And what guarantee is there that the majority approving an apportionmont plan submitted in a referendum will constitute more than a majority of, say, 10 percent or 5 percent of the votes of a State? Rule by a small minority is permitted.

The Dirksen resolution, of course, appears to restrict or withdraw the jurisdiction of the Federal courts from jurisdiction over the fairness of apportionment even in the house to be based on population and from jurisdiction over the constitutionality of the carrying out of whatever referenda are adopted under this amendment.

There appears to be no limit at all on the disparities in population which can be allowed under the representation of "other" factors. Under any reasonable theory are disparities of 1,000 to 1 fair? May a 51 percent urban majority assign to its area 90 percent or 99 percent of the votes in a house?

But, Mr. Chairman, I mention these obvious faults-and I am sure there are many more which will be brought to your attention-only in passing. I repeat my hope that they will not become the stalking horse which removes the attention of the Congress from the fundamental error of all the proposed amendments however "perfected."

The purpose of all the amendments before the subcommittee is simply to block the fair apportionment of one of the houses of the legislatures. I do not question the motives of any of the sponsors, I like all of these colleagues very much personally, but I do call attention to the simple history of these proposals: having failed to block the fair apportionment of both houses of the State legislatures last fall, there is now an attempt to forever block the reapportionment of one house.

THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO EQUAL REPRESENTATION MAY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY NOR GIVEN UP

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with "having the people decide" that one house of a State legislature shall not be apportioned on the basis of population? There are two basic answers, one is largely constitutional and ethical while the other is largely practical.

The right to fair and equal representation is an unalienable right of individual citizens. Thomas Jefferson eloquently described these fundamental principles of our Nation in the Declaration of Independence the most sacred words that, I suppose, are in the hearts of the American people

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

The right of a citizen to have his vote count with equal weight to that of another citizen in the election of representatives is an unalienable right in our republic. It is not the prerogative of any majority to reduce this right, nor is it the right of any citizen to give up this right for himself or another person. No citizen of the United States may sell himself nor any other person to bondage or slavery. Similarly he is without power to give up his equal representation in the legislature of his State.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was going over some of the works of Jefferson, and I found a letter of his, in the twilight of his life, in 1824, addressed to Major Cartwright. I would like to have the privilege ofing it, if I may, at this point.

Senator BAYн. Please do.

Senator DOUGLAS. Jefferson wrote:

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? 1 think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

I think what the 18th century thinkers described as natural rights were really what they believed to be moral rights. It is true that these are not written on authoritative parchments, there is no skywriting where we can find them, but they are within the consciousness of man, and certainly there is a deeper basis for the law than purely human statutes.

It was probably legal under the law of the Nazis to condemn 6 million Jews and Poles to death, because absolute power had been given to the leader, but it was against the moral law. And because it was against the moral law I think it was very proper to bring those who committed these crimes against the moral sense to trial.

Our Republic was founded on the belief that there were certain unalienable rights which men could not contract nor give away, and which a mere majority could not deny them.

This question is in no way a proper one for a referendum; it is not subject to an election. Moreover, as we have seen so recently in the California referendum on fair housing, referenda are not necessarily the perfect tools of democracy.

I was a friend of Mr. William S. Uren in Oregon, who was the father of the initiative and the referendum. I always felt these were properly a part of the democratic process, but not necessarily infallible. They may more and more be a means by which the controllers of the means of communications and those who are able to pay the huge costs of TV and newspaper propaganda can manipulate the

voters.

THE FAILURE TO APPORTION JUST ONE HOUSE ON POPULATION PUTS A VETO OVER THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF A MINORITY But equally as important is the fact that in practical terms the malapportionment of even just one house of a legislature, however fairly apportioned be the other, effectively destroys a citizen's equal representation in the legislature. As every school boy is taught, there are two essential steps in the progress of legislation and appropriations through a bicameral legislature: each of the two houses must pass on them. Therefore, the malapportionment of only one house of a legislature is sufficient to give a veto of wholly disproportionate influence to those who would block or water-down progressive legislation and progressive administration.

The evidence of this can be laid down in great detail because we have the experiences of the 50 States which we can examine.

And if this amendment should reach the floor of the Senate I would happy to and would hope we might be able to present this material. The truth of this simple fact has been clearly demonstrated to the as over and over again in the briefs and supporting data filed by afs in the various reapportionment cases. Moreover, it is part te experience of nearly every member of Congress, whether as a vier previously of a State legislature or as a citizen deeply interod in the progress of his State's affairs.

