AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 52
• Publication Date: August 13, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENATE
Federal disbursements in South Dakota, fiscal
year 1963-Continued
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Operations, salaries, rents, local
transportation, etc
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS
Apportionments of Federal aid
highway funds 22, 426, 694
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
Payroll and benefit payments,
VA center and hospitals_ _ _ _ 32, 281, 599
$12, 672, 000
OTHER AGENCIES
Atomic Energy Commission.. __
Bureau of the Census (est.) --
Federal Aviation Agency (est.)
Internal Revenue Service
U.S. courts (district courts
operation)
Weather Bureau
Small Business Administra-
tion:
Business loans
Disaster loans (SBA share) _
Joint set-aside for procure-
ment contracts
Total, Small Business
Administration
Housing and Home Finance
Agency:
Community Facilities Ad-
ministration, college hous-
ing, University of South
Dakota
Public Facility Loans Pro-
gram
Senior Citizens Direct Loan
Program
Public Housing Administra-
tion: Low-rent public hous-
ing
Federal housing loans
5, 600, 000
8, 329
3, 000,000
1, 283, 000
188, 000
344, 000
Total, Housing and Home
Finance Agency
General Service Administra-
tion:
Federal supply
Post Office building in
Pierre
Salaries
Repair
Total, General Services
Administration
Grand total, federally
disbursed funds in
South Dakota, fiscal
year 1963
2, 913, 000
1'78, 000
Federal disbursements in South Dakota, fiscal
year 1963-Continued
Housing and Home Finance
Agency $10, 526, 000
General services Administra-
tion
3, 242, 980
Grand total 507, 155 26
Total internal revenue collec-
tions in South Dakota, fiscal
year 1963 1,4
18839
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that my amendment
be temporarily laid aside, for the consid-
eration of the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
%) Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer the
amendment, and I ask unanimous con-
sent that the reading of it be dispensed
with. I will explain it briefly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 7, insert immediately after
currencies (a.)
On page 16, after line 17 insert the follow-
ing language:
"(b.) Subject to the provisions of Section
1415 of the Supplemental Appropriation Act,
1953, the President is authorized, as a dem-
onstration of good will on-the part of the
people of the United States for the Polish
people, to use foreign currencies that have
accrued to the United States Government
under this or any other Act, for assistance on
such terms and conditions as he may specify,
in the repair, rehabilitation, improvement,
and maintenance of the Powazki Cemetery in
Warsaw, which serves as the chief burial
place for the tens of thousands of Polish
resistance fighters who fell in the heroic
Warsaw uprising of July 1944."
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is a
simple amendment, to provide for the use
of counterpart funds in Poland for the
maintenance and improvement of the
Warsaw cemetery where the resistance
fighters fell in the Warsaw uprising of
July 1944.
Mr; President, the Warsaw uprising of
1944 will forever rank as a sublime act of
human courage and as an affirmation of
man's eternal will to freedom. I con-
sider it most appropriate that President
Johnson issued an official proclamation
this year in observance of the anniver-
sary of this uprising.
The Nazi occupation of Poland was
utterly ruthless in its methods. But de-
spite the Nazi terror, despite the execu-
tions and the torture chambers, the
Polish nation succeeded in building up a
secret state apparatus that commanded
the loyalty of the people in cities, towns,
and villages throughout their country.
They built up and trained and armed a
secret army, known as the Polish Home
Army, in anticipation of the day of
liberation.
When the Soviet Red army ap-
proached the outskirts of Warsaw driv-
ing the Nazis before it, the Polish Home
Army felt that the time to strike had
come. In this they were encouraged by
the official Soviet broadcasts, which
called on the people of Warsaw to rise up
and expel the Nazi occupiers. '
The Warsaw uprising ended in trag-
edy. The city of Warsaw was left in
ruins and scores of thousands of its
citizens were killed. But the Warsaw
uprising was not in vain. For the Polish
people and for free men everywhere, it
has a symbolic significance. Through
centuries to come, it will serve as proof
of man's indomitable spirit and of his
invincible will to freedom. It has served
to keep alive the faith of the Polish
AMENDMENT OF FOREIG ASSIS
ANCE ACT OF 191
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. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, if it
does not take too long, and without los-
ing my right to the floor, I shall be
glad to yield to the distinguished Sena-
tor from Connecticut [Mr. Dom], who
4, 093, 000 has an amendment relating, I think, to
the Italian cemeteries, where a great
many Polish veterans are buried. I do
7, 189, 000 not know whether this is an amendment
to previous Senate action, or whether
it is de novo.
