angeles
County, 6,038,771 people live. Or 14,294
people have the same representation as
6 million people. Or they have 422 times
the representation per person or group
of persons as those in the County of Los
Angeles. That would be 42,200 percent
greater representation.
Let us now consider Colorado. These
figures are as of 1960, and not as of the
moment. The figure is 17,481 for the
smallest district and 127,520 for the larg-
est district. Or there is 7.3 times the
representation per person in the smallest
district as there is in the largest.
Next, Connecticut. The senate is
more evenly apportioned than is the
house, but even so, in Connecticut, the
smallest district contains 26,297, and the
largest district 175,940. One person in
the smallest district has about seven
times the influence of a person in the
largest district in' electing members to
the State senate.
We come next to Delaware, where the
representation in the house of the State
Legislature of Delaware is grossly in-
equitable, and where it is also inequitable
in the senate. In Delaware in the
smallest district there are 4,177 people,
and in the largest district there are
70,000. One person in the smallest dis-
trict of Delaware has about 17 times
the influence of one person in the larg-
est district in election to the State senate.
Let us come next to Florida. Florida
is a State where the representation in
both house and senate are grossly in-
equitable. So far as the house is con-
cerned, one person in the smallest dis-
trict is 109 times as important as one in
the largest district. So far as the senate
is concerned, the smallest district has
a population of 9,543, and the largest
district 935,047. I presume that is
Miami. Or one person in the smallest
district has the same influence as 93
persons irit-he largest.
In Georgia, where there is malrep-
resentation in the house, there is also
malrepresentation in the senate. The
smallest district in which the people
elect a person to the State senate has
a population of 13,050, and the largest
district, presumably Atlanta, has a popu-
lation of 556,326. A person in the small-
est district has approximately 43 times
the effect a person has in the largest
district of Georgia, presumably Atlanta.
Or there is a representation 4,300 per-
cent greater in the smallest district than
in the largest.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
L
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
4-
1964 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19011
Let us next consider Hawaii, and the
Senate of Hawaii. The smallest district
has a population of 8,515, and the larg-
est district af population of 50,040. Or
one person in the smallest district has
approximately six times the influence of
?one person in the largest.
IDAHO
Now let us consider Idaho, which gives
us a startling example. There are 915
people in the smallest senatorial dis-
trict, and 93,460 in the largest district,
which I presume is Boise. Or it requires
102 persons in the largest district to
exercise the same influence in electing a
State senator as one person in the small-
est district. .
ILLINOIS
In Illinois, the smallest district has a
population of 53,502, the largest district
a population of 505,076. It requires nine
times as many persons in the largest dis-
trict to elect a State senator as in the
smallest district.
I call attention to the fact that I men-
ion this situation in my own State. I
do not spare 11ly own State when it is
at fault. This is a weakness in our Il-
linois system. We have a great State.
The city of Chicago is truly a great city.
I make no apologies in general for it.
The State senate is malapportioned, just
as I said the Vermont House is even worse
apportioned, although the Vermont Sen-
ate is apportioned better on the whole
than the Illinois Senate.
Let us take the neighboring State of,
Indiana. The smallest district has a
population of 39,011; the largest, 171,089.
Or one person in the smallest district
has the same representation as 4.4 per-
sons in the largest district.
Now we come to Iowa, about which
there was discussion last night. I quoted
the figures for the house. Now I quote
the figures for the senate. The small-
est district has a population Of 17,756,
while the largest district has a popula-
tion of 266,315. Or it requires 15 per-
sons in the largest district?presumably
Des Moines?to have the same influence
in electing a State?s-e-nator in Iowa as is
required of 1 person in the smallest
district.
I come now. to the State of Kansas.
Again I wish to state that' the figures
which I give for Kansas are true as of
1960; 'there may have been a reappor-
tionment which may have changed these
figures.
Mr. President, I understand that the
majority leader would like to make a
calendar call. I am ready either to con-
tinue, for I have a great deal of valuable
material which I would like to present,
or I am willing to yield the floor on the
condition that I be recognized at the be-
ginning of the session tomorrow, or next
week, on this matter, and permit the
majority leader to conduct some minor
business of the Senate. I would like to
suit the convenience of the majority
leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
Senator from Montana will suit himself
to the convenience Of the Senator from
Illinois, because the calendar items are
measures to which there is no objection,
and they can be passed in a hurry.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am ready to do
that, or if the Senator from Montana
would prefer, I can continue for several
hours more.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Whichever the
Senator from Illinois would like to do is
all right with me. 'I wish he would
make the choice.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me continue for
a time.
