PERSECUTION OF THE JEWISH MINORITY IN SOVIET RUSSIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 4, 2005
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: August 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Ruse 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R200190007-1
196J CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 20193
we propose to allow one election and one
session of the State legislatures so that
the States may face the question and try
to comply with the dictum laid down by
the Supreme Court only 2 or 3 months
ago.
The date specified in that amendment
was January 1, 1966. It is my belief that
if the amendment were to pass, the great
majority of the States, bye far, would
within a period of 8 months, have ad-
justed themselves to the ruling of the Su-
preme Court. What we are asking for
basically is a little delay. Our task in
this body is to recognize the responsi-
bilities that we have in relation to all
the States of the Union.
I am somewhat perturbed when I read
articles by columnists and newspaper
stories to the effect that the amendment
means a 4- or 6-year delay. If it means
more than 8 months, it will apply to a
very small number of States. Then it
will be under the jurisdiction of the
courts. In the amendment, the jurisdic-
tion of the Federal courts is nailed down
tight. I do not care how anyone Inter-
prets it; that is what it means.
Mr. PROXMIRE. On page 2, lines 9
to 14, it is provided that a stay shall be
granted for a sufficient period "to allow
the legislature of such State a reasonable
opportunity in regular session or the peo-
ple by constitutional amendment a reas-
onable opportunity following the adjudi-
cation of unconstitutionality to apportion
representation in such legislature in ac-
cordance with the Constitution."
In most States-certainly in my State,
and in many others-it would require
two sessions of the legislature to adopt
a constitutional amendment. That
would mean 1965 and 1967. The refer-
endum would be in 1968.
My State has already acted. There are
many other States that have not. The
great majority of the States have not.
This procedure would take 4, 5, or 6 years,
according to the language of the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would seriously
question that. In my opinion it would
take not more than 8 months for the ma-
jority of the States. If they did not
comply by January 1, 1966, It would be
up to the courts, not to the legislatures,
to decide. I believe we are well within
our constitutional rights in advocating
an amendment of this nature. When
compared with the Tuck bill, this amend-
ment is as different as night is from day.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The phrase which is
used on page 2 of the Dirksen amend-
ment is that the legislature should have
a "reasonable opportunity" to act. No
one knows what this would mean.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Who will deter-
mine what it means?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is a real ques-
tion.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The courts will de-
termine it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That Is a real ques-
tion. The truth of the matter is that
the legislatures have had this opportu-
nity for decades.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is true.
Mr. DOUGLAS. They have had an
opportunity to act for decades.- They
have refused to act. In Alabama and
Tennessee, they did not reapportion from
1901 on, until the Supreme Court ordered
them to do so In 1962 and 1964.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. 'For six decades they
violated their own constitutions, as well
as the ordinary rules of fairness. In
view of the record of the State legisla-
tures in the past, In perpetuating their
own malapportionment, I do not believe
that we can expect of them any celerity
in attaining fair apportionment in the
future. On the contrary, to the degree
that there has been reapportionment, in
almost every instance, it has been under
court order. These court orders would
be stayed or put in cold storage under
the Dirksen amendment. During this
freeze, my colleague and his associates
would initiate a constitutional amend-
ment. The constitutional amendment
would forever remove from the courts
the power to,order reapportionment in
the many malapportioned State legisla-
tures. It would grant to the present
alapportioned legislatures the power to
perpetuate their malapportionment.
The constitutional amendment would
forever prevent courts from enforcing
the right to the equal protection of the
laws. And the equal protection of the
laws, in the judgment of the Supreme
Court, and, in the judgment, I believe,
of the vast majority of the American
people, requires substantially equal rep-
resentation.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Once again, I be-
lieve the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DouGLAs] is misjudging a premise be-
cause of his lack of a firm foundation.
What the Senator is saying, in effect-
and I say this most respectfully-is that
in his opinion the House and the Senate
will pass a, constitutional amendment-
which requires a two-thirds vote-
which, in turn, will be ratified by the
States, which requires a three-fourths
vote.
Frankly, I do not believe that a con-
stitutional amendment in this direction
can get a two-thirds vote In either body.