Mr. DODD. It is de novo.
Mr. DIRKSEN. If it is to take only
a few minutes, I shall be glad, without
950, 000 losing my right to the floor', to yield
for the convenience of the Senator from
325, 000 Connecticut.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
4, 166, 000 Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from
3, 885, 000 Connecticut has spoken to me about
this amendment. I, of course, will have
1, 200, 000
10, 526, 000
466, 486
2, 264, 494-
485,000
27, 000
3,242,980
RECAPITULATION, FEDERAL DIS-
BURSEMENTS IN SOUTH DA-
KOTA, FISCAL YEAR 1963
Agriculture Department
Department of Defense
Health, Education, and Wel-
fare
Interior Department
Justice Department
Labor Department
Post Office Department
Bureau of Public Roads
Veterans' Administration_ _
Atomic Energy Commission.._._
Bureau of Census
Federal Aviation Agency's
Internal Revenue Service
United States Courts
Weather Bureau
Small Business Administra-
tion
No. 158-22
507,155,261
131, 563,136
165, 713, 000
21, 661, 695
26, 588, 043
203, 635
2, 329, 300
12, 672, 000
22, 426, 694
32, 281, 599
5, 600, 000
8, 329
3, 000, 000
1, 203, 000
188, 000
344, 000
7, 189, 000
to oppose it. I spoke against the other
amendment for keeping up the ceme-
teries in Italy. I said, "If we are going
to do it in Italy, why not everywhere?"
But the Senate overrode me. I cannot
support the amendment. If the Senate
wants to do a foolish thing, it can do
it. It can provide for maintenance of
cemeteries in Russia, if the Senate wants
to do that.
They were our allies, too. If the Sen-
ate wishes to do it, that is its right.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will not
take more than 5 minutes to explain this
very simple amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Will the Senator in-
sist on a yea and nay vote?
Mr. DODD. I should like to have the
amendment adopted.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I thought we had dis-
posed of all amendments, because we
were about to take up the apportionment
amendment. I do not wish to stand in
the Senator's way. If the Senator can
keep his presentation on the brief side,
I shall be glad to yield to him for the
purpose of bringing up his amendment,
provided I do not lose my right to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I heard what the dis-
tinguished Senator from Arkansas has
said. After he has heard what I have
to say, he may change his mind.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18.84o CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
people in the ultimate victory of their
cause, and to sustain them in the diffi-
culties and suffering they have had to
endure since the close of World War II.
We can best salute the memory of the
Poles who fell in this valiant struggle
by renewing our dedication to, the goal
of a free and independent Poland, liv-
ing in peace with the nations of the
world.
There are certain concrete things we
can do to hasten this day. President
Johnson has spoken of the importance
of building bridges to the people of
Poland and of the other capative na-
tions. I believe that by releasing Ameri-
can counterpart funds for the mainte-
nance and rehabilitation of the Powazki
Cemetery in Warsaw, we will be build-
ing an important bridge of sympathy
and understanding with the people of
Poland.
The Powazki Cemetery holds the re-
mains of tens of thousands of Polish
freedom fighters who fell in the heroic
Warsaw uprising. For the people of
Poland it remains to this day a hallowed
place, where thousands of citizens con-
gregate on every anniversary of the
Warsaw uprising. Having already de-
cided to make counterpart funds in
Italy available for the repair and re-
habilitation of the graves of the Polish
soldiers who died in combat in Italy, I
think it only appropriate that we should
take similar action on behalf of the
immortal dead of the Polish Home Army
who died in the Warsaw Uprising.
I hope that this amendment will be
given sympathetic consideration by my
colleagues.
That is all that the amendment would
do. I cannot conceive of any Senator
voting against it.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. KEATING. Is the cemetery to
which the Senator refers limited to mili-
tary personnel, or is it a cemetery in
which civilians also are buried?
Mr. DODD. The name of the ceme-
tery is the Powazki Cemetery. It holds
the remains of tens of thousands of
Polish freedom fighters who fell in the
Warsaw uprising. As I have said, for the
people of Poland it remains to this day a
hollowed place.
Mr. 'KEATING. But it is a shrine, al-
most, for the Polish freedom fighters,
who were the resistence fighters, and who
showed such heroism in the Warsaw up-
rising in July 1944. Is that correct?
Mr. DODD. It is exactly correct.
Mr. KEATING. I commend the dis-
tinguished Senator from Connecticut for
offering the amendment. It is very rea-
sonable. The cost for maintaining the
cemetery, as I understand, will be met
from counterpart funds.