I will not take the time of the subcommittee to describe numerous but I will suggest the extent to which urban and suburban maeces in the main, are discriminated against by rural and small ew minorities. We must be frank about this. I have no wish to

ural people against urban people; I merely want to be honest about what is already the case. The failure of the State legislatures to resportion themselves to take account of the shift in population has Sapy resulted in the rural and small town areas having a disproporale voice in the State legislatures as opposed to their city and urban brethren.

:ISLATURES DOMINATED BY OVER-REPRESENTED RURAL AREAS TREAT THE URBAN MAJORITY UNFAIRLY

One interesting account of the discrimination of rural controlled egislatures against the legitimate needs of the city folk is given in the Compendium on Legislative Apportionment" put out in 1962 by the Nacional Municipal League. Independent reports on the situation in Aach State were submitted by local observers, mainly college professors State and local government or legislative research staff members. some cases, the reporters were limited in their remarks by their sitions as employees of the legislatures, but let me briefly paraphrase we of the reports.

In the succeeding paragraphs I have paraphrased some of the reports and they may be compared with the original documents as to accuracy. task unanimous consent that these analogies be printed in the record. Senator BAYH. Without objection.

The material referred to follows:)

Alabama. Because of the rural hold on the legislature, the rural areas benef: at the expense of the urban counties in the sharing of certain State-collected *ves, in State highway construction programs, and in public school finances. Allocation formulas in all these matters favor the rural areas.

Arizona. A study made in 1959 shows that since 1912 the burden of property faxes has gradually been shifted from mines, farms, ranches and rural property urban property. The legislature has refused to authorize a tax study and equalization of property assessments. The lack of a severance tax in Arizona. when most States with a large mining industry have one, is attributed to malap portionment of the legislature. Municipalities are discriminated against on tax distribution and were refused any return of sales tax revenues until they went to the voters several years ago with an initiative measure.

California. Urban groups and related farm groups have a difficult time in the rurally dominated upper house. Sectional differences within the State are strong. The under-representation of southern California in the senate results in claims that the 13 southern counties receive only 53 percent of the funds to be spent for State highways although these same counties contribute 63 percent of the gas tax revenue.

Colorado. The formula for taxing rural property, the system of distributing highway user taxes and State payments to "equalize" local school systems are examples of State programs which tend to aid rural areas at the expense of the

Delaware. Rural downstate members of the legislature are said to be not attentive to needs for parks, recreation spots, and welfare aids which are needed in northern Newcastle County. Further, the northern county would move toward an integrated administrative system, but the legislature insists on continuing the commission form. The groups in the urban areas feel the commission form is more costly and the integrated system would save tax money, most of which comes from the populous northern areas.

Florida. There are complaints with respect to the way in which road funds are divided among the counties, the racing tax is divided equally among counties, and certain other tax sources are not distributed on population or use basis. State service for urban areas is held back.

Missouri. The metropolitan press consistently complains of urban underrepresentation in connection with (1) efforts of St. Louis to pass or renew the city's earning tax law, (2) legislation concerning the Bi-State Development Agency, and (3) efforts to exempt low-cost public housing from taxation. Montana. In the last decade, very significant measures sponsored by the Montana Municipal League have failed repeatedly. A bridge bill and an act to permit cities to share 50 percent of the car and truck license fees both failed three times; home rule bills lost twice; a bill for snow removal and another for gas tax exemption each failed five times; a measure to increase municipal court jurisdiction and raise the salaries of judges failed twice; and an attempt to obtain a 15 percent share of the gas tax failed once as did a police reserve fund bill. Bill after bill sponsored by the Montana Municipal League will pass the house only to meet with death in the senate. The situation would be worse except for a tradition of liberalism on certain economic questions which tempers the rural conservatism.

Nevada. Rural areas, which have little gambling, get a disproportionately high share of the gambling tax. Rural interests have defeated repeated attempts of the cities to get municipal home rule legislation passed.

New Jersey. Rural control of the legislature results more in inaction than in action detrimental to cities. The efforts of urban representatives to get legislation to extend the life of rent control in their communities have been blocked in the rural dominated senate. Provisions for increasing the water supply for urban and suburban areas were adopted only after a long and difficult legislative battle. Reform of property tax assessment administration has been blocked for years. State aid for public school operations remains at a low level. particularly with respect to school construction most badly needed by

the suburbs.