. In Kansas, the figures for 1960 show
there was a population of 16,083 in the
smallest district, and a population of
343,231 in the largest district. Or it
required 21 times as many people to
elect a member of the Kansas State
Senate, in 1960, in the largest district
as it did in the smallest.
In Kentucky, the smallest district had
a population of 45,122. The largest dis-
trict?I presume Lousiville?had a pop-
ulation of 131,906. Or a person in the
smallest district had an influence 2.9
times as great as a person in the largest
district in voting for a -State senator.
In Louisiana the smallest district had
a population of 31,175, and the largest
district had a population of 248,427?a
ratio of 8 to 1. In other words, eight
times as many persons in the largest
district were required to elect a Louisiana
State senator as were required in the
smallest district.
In Maine the smallest district had a
population of 16,146. The largest dis-
trict had a population of 45,687. Or 2.8
times as many people were required to
elect a State senator in the largest dis-
trict as in the smallest.
MARYLAND
Last night I spoke about representa-
tion in the Maryland Senate, and
pointed out that one senator from one
county on the Eastern Shore of Mary-
land, with a population of 15,000, cast
the same vote in the Maryland Senate
as a senator from Baltimore County
with a population of 492,000.
The 9 counties of the Eastern Shore
had 9 times the representation of the
County of Baltimore, although their total
population was only 220,000 as compared
*ith 550,000. If we add the counties of'
Baltimore, Montgomery, and Prince
Georges, we get a total of about 1,250,-
000. They have only three senators, or
one-third the number of senators, that
the nine Eastern Shore counties, with
only one-sixth of the population, have.
I shall now read only the relative fig-
ures, not the absolutes; but the accuracy
of these_ comparisons and computations
can be derived by the size of the popula-
tion of the various State senates.
In Massachusetts, the smallest district,
per person, has 2.3 times the representa-
tion of the largest district.
In Michigan?I know the distinguished
? junior Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART] is deeply informed on this sub-
ject?the smallest district had 12.4 times
the representation of the largest district.
I ask the Senator from Michigan if that
is not substantially correct.
Mr. HART. That was substantially
true as of the date the Senator computed
the figures. Subsequently, under a new
constitution, a body of four members,
two from each political party, was cre-
ated and charged with developing an ap-
portionment plan.
The constitution provided further that
in the event they failed to settle upon
a program, the Supreme Court would act.
There was a series of events. Ultimately,
the court, in line with the recent Su-
preme Court decision, approved the plan
which gave us approximately equal rep-
resentation in both Houses.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator
from Michigan think that that would
have been done without prompting or the
threat of the decisions of the U.S. Su-
preme Court?
Mr. HART. It is my recollection that
for a good many years citizens attempt-
ed, by court action, to obtain this relief.
Over the years efforts have been made
to persuade the legislature truly to act.
Absent leadership of the courts, I fear
that our situation would not have been
as happy as it is now.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from
Michigan acted as Presiding Officer, as I
recall, of the Michigan State Senate when
he served as Lieutenant Governor of
Michigan.
Mr. HART. That is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. So his testimony is
firsthand on this subject, not derivative.
Mr. HART. The composition of the
Michigan State Senate during the 4
years it was my privilege to preside over
that body was not representative. I hesi-
tate to draw on memory to give ex-
tremes; but one of the senatorial dis-
tricts was composed of a shockingly
fewer number of persons that the largest
district.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The largest district
was in Detroit?
Mr. HART. The largest district waT.T?
in Detroit, and the smallest was in our
Upper Peninsula. The figures would
make one's hair stand on end, but they
did not persuade us to do much about it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator
from Michigan. -
In Minnesota, the ratio of malappor-
tionment between the smallest and the
largest district was 5.8 times. I do not
believe it is necessary for me to explain
that; namely, that one person in the
smallest district would have as much in-
fluence in electing a member of the Min-
nesota Senate as 5.8 persons in the larg-
est district.