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. KEATING. It will not be paid for
by the taxpayers of this country. I shall
certainly support the amendment. The
world will long remember the heroic
struggle of thp Polish Home Army to
liberate Warsaw from alien control.
While the Poles fought, the secret armies
waited. They did not offer help or sup-
port to the Poles. They waited until
the Polish forces were virtually wiped out
before they moved in, to assert by force,
Soviet Communist control over Poland.
The stark contrast between Polish hero-
ism and Soviet treachery is clear.
I will be grateful if the distinguished
Senator will allow me to become a co-
sponsor.
Mr. DODD. I shall be honored to have
the Senator become a cosponsor.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may join as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING 0.F.VICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that
the Russians have a very uneasy con-
science about the Polish freedom fight-
ers? As I remember the situation, the
Russian armies were almost at the gates
of Warsaw when the Polish freedom
fighters revolted inside the city. The
Russians could have come to their help
very readily, but they refused to do so.
They halted on the outskirts of the
city and permitted the Nazis to exter-
minate the freedom fighters. Then, only
after the freedom fighters had been
killed and eliminated, did the Com-
munist armies move in.
Mr. DODD : Yes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. This is a very sore
point with the conscience of the Rus-
sians and the conscience of the Poles. ?
Undoubtedly one of the reasons why they
are trying to downgrade the treatment of
the cemetery is that the heroism of the
Poles reflects unfavorably upon the
cowardice of the Russian.\
Mr. DODD. As usual, the Senator
has put it much more clearly than I
could possibly have stated it.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am delighted to yield
to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Yesterday I took it upon
myself to determine the amount of
Italian lire which we have available for
taking care of the Polish cemetery in
Italy. I found that we have none avail-
able. It seems to me that unless we wish
to play a hoax on the Polish people, we
should put up enough good American
dollars to buy sufficient Italian lire to
take care of these cemeteries. I do not
see any other way out of the situation.
The other day the Senate, out of the
goodness of its heart, approved the
amendment and gave the Polish people
the impression that we would do some-
thing. Now we find that we cannot do it
with our existing resources. It seems to
me, having agreed to do it, the only
decent thing to do is to appropriate
enough American dollars to acquire the
Italian lire.
Mr. DODD. I could not agree more
with the Senator from Vermont. I
know he agrees with me that huge
amounts of counterpart funds are avail-
able in Poland.
Mr. AIKEN. We have zlotys avail-
able.
Mr. DODD. There is no question
about our having adequate funds avail-
able in Poland. \
August 13
Mr. AIKEN. We have plenty of
zlotys, Indian rupees, and Egyptian
pounds. Aside from those currencies, I
do not believe much soft currency is
available. We have a little here and a
little there. So far as the Italian lire
are concerned; we are out.
Mr. DODD. That is regrettable. I
am sure the Senator agrees with me that
when we have the money, as in Poland,
we should use if for this purpose.
It would.not cost much to take care of
the cemetery, where tens of thousands
of freedom fighters are buried. It will be
good for the free world if we do it.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I have been to Warsaw,
as has the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS]. I know something about the
physical circumstances to which the
Senator refers. Anyone who has seen
the little urns with flowers in almost
every street of Warsaw can appreciate
this amendment and the terrible suffer-
ing and sacrifice of the Polish people,
when the Nazis sealed off two sides of a
street, blew a whistle, and indiscrimin-
ately shot four or five people in the
street; then unsealed the street and
passed on as quickly as they had come.
I should like to ask the Senator a
question. It is a fact that this proposal
would not be inaugurating anything new
in Poland. We maintain a large hos-
pital there, and we are helping the peo-
ple. That is provided for in the bill, is
it not?
Mr. DODD. That is correct.
- Mr. JAVITS. So it would not be a new
scheme of operation, would it?
Mr. DODD. No.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator
from. Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from
New York for raising that point. This
is nothing new. It would be in complete
conformity with our policy heretofore,
and up to the present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH
in the chair). The question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Connecticut [putting the question].
The Chair is in doubt and will ask for
a division.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President--
The PRESIDING OlorieEkt. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OVVICER. The
clerk will Call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING 010/"ICER. Is there
obfection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSPiELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote by
which the amendment was rejected be
reconsidered.
The PRESIDING OlvriCER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on my
amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 18841
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Doaa]. The yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York will state it.
Mr. KEATING. Is the question on
the reconsideration of the amendment?