North Dakota. The tax laws favor rural areas. By a constitutional amendment, all farm improvements and structures located on agricultural lands are tax exempt. For example, a house in Grand Forks City with a value of $40,000 to $50,000 would be taxed over $1,000 a year. The same house on a bona fide farm is exempt from taxation. Even when an REA powerplant is located within a city's limits, the taxes are distributed to rural areas on the basis of the miles of powerlines involved. For example, Grand Forks City has a powerplant with a value of more than half a million dollars located within the city limits, but it receives less than $10 a year in taxes from it.

Olahoma. Rural domination of the legislature is revealed in formulas controlling the distribution of State aid for county roads and to public schools. Rural influence opposes reorganization of State government and the consolida tion of weak school systems. It has been almost totally indifferent to municipal problems.

Pennsylvania. The largest share of State revenues is obtained from urban areas but the largest share of state expenditures is bestowed on the rural areas. The rural dominated legislature, in the opinion of the cities, refuses to give pathetic consideration to the needs of the urban areas.

South Carolina. The rural dominated senate has blocked modernization of the annexation law. Tax rates also reflect the rural and small county interest in the senate. Generally, the senate is more sympathetic to sales tax increases han income tax increases. Rural legislatures insist upon State tax rebates to counties. Where rebates are ample, shall counties impose very little property tax. In order to get the house reapportioned, the big counties had to agree to a formula for the distribution of State finance grants whereby no county will ceive less than 95 percent of what it was entitled to under the 1950 census. This deprives the urban area of their full share under the 1960 census figures.

Tennessee. Two examples are cited in the plaintiff's briefs on Baker v. Carr, Two sevenths of the State gasoline tax is distributed according to a formula distributing 50 percent equally among the 95 counties of the State and only 25 percent on the basis of population. In the distribution of State educational funds, there is a basic formula which takes into consideration each county's and city's ability to contribute to the education of children, but the rural counties are exempted from all application of the formula and are guaranteed school funds in the amounts they previously had even though they do not contribute on the basis required by the formula.

Texas. In the division of revenues from motor vehicle fees collected by the county, State law provides that counties may retain all of these fees up to $50,000 and 50 percent of the fees above that up to $175,000, with the remaining amount going to the State. Rural counties collect less than the maximum and hence are allowed to retain all or most of what they collect, while large cities are forced to turn over to the State a large proportion of what they collect. Rural farmto-market roads are constructed at the expense of needed urban highways.

Vermont. The greater proportion of the road mileage grant-in-aid goes to the smaller towns. School money is passed out to the great prejudice of the larger schools, and this is true of other State funds. Fish and game bills are discussed at great length, while the major appropriation bills get little attention from the lower house.

Senator DOUGLAS. Again, Mr. Chairman, the point of these illustra tions is that the State governments are prevented from meeting the needs of the majority of the people, most of whom now live in the cities and suburbs and pay the vast majority of the taxes, by the rural domination of the legislatures. To repeat, it only takes minority control of one house to block fair legislation-and the preservation o such minority control is the real purpose of the proposed amendments before you.

MICHIGAN'S EXPERIENCE SHOWS IT TAKES ONLY ONE MALAPPORTIONED HOUSE TO BLOCK THE NEEDS OF THE MAJORITY

One of the best discussions on this point is the testimony last year before the House Judiciary Committee of August Scholle, president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO. I hope members of the subcommittee will read that statement if Mr. Scholle does not testify in these present hearings. He gave many illustrations from the Michigan ex perience, prior to their recent reapportionment, of the "evil of minority control of a legislative body." He pointed out, for example, the disparities in the distribution of taxes: one rural district had a tax collection of $89.59 per capita, but received $107.06. In populous and underrepresented Wayne County, in which Detroit is located, by con trast, there was a per capita collection of $108.61, but a distribution of only $66.45. He cited these further examples of how the rural-domi nated State senate blocked needed legislation despite the fact that senators representing a majority of the people voted for the measures. (The material referred to follows:)

(1) A bill to provide free polio shots for needy children was blocked by senators representing 2.8 million people despite the fact that senators representing 3.2 million voted for it.

(2) A bill to provide an unemployment insurance increase of $3 was killed by senators for 2.4 million people despite support for the bill by senators representing 3.5 million.

(3) Workmen's compensation amendments were killed by senators for 2.9 million people despite support for them by senators for 3.5 million.

(4) A modest St. Lawrence Seaway budget was killed by senators for 2.7 million people, despite support for it by senators for 3.3 million.