I am fairly certain in my own mind-
again expressing an opinion-that three-
fourths of the States would not ratify
such an amendment, if, by some unfore-
seen chance, such an amendment were to
pass.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. It seems to me that
we are forgetting a fundamental truth.
That fundamental truth is that the
Constitution of the United States begins
with the words "We the people," and
there is in that Constitution a reserva-
tion clause that the powers not expressly
delegated to the Central Government are
reserved to the people and to the States.
With regard to the malapportionment
of State legislatures, it is still in the
hands of the people. The trouble is
that there is an indisposition to re-
apportion in the fundamental way. It
Is proposed to take a shortcut.. That
shortcut is the Supreme Court. I say to
the Senator from Wisconsin tlt if he
feels deeply about it, he can go out to
Wisconsin and make some noise about it.
We shall do it in Illinois. That is our
responsibility. Let us not dump it. and
allow nine men over in this marble palace
to tell the people in the States what they
have to do.
When it Is said that six decades have
gone by, it seems to me that the power
residing in the States and in the people
has existed ever since the Constitution
was fabricated. Now, suddenly, the
whole thing is overturned by the High
Tribunal.
Mr. THURMOND. I am very frank
to say that, in my opinion, the question
is one for the people in each State to
determine. The Senator from Illinois
said something about motives of Sena-
tors, and so forth. I can tell him frankly
that my position is that the people of
each State ought to make the determina-
tion. I am sure that the Senator trusts
the people of Illinois, as I trust the peo-
ple of South Carolina. I believe every
Senator trusts the people of his own
State. I believe the people of each State
ought to make the determination as to
how they wish their legislature
constituted.
Furthermore, under the Constitution
of the United States-
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I should like to
complete my statement, and then I shall
be glad to yield. Under the Constitution
of the United States the question is po-
litical and not legal. Therefore, the Su-
preme Court has no jurisdiction.
As the able Senator from Illinois has
stated, the question has never been dele-.
gated by the States to the Union, to the
Federal Government; therefore, it is re-
served to the States. I think it is per-
fectly clear that the States, and not the
Federal Government, have jurisdiction
in the field. Why should nine men in
Washington have jurisdiction to overrule
50 legislatures in this Nation? Why
should not the people through their legis-
latures have the power and the jurisdic-
tion to determine the composition of
their legislatures? I am certain that
that should be the case in spite of the
ruling of nine men here in Washington.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
South Carolina has said that he would
rely on the people. I believe that all of
us would like to rely on the people. But
who would put the question? Who
would set up the referendum? It would
be set up by the malapportioned legis-
latures. They would put the question.
That is why, in case after case, the peo-
ple have seemed to vote against their
own interest. Their own right to an
equal vote. They have not had an op-
portunity to answer the right question.
Anyone who has served as Governor
of his State, as the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] has so ably
served his State, knows that that state-
ment is true. It has happened again and
again in my State. If State legislatures
are relied upon to supply the question
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1
 AM%
Approved F ~RRelJease 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1
}l' GRESSIONAL RECORD - SEPIATE August
for a referendum, we know how easily a
question can be rigged. Indeed, have
again and again been rigged.
If we should rely on the adoption of;
a constitutional amendment that would
be required to pass the Congress, once
again we would fine- the same problem
manifested, because in this case the State
legislatures, not the people, decide. The.
House has shown how It felt when it
passed the Tuck bill. The fact is that
we, as Members of Congress, are ln-
timately connected with our State legis-
latures as a result of our friendships with
legislators, when we go before the people
in a constitutional referendum.
But again, the question would not be,
acted upon by the people of the States;
it would be acted upon by the State legis-
latures.
I am confident that if the question
were submitted to the people, as the Gal-
lup poll showed yesterday, population
apportionment would be overwhelmingly
approved. The People are for popula-
tion apportionment.
I disagree vigorously with the majority
leader when he says that if the question
were submitted to State legislatures,
three-quarters of the legislatures would
not approve it. How can he predict?