I u'nderstood that the majority leader
had asked to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
majority leader asked unanimous consent
thta the vote be reconsidered, and his re-
quest was agreed to. The Senate now is
in the process of voting on the question
of agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, not
many Senators were in the Chamber
when the amendment was proposed:
The amendment is an extension of the
principle adopted the other night with
respect to cemeteries in Italy.
The Senate evidently is being asked
now to assume the obligation of keeping
up all foreign cemeteries which contain
the bodies of soldiers who may have
fought on the side of our allies. I want
Senators to be aware of what they are
voting on. It would seem to me that
this could be an open, unlimited obli-
gation. If we do it for the cemeteries of
Poland, I see no logical reason why we
should not do it for all other cemeteries,
wherever they may be located. The
Senate ought to consider what it is being
asked to do.
I opposed the amendment the other
night, but the Senate chose to assume
the obligation. If the United States is
to keep up the cemeteries in Poland, it
is likely that there are Members of this
body some of whose constituents have
come from other countries and who will
want the United States to keep up the
cemeteries in those countries.
- I do not see why the Senate should
be compelled, almost, in order to satisfy
other minority groups, to assume similar
obligations all over the world. It could
amount to a huge sum of money.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arkansas yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. GORE. Could this proposal actu-
ally be described as foreign aid for the
dead?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; for the dead
Poles, I suppose. In effect, it would
actually be done for the relief of the
Polish Government, for which I know
many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle have great affection. The ef-
fect would be to enable the Polish Gov-
ernment to escape its obligation to main-
tain its own cemeteries.
I assume that the cemeteries are in
existence; I do not know whether they
are. I know nothing about the cemetery
in question. I suppose there is such a
cemetery in Poland, although I recall
reading that many of the dead Polish
people were piled into trenches in those
days. The Government was rather
ruthless.
I do not know whether Poland has'
cemeteries similar to ours or not. We
are opening up a field to which there is
no end. Such an amendment ought to
be considered in an orderly manner, a
bill should be introduced, and an appro-
priation authorized, whether it be for
$10 or $100 million. If it is desired to
spend money on foreign cemeteries, that
ought to be done in an orderly way. We
do not know anything about this ceme-
tery or the one in Italy.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I agree with the
chairman of the committee. I can find
no legal, moral, or social responsibility
on this country to undertake this sort
of activity.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I did not say that
there was not such a cemetery in Italy;
I said that if it is to be done in Italy,
we might be asked to do it all over the
world.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Would this not be
aid to a Communist government?
Mr. FULBRIGHT.. I do not suppose
it would be of great aid to them; but in
effect, whatever the amount, it would be
aid.
Mr. THURMOND. I agree with the
distinguished chairman. I am wonder-
ing if we should not cut off any other
aid to Communist governments, as well.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I was not object-
ing particularly to the amount; it is the
general principle of undertaking the up-
keep of cemeteries all over the world,
where people who may have been allied
with us or who were sympathetic
to our cause may be buried. It is a
rather openended proposal. If it is to
be done, it should be done in an orderly
way, after proper hearings before com-
mittees, and with the authorization of
funds in the regular way. This is a
rather casual way to commit this coun-
try to unknown obligations.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to
answer the arguments that have been
raised against the amendment. -
The Senator from Tennessee asked, "Is
it foreign aid to the dead?" My answer
is: Yes; it is a debt due to the dead Polish
heroes who stood on our side in the War-
saw uprising, expecting the Communists
across the river to come to their aid,
but who, by the tens of thousands, were
slaughtered and lie buried in unmarked
graves. That is the answer to that argu-
ment.
Is it foreign aid to the Communists?
asks the Senator from South Carolina.
No. It is foreign aid to the dead Polish
heroes and the living Polish heroes and
anti-Communists, and U.S. citizens of
Polish ancestry by the millions in this
country. It is a tribute to the anti-Com-
munist dead who lie in the unmarked
cemetery in Warsaw, and whose relatives
will know that the people of America
have not forgotten them.
In answer to the question of the Sena-
tor from Arkansas, Does the proposal
need hearings? I say that everybody
knows?even small children know?the
story of the heroes of the Warsaw upris-
ing. What hearings do we need at this
hour of history?
What would the proposal cost? Not
one red cent. We have millions of dol-
lars in Communist Poland banks. We
can use very little of them. It would
cost very little money to make certain
that this cemetery, where lie those he-
roes, is properly cared for.