In Mississippi, the ratio was 8.8 to 1;
in Missouri, 2.8 to 1; in Montana, 88.4
to 1. In Montana, the smallest district,
in 1960, had only 894 persons; the largest
district, presumably Butte, had 79,016.
So one person in the smallest district
had 88 times the influence of one person
in the largest district, presumably
Butte.
The figures for Nevada are tru1ST
startling. In the smallest senatorial dis-
trict in Nevada?there are only 17 sena-
torial districts in Nevada?there were, in
1960, only 568 people. In the largest
district, presumably Reno, there were
127,016 persons. In other words, one
person in the smallest district had 224
times the influence of a person in the
largest district.
In New Hampshire, which had a ter-
ribly unrepresentative house situation,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7
19012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
it was by no means so bad. There the
ratio between the smallest and the larg-
est districts was 3.2 to 1.
In New Jersey, where south Jersey
dominates the legislature, just as the
Eastern Shore dominates the Legislature
of Maryland, the smallest district had
48,555; the largest district, 923,545; or
a ratio between the smallest and the larg-
est, in influence per person, was 19 to 1.
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico is similar to Nevada. In
the smallest district there were 1,874; in
the largest district, 262,199?either Al-
buquerque or. Santa Fe; I do not know
which. In other words, one person in
the smallest district had 140 times the
affect in electing a member of the New
Mexico Senate as a person in the largest
district.
In New York, the ratio was 4 to 1. I
wish to emphasize that New York is bad-
ly apportioned in both the house and the
senate. This is one of the things that
the political rulers of New York fear.
They fear that the decisions of the Su-
preme Court will force them to reap-
portion, and that they will lose control
of the legislature and, therefore, of the
State. Any amount of hand washing
cannot wash that away.
In North Carolina, one person in the
smallest district has six times the influ-
ence in electing a member of the North
Carolina State Senate as a person in the
largest district.
The North Dakota ratio is 10 to 1.
In Ohio, the ratio is 2.2 to 1.
In Oklahoma?and I observe in the
chair of the Presiding Officer my good
friend, the junior Senator from Okla-
homa [Mr. EDmounsoul ; he can correct
me if I am wrong, because the Presiding
Officer, as a Member of the Senate, has
the right to comment?according to the
1960 figures, the smallest district had
a population of 13,725; the largest dis-
trict, 346,038. In other words, one person
in the smallest district had 26 times the
effect of one person in the largest district.
In Oregon, which, again, is a very fine
State, as I have said, one person in the
smallest district has 3.5 times the effect
of one in the largest.
In Pennsylvania, one person in the
smallest district has 10.7 times the in-
fluence of one in the largest.
RHODE ISLAND
' Now we come to Rhode Island, which
really has "rotten boroughs" for the State
senate. The smallest senatorial district
has 486 people; the largest, 608,504. In
the largest district, a voter had only
1/141 of the influence of a voter in the
smallest district. In other words, a voter
in the smallest district had 141 times the
influence of one in the largest district,
which is some improvement.
I remember when 1 town in Rhode
Island, with 236 people, had a State
senator, while Providence, with a popu-
lation of 236,000 had 1 State sena-
tor. The representation was so grossly
disproportionate that demands were
made for reapportionment. Ruling
powers in Rhode Island resisted this with
all their strength, but some addition to
the representation was made for Provi-
dence, Pawtucket, and Woonsocket; but
even so, there is a disparity of 141 thnes.
In South Carolina, the smallest dis-
trict has a population of a little over
1,000; the largest district, 216,000; in
other words, 1 voter in the smallest
district has 25 times the influence of a
person in the largest district.
In South Dakota, a voter in the small-
est district has 5.8 times the influence of
one in the largest_district.
In Tennessee, a voter in the smallest
district has six times the influence of one
in the largest district. This was also
a factor which led to a decision in the
Bupreme Court case of Baker against
Carr.
In Texas, a voter in the smallest dis-
trict has 9.4 times the influence of one
in the largest district.
In Utah, a voter in the smallest district
has 6.9 times the influence of one in the
largest district.
In Vermont, a voter in the smallest
district has 6.4 times the influence of one
in the largest district?which is much
better than in the House.
In Virginia, a voter in the smallest
liistrict has 5.5 times the influence of
one in the largest district.