The State legislators want to keep their
jobs. We know that That is a fact of
political life. If there is any constitu-
tional amendment that would whip
through State legislatures, it would be
this one.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
Wisconsin has refereed to the legisla-
tures being malformed. Who says that
they are malformed? That is the opin-
ion of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The people of a State constitute the
legislature of that State. There is at
least one State in the Nation that has
only one legislative body. The other
States have two bodies-two bodies made
up as the Congress is made up. That is,
they have representation according to
each county, based upon area, and then
they have representation according to
population as the House of Representa-
tives in the U.S. Congress has.
So the people in each State could
change that system if they so desired.
If the people of each State are not sat-
isfied with the present composition of
the legislature, there is nothing to keep
them from changing it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The only State In
which the composition of the legislature
could be changed readily by the people
is the State of Oregon, which permits
a truly free Initiative.
Mr. THURMOND. I do not believe
that the people of one State ought to
try to tell the people of another State
what the composition of the legislature of
that State ought to be. Furthermore, I
wish to inquire of the able Senator from
Wisconsin upon what authority the Su-
preme Court acted on the question.
Where in the Constitution Is the juris-
diction that has been delegated by the
States to the Supreme Court to act in
this field? There is no such jurisdic-
tion. The Supreme Court has gone be-
yond its authority, and therefore the
Court, In my judgment, in this particu-
lar matter, is in error. It is incumbent
upon the Congress to take steps to cor-
rect the situation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President,
these are malformed legislatures. Yes-
terday we had a discussion with the veri
able Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MON-
RONEY I In which it was admitted that
since 1921 the Oklahoma Legislature has
refused to comply with the clear require ,
ments of the Oklahoma constitution,
and there is no recourse that Oklahoma
citizens have except the U.S. Supremo
Court. Their own supreme court hai
refused to act.
I point out that the case of Reynoldi
against. Sims was decided by the Suprem'
Court of the United States with eigh ;
Justices in favor of the decision and one
opposes. By that margin the Cour;
decided it had clear right and authority
under the explicit language of the 14th
amendment. I agree.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
yield the floor.
Mr. DIRKSEN obtained the floor.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Press-.
dent--
Mr. DAVITS. Mr. President-
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ylelc.
to the Senator from Arizona.
SECURITY
Mr. GOLDWATER. I appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Illinois
I have only a short statement to make
and then Senators can get on with the
debate.
Mr. President, the chances are very
good that I shall not be present when the
vote is taken on the social security
measure. I have a short statement
that I would have made at that time
and I shall do my best to be in this
neighborhood if the engagement that I
am going to be kept busy with will allow
me to do so.
I favor a sound social security system
and I want to see It strengthened. I
have voted for genuine improvements in
the system since I have been in the
Senate. and I plan to do so now. I
supported the 1956 amendments to the
Social Security Act and, in 1958, I voted
to raise benefits so that their value In
terms of purchasing power would be
preserved.
It is generally agreed by students of
social security that the basic purpose of
the OASDI program, as it has developed
in the United States, is to provide a
basic floor of economic protection which
becomes available in the event of the
death, disability, or retirement of the
family breadwinner. Social security was
never intended to replace private vol-
untary efforts-nor should It. Bene-
fits under the program are not a sub-
stitute'or individual savings and private
retirement and insurance plans. They
are instead a base upon which the indi-
vidual may build through his own
efforts.
We Americans make provisions for the
future through a great variety of volun-
tary programs, many involving contri-
butions by employers. Self-employed
persons were once treated unfairly when
their payments into voluntary retire-
ment programs were fully taxed; but
recent legislation-which I supported-
has gone far toward placing them on
the same footing as those who earn
wages and salaries.
Recognizing the important role being
filled by social security, we can and
should, of course, make improvements
from time to time in such areas as the
financing and operation of the system.
But that Is not at issue now.
As for the features of the present bill,
the 5-percent increase In benefits will
help to meet the rise in living costs since
1958.
Two other provisions of the present
bill make the program more flexible in
meeting the needs of our people. The
first is extension of benefits to a sur-
viving child beyond the present age limit
of 18 to the new age limit of 21, pro-
vided the child is in school or college.