It is asked, "Would this proposal lead
to a demand that we take care of similar
cemeteries all over the world where anti-
Communist heroes are buried?" I say,
Good. I hope it will. I cannot think of
anything better for us to do with the bil-
lions of dollars we are peddling around
the world for highly questionable proj-
ects than to spend a few paltry dollars to
mark the cemeteries in which lie the
bodies of anti-Communist heroes. I say
to the Senator from Arkansas that I hope
this action will become a precedent.
I hope we will do it all over the world.
I cannot think of anything better that
can be done for the cause of freedom.
That is my answer to the arguments.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Connecticut yield?
Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to the
Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Senator
from Connecticut, and I shall support his
amendment.
Mr. DODD. I am grateful to .the Sen-
ator from Oregon. I am only sorry that
more Senators are not present in the
Chamber, because I am quite sure that if
all Senators heard this discussion, there
would be only a handful of votes against
the amendment.
I am confident that if the American
people heard the discussion, they would
demand that we pay this tribute. ,
No cost in dollars is involved. It is a
small tribute to those who fought on our
side.
Mr. President, I hope that the amend-
ment will be adopted.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-
INTYRE in the chair). The Senator from
Illinois will state it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. What is the question
now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Dom)]. On this question the yeas
and nays have been ordered; and, if
there be no further discussion, the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN],
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscnE],
the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
McGovxm], the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MusicrE] , and the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS], are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROtiGH],
are necessarily absent.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER]
is detained on official business.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
SALTONSTALL] is necessarily absent.
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEAR-
SON] is detained on official business.
The result was announced?yeas 51,
nays 37, as follows:
[No. 544 Leg.]
YEAS-51
Aiken Fong
Bartlett Hart
Bayh Hartke
- Beall Holland
Bible Hruska
Boggs Humphrey
Brewster Inouye
Burdick Javits
Byrd, W. Va. Keating
Case Kuchel
Church Long, Mo.
Clark Long, La.
Cotton Magnuson
Curtis McIntyre
Dodd Metcalf
Douglas Miller
Edmondson Morse
Allott
Bennett
Byrd, Va.
Carlson
Cooper
Dirksen
Dominick
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fulbright
Gore
Gruening
Anderson
Cannon
Goldwater
Hayden
Mundt
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Salinger
Scott
Stennis
Symington
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
NAYS-37
Hickenlooper Morton
Hill . Moss .
Jackson Robertson
Johnston Russell
Jordan, NC. Simpson
Jordan, Idaho Smathers
Mansfield Smith
McCarthy Sparkman
McClellan Talmadge
McGee ? Thurmond
McNamara Tower
Mechem
Monroney
NOT VOTING-12
Kennedy
Lausche
McGovern
Muskie
Pearson
Saltonstall
Walters
Yarborough
So Mr. DODD'S amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. 'DODD. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to. .
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, with-
out losing my right to the floor, I yield
30 seconds- to the Senator from Con-
necticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] .
AMENDMENT NO. 1218
Mr. RIBICOF'F. Mr. President, the
minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] and the
majority leader [Mr MANSFIELD] have
offered their amendment concerning re-
apportionment, a subject which has
nothing to do with the foreign aid bill.
Some time ago I submitted a resolu-
tion, in which 63 other Senators joined
me, condemning the Soviet Union for
persecution of the Jews. Since it ap-
pears that action may not be taken on
that resolution, I send to the desk, an
amendment incorporating that resolu-
tion, ask that it be printed, and that the
Senate go on record as condemning re-,
ligious persecution by the Soviet Union
against Jews and those of other faiths as
well. ,
The amendment is being cosponsored
by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Domi] and the Senator from New York
[Mr. JAviTs].
I shall ask for the yeas and nays when
the amendment is called up. I plan to
call up the amendment after the Senate
disposes of the Mansfield-Dirksen
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received, printed,
and will lie on the table.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ad-
vise the Senate that we are taking up the
reapportionment amendment at the
present time. I shall be as brief as pos-
sible and try to sketch in broad strokes
what has happened, how this proposal
happened to come here, and what has
:happened in the country with respect to
sentiment as a result of the Supreme
Court 'decision in the case of Reynolds
against Sims. I may repeat some of the
observations I made late last night when
this amendment was laid down.
By way of preliminary, this is a jointly
sponsored amendment by the distin-
guished majority leader and myself. It
represents most patient and painstaking
work, in which endeavor we invited the
staff of the majority leader, as well as my
own staff. Sitting with us was the Dep-
uty Attorney General and the Solicitor
of the Department of Justice. We spent
a good many days on this task since I
first framed a proposal with respect to a
stay of proceedings of the Supreme Court
decision. Some time in midafternoon
yesterday, we finally came to the conclu-
sion that we could agree on the language
that is now before the Senate in the form
of this amendment.