In the State of Washington, a voter
in the smallest district has 7.3 times the
influence of one in the largest district.
In West Virginia, a voter in the small-
est district has 3.4 times the influence of
one in the larger district.
In Wisconsin, a voter in the smallest
district has 2.8 times the influence of one
in the largest district.
In Wyoming, a voter in the smallest
district has 9.8 times the influence of one
in the largest district?virtually 10 times
as much.
I have taken every State in the Union,
with the population figure for 1960, and
the reduction in that year or the year
after it, for both the lower house and the
upper house. I think this shows that this
malrepresentation in terms of the small-
est districts and the largest districts is
universal. It differs only in degree. In
all cases, it is really shocking; but in
some cases, it is especially shocking.
This is not confined to a few Stateg;
it is universal, over the country.
Mr. President, I have enough material
to enable me to proceed for many hours;
but this happens to be a convenient
breaking point, and I am ready to yield
the floor, with the understanding that I
will resume on another day. It is my
Intention at that time to discuss the per-
centage of the population which can elect
a majority of the house in each of the
50 States and the percentage -of the pop-
ulation which can elect a majority of the
senate in each of the 50 States. Then I
intend to discuss the question of why the
States have not reapportioned in the
past, why the Supreme Court ordered re-
apportionment and the constitutional
justification for reapportionment, the
points made in the various decisions by
the Supreme Court, the real reasons why
so many persons fear reapportionment,
and why there is so much prejudice and
why there is so much feeling in opposi-
tion to reapportionment; and I intend to
consider the emotional and other fac-
tors which lie behind this.
Mr.- President, I believe this subject
should be much more fully debated than
August 14
it has been. I regret that my colleague
[Mr. DIRKSEN] did not take the floor this
afternoon. He implied that he might
take the floor at a later hour tonight.
However, since I have been speaking
for approximately 2 hours, I do not wish
to fatigue my listeners by proceeding too
long. I do not see many Senators on
the floor. So I shall be glad to yield the
floor, with the understanding that I
shall resume on another day.
The PRESIDING 010FICER. Is there
objection? Without objection; it is so
ordered.
THE CALENDAR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the pend-
ing business be temporarily laid aside,
for the consideration of certain meas-
ures on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
On motion by Mr. MANSFIELD, the fol-
lowing calendar measures were con-
sidered and acted on, and excerpts from
the reports were ordered printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ETHEL R. LOOP
The bill (S. 284) for the relief of
Ethel R. Loop, the widow of Carl R.
Loop was considered, ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of -
America in Congress assembled, That, in the
administration of section 5 of the Act en-
titled "An Act to make certain increases in
the annuities of annuitants under the For-
eign Service retirement and disability sys-
tem", approved May 1, 1956, as amended (22
U.S.C. 1079d), Carl R. Loop, who died in
1923, while serving as consular officer at
Catania, Italy, shall be held and considered
to have been a participant under the Foreign
Service retirement and disability system at
the time of his death.
SEC. 2. No annuity shall be payable as a
result of the enactment of this Act for any
period prior to the date of such enactment.
EXCERPT FROM REPORT
This bill, would grant to Mrs. Loop,
Widow of Carl R. Loop, a consular officer in
the Foreign Service, the sum of $2,400 per
annum under the Foreign Service retire-
ment and disability system as the result
of her husband's death in Italy in 1923. His
death followed a series of painful operations
from an infection of the lungs suffered as
a result of his action in saving a Sicilian
girl from drowning in polluted sea water.
Mr. Loop's name appears on the memorial
plaque in the Department of State Build-
ing as one of the diplomatic and consular
officers of the United States who lost his
life in heroic or tragic circumstances.
Mrs. Loop received the sum of $4,000, ap-
proximately the total of 1 year's salary of
her husband, in 1924. Inasnauch as her hus-
band died prior to the establishment of the
Foreign Service retirement system, she does
n'ot qualify for an annuity under the act
subsequently adopted for the provision of
annuities to needy widows.
Mrs. Loop is now 86 years of age, and in
dire financial straits. She has had three
recent major operations and is unable to
support herself even with what help is
offered by relatives.
A similar case is that of Mrs. Mary Leute,
the widow of a vice consul, who died in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080041-7