The second is reduction in a widow's
age of eligibility from 62 to 60, benefits
being actuarially adjusted. In connec-
tion with the latter, I might mention
that I voted in 1956 to lower from 65
to 62 the age at which all women could
claim OAST benefits.
These are worthy Improvements in the
social security system, enabling it to
serve us better in fulfilling Its funda-
mental purpose. They should be clearly
distinguished from schemes designed to
alter that purpose and, thereby, to over-
burden the system. We shall not pre-
serve the social security program If we
saddle it with unnecessary new burdens,
such as medicare. We penalize every
senior citizen if we thus bankrupt the
system that protects him.
Essentially, protection against need in
America depends on a free economy that
produces an ever-growing abundance
and ever-greater opportunities for all.
In this context, social security has a
vital and legitimate supporting role, and
It is for this reason that I will vote for
the proposals before us. - it .
PERSECUTION OF THE JEWISH MI-
NORITY IN SOVIET RUSSIA
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that a statement
that I prepared in regard to Senate Re-
solution 204, which the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] introduced
with some 61 or 62 cosponsors-and I
am one of those-be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
As a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 204
which the Senator from Connecticut Intro-
duced last autumn, I express my support for
his amendment to the pending bill. This
amendment emphatically reflects the horror
felt by the Congress of the United States
for the savage persecution to which the So-
viet Union is subjecting its Jewish minority.
I am sure that civilized people everywhere
share the horror we feel and join in the con-
demnation we express.
But I would like to call the attention of
my colleagues, and of the American people
as well, to the grim irony which characterizes
the situation we deal with in the proposed
amendment.
A third of a century ago Adolf Hitler and
his Nazi Party took over the Government of
Germany on a political p1Ltform, the chief
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1
 Y96 Approved For F s 2QR a ,Z j 1JPJ6B%9J 200190007-1 20195
tenet of which was anti-Semitism, in the
form of a pledge to eliminate the Jews from
every aspect of the national life of Germany.
How well he succeeded we need not dwell on
here. Ostensibly opposed to him were the
Soviets and the German Communists who
gave lipservice, as they still do to a whole
catalogue of humanitarian ideals, among
them, that of complete racial and religious
equality. Nevertheless, this apparent ideo-
logical antithesis between Nazis and Com-
munists offered no obstacle to the infamous
Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939 which, In effect, pre-
cipitated the holocaust of World War II on
a world still not fully recovered from the
sufferings and devastation of World War I.
. It was primarily because of its treatment
of the Jews that the Nazis came to be regard-
ed as the quintessence of brutality and bar-
barism. Have we forgotten that for almost
2 years after the signing of the pact, the
Soviet Union remained a faithful and devoted
ally of Hitler? Do we no longer recall that
the breach in the infamous friendship was
initiated by the Nazis and not by the Com-
munists?
Some among us here in the Senate Cham-
ber may wonder why I rake up the dying
embers of these terrible and tragic events
of the not too distant past. My answer is
simply this. We must never forget that the
extermination of the Jews by Hitler was just
one manifestation of the inherent barbarism
and savagery that are inherent character-
istics of the full-blown totalitarian regimes
which seem to flourish in the 20th century
like the rankest of weeds in a poorly tended
garden.
Too many of us have forgotten that pres-
ent-day Soviet anti-Semitism is only the
most recent of a series of gigantic persecu-
tions by the Communist regime which began
with the Bolshevik revolution and have gone
on unremittingly ever since. The massacre
of the Kronstadt sailors, the liquidation of
the Kulaks, the deliberately government-
induced starvation of. millions of peasants,
the elimination of the old academic and
professional classes, the purges not only of
the Red army but of most of the original
Bolshevik leaders themselves, the litany of
horror, cruelty, murder, and injustice 3s too
long for me to describe it fully here.
I can recall that shortly before we were
at war with Nazi Germany, a book was pub-
lished that was read by millions of Ameri-
cans, horrified by Hitler's activities-it was
called "You Can't Do Business With Hitler."