I believe that since we are not always
too diligent in reading the material that
is before us, it might be well for me to
read the pertinent sections of the amend-
ment. This amendment is intended as a
section to part 4 of the foreign assistance
bill.
I am not insensible when I say, with
some modesty, to my distinguished friend
from Arkansas [Mr. FuLasicnr] that it
might be regarded as an incongruity
when one offers an amendment of this
kind to a foreign assistance bill. But it
is reality that compels this course of
action.
I thought that if the amendment were
ready at the time, it might be attached
to the interest equalization rate bill,
which was reported from the Committee
on Finance. That bill involved so many
technicalities that I rather shuddered at
the thought. ,
Incidentally, although two versions of
the amendment were presented at that
time?and, before we were through, a
third and fourth version were pre-
sented?I was not sure that we would be
ready to offer the amendment to that
bill.
There was the possibility that perhaps
next week the amendment could be of-
fered to the social security bill, which
is still pending in the Senate Finance
Committee. However, that bill has gen-
erated controversy on its own. I can say
with some authority that if perchance
the medicare proposals that will be of-
fered?and there are at least three of
them?should be attached to that bill
and go to conference, and the Senate
conferees were adamant in their posi-
tion, conceivably there might not be a
social security bill at all.
August 13
I believe I read correctly the temper
of the members of the Ways and Means
Committee; and I have taken time to
do a little confering.
If the amendment is to have any val-
ue, it must reach the President's desk
before adjournment. It must get there
before the hour comes when the ma-
jority leader and I call the White House
and ask the President whether he has
any other business to lay before the
Congress. I have had occasion to do
that for a number of years. If the Pres-
ident says "No," the Congress will be free
to adjourn. So it must be done before
that time, and therefore the amendment
must be attached to a bill that will
reach the President for signature.
So by a process of elimination it was
quite clear to me that if we were to take
a statutory approach to the question,
there was nothing to do except to offer
the amendment to the pending bill, in-
congruous as it might seem.
On the other hand, I see no real in-
congruity in trying to look after our
own people in our own States when we
are lavishing our largess upon people
in all the corners of the earth. If we
can take time to study and discuss the
subject, notwithstanding what may ap-
pear to be an incongruity, the proposal
will not seem so farfetched after all.
Besides the amendment is important
because there is an almost volcanic feel-
ing in the country today.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I would prefer not to
do so until I complete my statement.
Mr. President, I was advised that
today, by a vote of 10 to 4, the House
Rules Committee voted out what is
known as the Tuck resolution, named for
Representative TUCK. I believe it is in-
finitely tougher, infinitely stronger, and
infinitely less flexible than the amend-
ment which the majority leader and I
have offered after long and painful study
with a good many people sitting around
the table. That is the principal reason
why the amendment is being offered to
the pending bill.
There is one further reason. The bill
is divided into four parts. If Senators
will examine the titles to those parts,
they will notice that part IV is entitled
"Amendments to Other Laws." The sky
is the limit. "Amendments to Other
Laws" can mean any act, no matter what
it might be. So I thought certainly the
amendment would be in harmony with
that designation, for the proposal is an
amendment to the code. Therefore, very
properly, it belongs under that title.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The part entitled
"Amendments to Other Laws" is hardly
meant to indicate that the sky is the
limit. "Other ,Laws" must be relevant
to the bill?for example, Public Law 480
programs. Amendments of that kind
have often been offered. I do not believe
that the record shows that we have un-
dertaken in the bill to reach out and go
into the apportionment provision of our
Constitution.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
? Most of the amendments that have
been proposed are reasonably relevant to
the foreign aid program.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I shall
not quarrel unfelicitously with my dis-
tinguished friend from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am not quarrel-
ing; I am pointing out a fact.
Mr. DIRKSEN. On page 16, line 18,
of the foreign assistance bill, the follow-
ing language appears:
Part 4?Amendments to Other Laws.
There is no limitation and no qualifi-
cation whatsoever.
Mr. President, if the Senate had a ger-
maneness rule, I believe the amendment
would still qualify as being germane un-
der that part.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. The whole purpose of
the foreign aid bill, as I understand it,
is to promote democracy and friend-
ship among democracies in as many Na-
tions of the world as is possible. The
purpose of the Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment, as I understand it, is to
preserve democracy in the 'United
States. Therefore I would consider the
amendment entirely germane.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, that
statement is so much more graciously
put than I, with my feeble talent, could
express it that I am delighted that my
distinguished friend from Vermont inter-
vened.