But today we have forgotten. With no com-
punctions our Government does business
with Khrushchev, "the butcher of the
Ukraine," a chief executant of the horrors
perpetrated by the Soviets not too many years
ago. Why do we not react with the same In-
dignation to this older totalitarianism which
has thrust its tentacles into areas and among
peoples whose extent and number exceed
anything achieved by Hitler at the crest of his
power? Why do so many of us believe that
Soviet communism is becoming more civil-
ized, more humanitarian, when so many of
these same people realized so clearly that
Hitler could never be appeased?
I hope-that the Senate will approve this
amendment-but more importantly I hope
that it, even if only to a slight degree, will
dispel the deep amnesia which holds so
many of our policymakers and opinion form-
ers in its grip. I pray with all my heart that
this measure will bring the sudden shock of
realization that we are confronted by an im-
placable enemy devoted to destroying us;
that totalitarianism whatever its particular
form or manifestation is always essentially
and similarly evil; and that to believe in its
eventual development into something good
and decent and just is not only completely
foolhardy but that such an illusion consti-
tutes the gravest of dangers not only foi' our
beloved country but for all civilized mankind.1
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
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. JAVITS. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The
Senator from Illinos has the floor.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. In respect to the discus-
sion that we have been having about ap-
portionment, the Senator from Minne-
sota [Mr. MCCARTHY] and I have a "sense
of Congress" resolution pending as a sub-
stitute for the Dirksen-Mansfleld amend-
ment, and I should like to say a word
about the present situation.
The Senate cannot remain deadlocked
on this issue without great peril to the
public interest. We are not living in
dream worlds. We know that everyone
is seeking to get as much of a poltical
position as possible in this situation; and
the reason the minority leader chose to
attach this amendment to the foreign
aid bill is very obviously that he knew
that the foreign aid bill had to be passed,
and he wanted to be sure that his amend-
ment did not fall by the wayside.
But I think the time probably has
come, or is very close, when we must fish
or cut bait, and the foreign aid bill must
be passed with or without the amend-
ment. We shall now have a 10-day
period when the whole country can think
it over. It seems to me that the Tuck
bill, which is before the Senate, gives us
an appropriate vehicle for effecting the
will of Congress on this subject.
I would hope that the various parties
in interest-the majority and minority
leaders, my colleagues, my liberal col-
leagues on the other side, who have been
debating this matter so thoroughly and
so very well, the Senator from Minne-
sota [Mr. MCCARTHY] and myself, and
the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND]-could arrive at a meeting
of the minds,, perhaps with the admin-
istration, as to expressing the will of
both Houses of Congress, whatever it
may be, with respect to the Supreme
Court's reapportionment decisions, and
that it be done on a separate measure.
I join the majority leader in strongly
condemning the Tuck bill. I believe the
Supreme Court, on the most elementary
constitutional determination, would have
to strike it down. Certainly as it ap-
plies to pending cases, I think it Is most
mischievous, just as mischievous as was
the attempt to pack the Supreme Court,
but on another ground, based on the
precedent of 100 years ago in the Klein
case, because it is an effort to take away
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
What is overlooked is that the 14th
amendment to the Constitution overrides
every State and the will of the people of New York [Mr. JAVITS] and the Senator
every State. Perhaps the will of the from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY] would
people of some State might be to have not be at: all effective.
slavery. They may not have it. That I have been noticing, while this fili-
is what the Constitution provides. The buster has been in progress, that the
Supreme Court has upheld it. filibuster has been carried on by Sena-
There is another way to approach the tors from Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago,
problem, and that is to have a separate and political suburbs-
vehicle. expressing the will of the Con-
gress as to what it would like to have the
Supreme Court do. The way to get it
done, in a constitutional way, is to ask
the Supreme Court to stay its hand for
a sufficient time to allow the people to
work their will under the Constitution.
There are three bases which have been
discussed in respect to this matter.
The first basis is that enunciated by
the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND], that is, that the people of.
the States have complete autonomy in
this regard. They do not, under the
14th amendment of the Constitution.