We might trace a little of the history.
A case was brought in the State of Ten-
nessee. My distinguished friend, the
Senator from Tennessee, knows all about
it. I refer to the case of Baker against
Carr.
The question of apportionment had
been in the air in Tennesse for a long
time, but no action was ever taken until
this particular group finally took action
and the case came to the high tribunal
here in Washington.
While the facts were somewhat differ-
ent, and the issues might be different,
yet the basic issue was present.,
As a result of what happened in the
Supreme Court's finding in the case of
Baker against Carr, 60 suits were filed
in 37 States with reference to the ques-
tion of apportionment. In some of those
there was, , either in whole or in part,'
some reapportionment. In others there
was none.
But coming on the heels of that case
was a case that came from Alabama un-
der the caption of Reynolds against
Sims. Joined in that case were probably
half dozen other States, including Mary-
land, Delaware, Colorado, Virginia, New
York, and there may have been others.
That is the historic and celebrated case
in which the Chief Justice wrote the
opinion and a very distinguished and
scholarly Associate Justice, formerly
from Illinois, John Marshall Harlan,
wrote the dissenting opinion. I think it
is one of the most devastating dissent-
ing opinions that I have ever read.
In my considered judgment, Associate
Justice Harlan blew the Supreme Court
and its argument right out of the water.
It was a historical document, to say the
least; 'and for a long time it will be read
and treated with the highest respect by
law students from this day on, as well as
by all members of the bar. But it started
with Baker against Carr and then went
to Reynolds against Sims.
I now invite the attention of Senators
to the manner in which interest has de-
veloped in the question.' In September
of 1962 an organization known as the Na-
tional Legislative Conference, which is
affiliated with the Council of State Gov-
ernments, met in Phoenix, Ariz. There
were 750 delegates. They consisted of
State officers, officials, and members of
the conference.
They finally passed a resolution asking
the Council of State Governments to in-
clude three proposed amendments on
their agenda at the 1962 general assem-
bly which met in the city of Chicago.
The report was rendered by the Commit-
tee on Federal-State Relations, and it
was filed with the Council of State Gov-
ernments on December 5, 1962.
Of the three amendments, No. 2
dealt with the proposal to amend the
Federal Constitution with respect to re-
apportionment. There was a rollcall
vote. Twenty-six States voted for it.
Ten States voted "no." There were 10
abstentions.
? Since all that happened, two States in
opposition?namely, New York and Colo-
radohave switched over to the other
side. That makes 28. One abstention
switched over. That was Ohio. That
makes 29 States that have gone on record
with respect to the reapportionment
problem.
I can state with knowledge that Ohio
ha,s come over because day before yes-
terday the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio
called me about this matter. Only 2 days
ago there was a telegram from the Presi-
dent of the New York State Assembly to
the effect that he endorsed and his asso-
ciates endorsed the approach we were
taking to this problem and what we were
trying to do in order to bring about
relief.
What has happened . since Reynolds
against Sims is astounding. In the State
of Oklahoma the Federal Court invali-
dated the results of an election. So far
as I know, it is the first time in the his-
tory of this Republic that anything of
that kind has happened.
I have in my hand an Associated Press
dispatch from Oklahoma City, dated Au-
gust 1, which reads:
Quick appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court
loomed today after the Federal court, in an
unprecedented stroke of judicial power, or-
dered new legislative elections in Oklahoma
this year.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, if
the Senator will yield, was that in the
State legislatures?
Mr. DIRKSEN. That refers to the
-State legislatures. Another paragraph
of that dispatch reads:
The Court ordered Gov. Henry Bellmon
to conduct special elections to obtain a leg-
islature with membership divided into equal
population districts. Governor Bellmon said
he would obey "without further delay."
The ruling stirred nationwide interest in-
asmuch as many other States face similar
legislative reapportionment problems,
brought to a head by recent U.S. Supreme
Court rulings that both houses of a State
legislature must be based on population.
18843
In Washington the Justice Department be-
lieves the Oklahoma case marks the first time
a Federal court has struck down legislative
elections because of malapportionment.
Mr.' President, I can readily under-
stand why today, in the rural as well as
the metropolitan newspapers of Okla-
homa, there is a great to do and there
are statewide fulminations over the im-
pact of the Supreme Court decision.