The second point of view is that ex-
pressed by my liberal colleagues on the
other side, who feel that nothing what-
ever should be done, but that the Su-
preme Court decision of one man-one
vote should be carried out within each
State according to that constitutional
principle and that both houses of each
State legislature should be organized on
the basis of one man-one vote. -
The third position, which is too little
discussed in this situation-and I be-
lieve it represents the preponderant view
of the people of the United States-is
that they cannot understand why in each
State, they cannot make the same deci-
sion that the people of the United States
made when our Constitution was estab-
lished, and have one house of their State
legislature, if they wish it-and I em- .
phasize, if they wish it-on a basis other
than population.
That opportunity can be afforded by
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It would not "freeze in" malapportioned
legislatures, as has been asserted, be-
cause it would not be up. to each State
legislature, but it would be up to the
people of each State, to determine
whether they want one house 'appor-
tioned on a basis other than population.
It seems to me that this is the end re-
sult that meets the current consensus of
the people of the United States. That
procedure is available to us, and we have
a separate bill from the other body which
could be amended so that that could be
carried into effect in a perfectly legal
and constitutional way.
I hope that in the _ 10-day period all
the parties in interest may get together
for the purpose of arriving at such a
decision, and that the machinery of the
United States, which is not now func-
tioning, by virtue of the fact that we are
deadlocked in this Chamber, may again
be permitted to function, and that Con-
gress may adjourn sine die by the middle
of . September.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I agree
with the majority leader that we should
not take up the Tuck bill at this time,
and probably not. at any time during
I also believe that the substitute
amendment offered by the Senator from
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1
 20196
Approved For ]kJRB66B A31 60200190007-1 August 21
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I note case, how rapidly the opposition to the Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr.. President, will
what the Senator from Putney has just Dirksen rider is sweeping across the the Senator yield?
said, but I point out that just as he is country. Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
the Senator from Vermont, we are also Two facts are coming to be under- Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
Senators from our entire States, not stood. First, that.the acknowledged pur- In the Gallup poll, which recently asked
from portions of our States. pose of the. Dirksen rider is to freeze a question on this subject, which con-
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I did not court-ordered fair apportionment of the tained no bias in it, and which was cer-
yield for a speech. I have only 3 min- State legislatures for an indefinite period tainly a very scientific question-and the
utes. so that a constitutional amendment Gallup poll is a very respected poll among
As I say, the filibuster has been car- permanently freezing unfair apportion- universities which specialize in public
ried on by Senators from Philadelphia, ment can be rushed through by the pres- opinion analysis-the people who voted
Detroit, Chicago, and political suburbs. ent unfairly apportioned legislatures. in that poll voted 3 to 2 in favor of
I think the filibusterers are trying to Second, that the proponents' charge that population reapportionment for both the
prevent the people of the United States a moratorium is necessary to avoid chaos house and the senate of the State legis-
from ever voting on what kind of legis- throughout the States is utterly false, latures? The word "senate" was actu-
latures they want. The reason for that unless chaos means simply that rotten ally used in the question.
may be that they learned their lesson borough politicians will lose their seats. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is cor-
in Colorado, where the question of re- One indication of the broadly based rect.
apportionment was submitted to the opposition to. the Dirksen "rotten Mr. PROXMIRE. It seems to me that
people in a statewide referendum, and borough" amendment is the number and on the basis of our experience, as this
every county in the State of Colorado, source of the telegrams I received in the issue is presented to the people, it is
including Denver, voted in favor of the last 48 hours from fair apportionment clear that if the people had a chance-
reapportionment plan which was thrown leaders across the country. These tele- not the State legislatures, but the people
out by the Court. grams came to me because these leaders themselves-there is no question that
I realize that the rest of us are prob- had heard of the informal hearing on this they would vote overwhelmingly for pop-
ably very amateurish compared with matter which I attended last night in ulation reapportionment, with one man,
the political organizations of Philadel- Silver Spring, Md. I shall discuss this one vote; but, as the Senator points out
phia, Chicago, and,, Detroit, were the heaing at another time today, Mr. Presi- they would not have that chance, and
political machinery has been perfected dent, but I now ask unanimous consent State 'legislatures would reject that
practically to the push-button stage; to have printed in the RECORD the tele- proposal.
but I do not think that type of political grams which have come to me. I call Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator.
machinery is best for this country. attention to the fact that one of the tele- If we can continue our efforts to alert
I would like to see every State submit grams is from the mayor of Cleveland the people to the effect of these proposals,
a constitutional amendment which and other telegrams are from various the vote disclosed by the public opinion
would provide for two houses of the union leaders, from attorneys who have polls will not be 3 to 2, but will become
State legislatures based on other than acted in apportionment cases, and from 2 to 1, and eventually 3 to 1.
a strict population basis to a statewide others.
referendum. I know other countries I also ask unanimous consent to have The point made by my colleague from
made it to the position where the peo- printed in the RECORD an editorial pub- Illinois [Mr. DIRKSENI and by the Sena-
ple had little to say about their govern- lished in this morning's Washington Post tor from South Carolina on the question
ment, but I do not want the United and an editorial published in this morn- of constitutionality, it seems to me, does
States to make it. I do not want a coali- ing's New York Times; as well as letters not look beyond the 10th amendment to
tion of 3 or 4 political machines running to the editor of the New York Times and the Constitution. There are 24 amend-
this country. the Chicago Sun-Times. In addition, I ments to the Constitution, and all except
I do not believe those who are oppos- ask unanimous consent to have printed the one repealed are in effect.
ing the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment in the RECORD an editorial from that The crucial amendment is the 14th
would ever in the world agree to let the great newspaper, the St. Petersburg amendment, adopted after the Civil War.
people of each State, in referendum, Times. The last phrase of the first section of
vote on a constitutional amendment re- I ask that this material may be printed that amendment provides that no State
lating to the apportionment of State in the RECORD at the conclusion of my re- shall deprive any person of the equal pro-
legislatures. marks. tection of the laws.
I think my 3 minutes are about used the PRESIDING OFFICER. With- The Supreme Court properly has said
up. I could continue along 'the same out objection, it is so ordered, that the people cannot be assured of the
lines, but I think I can say enough in 3 (See exhibit 1.) equal protection of the laws if they have
minutes. Why should we not trust the Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, pub- grossly unequal representation in the
people? Why should anyone try to lie opinion is rising across the country, State legislature; and that to guarantee
thwart the people of the United States, and the desperation of the proponents ' the equal protection of the laws requires
in spite of the protestations-Philadel- of the Dirksen rider is indicated by the a substantially equal representation in
phia, Detroit, Chicago, and political comments which were made this both houses of the State legislature.
suburbs? morning. There is no analogy between the com-
GROWING NATIONWIDE OPPOSITION TO DIRISSEN Mr. President, the 3-minute rule has position of the U.S. Senate and the
ANTIAPPORTIONMENT RIDER been more honored in the breach this composition of a State senate. The big
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, i am morning than in its observance, and I States were forced to grant equality of
quite amused by the statement that we ask unanimous consent that I may be representation in the U.S. Senate to
are conducting a filibuster, because we permitted to continue for 3 additional the small States because some of them
have been permitted only a few hours in minutes. threatened that they would not join the
which to debate the Dirksen antireap- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Union unless they received this conces-
portionment rider since it was proposed objection, it is so ordered. sion. That action was taken at the point
last week. The proponents of this meas- Mr. DOUGLAS. Some of the points - of a pistol, and the states created the
ure have not taken more than an hour made by the Senator from South Caro- Federal Government.
to explain their position. We, in opposi- lina have been well answered by the Counties, townships, towns, and
tion, have been willing to allow the busi- Senator from Wisconsin, who has pointed cities, however, did not create the States.
ness of the Senate to go forward. When out that it will not be the people who They are creatures of the State. They
we could obtain time to speak, we have will ratify the constitutional amend- are not and were not sovereign. There
presented detailed evidence on the mal- ment, but the present malapportioned is no necessity for similar treatment
apportionment of State legislatures, and State legislatures, which, for decade within the States.
we intend to present more. It is striking, after decade, have not acted and have If a small proportion of the popula-
In spite of the fact that we have had only only been stimulated into action by the. tion can control one house of the legis-
a very slight opportunity to present our recent decisions of the Supreme Court. lature, it can control the entire legis-
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190007-1