In New York the results were even a
little more fantastic, for when the Court
got through it required that, while the
New York Constitution provides for 2-
year terms for its legislators, in the next
election they will have to be elected for
1 year. Then there is to be a second
election, and they are to be elected for
another year. Then there is to be a third
election, when they are to be elected for
a regular term.
Those are some of the fantastic results.
But in the great sovereign State of
Colorado, so ably represented by my dis-
tinguished friend sitting in front of me,
the three-judge court gave the legislature
15 days to convene and to comply with
the decision in Reynolds' against Sims.
There was difficulty in even obtaining a
quorum, but they were good citizens.
They tried to comply. They came forth
with new apportionment problems. The
case went almost immediately to the Su-
preme Court of the State of Colorado,
and that supreme court very quickly de-
clared the legislature's handiwork uncon-
stitutional. So where is Colorado today?
Frankly, I do not think it knows where
it is, in view of all these facts, or exactly
where the appeal will have to go.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Har-
lan said that while only 6 States are now
involved, it is fair to assume that what
has happened thus far will happen with
respect to the other 44 States as well. I
can see nothing but legislative and jurid-
ical chaos unless something is done.
In our approach, we sought to abide
by what we thought was a fundamental
principle; namely, that when the Su-
preme Court interprets a provision of the
Constitution, the so-called equal protec-
tion clause, the only way it can be met
is by a constitutional amendment to
modify the effect of that ruling of the
Court.
Parenthetically, we are not here trying
to throw the decision in Reynolds against
Sims out the window. The only thing
that is involved in the Mansfield-Dirksen
proposal is to buy time to do something
by the constitutional route.
If we were to do it in the normal con-
stitutional procedure, it would have to
go through the committee of the Senate
and then the Senate. It would have to
go through the committee of the House
and then the House. It would require
a two-thirds vote. The proposal would
have to be sent to the States. It would
have to be in orbit for 7 years. It would
require ratification by three-fourths of
the States.
Meanwhile the effect of the decision
in Reynolds against Sims would continue
to be applied and, at long last, there
might be a hardened pattern that could
never be undone, no matter what in-
equity or abuse might be involved. .
So obviously there was no comfort in
trying to approach this problem by the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
normal constitutional route. There was
no time. Besides, everyone is looking
longingly at the calendar every day, for
sticking up there in the calendar, as
big as life, is the numeral "22." That
means August 22, 1964. That is a Satur-
day. There is, if not an expressed, at
least a fervent, hope that, at long last, we
can drop the adjournment curtain, and
our associates can depart from this stage
and go and make mischief and medicine
and have fun at Atlantic City.
- We shall be watching on television.
We shall be sharpening our axes, so that
when you come back with your platform
and your candidate, we shall be ready.
for the fray. There will be no acrimony.
There will be no untoward feeling.
There will be no malice. It will be even
as the jousting knights of old came at
each other with a rush. So we shall do
battle, in the hope that our cause will
prevail.
That is why August 22 means so much.
That fact was not lost on me. I thought
that was a further reason why we must
act before this Congress ends. We must
find a vehicle that we can use. That is
the reason why it is here today.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. If the Senator will
yield, I agree with the Senator, except
that the foreign aid bill is a very weak
vehicle and a very poor vehicle to use.
That is the only part of the Senator's
suggestion that I do not agree with. I
do not agree with him on the vehicle he
has selected. I am in sympathy with
the substance of his proposals.
Mr. IDERKSEN. In answer to my
affable friend from Arkansas, I need only
to resort to a cliche, that we are faced,
not with a theory, but with a condition.
What else is there to do?" Would the
Stnator initiate it as an independent
bill? It would not have the chance of a
snowball in Sheol. If there is any doubt
about it, I ask Senators to look up the
Old Testament, and they will find where
Sheol is. It is hot there. A snowball
would have no chance there. That is
how much chance we would have.
? I wished to be sure that the vehicle
would be a bill that had to go to the
President.
Incidentally, this gives me the oppor-
tunity to say that I did not take the
Chief Executive by surprise. A week ago
yesterday I spent a very happy hourand
a half with the President of the United
States in one of those chummy, well-
furnished, comfortable rooms in the
White House. There we talked even as
in the days when I used to go over to
the office in the corner of the Capitol
and sit down on one of those deep chairs,
when the President was the majority
leader of the Senate.
We talked across the table. I had on
paper all the items that I wished to dis-
cuss with the President. I finaly reached
this item, and I said, "Mr. President, I
am sure that you will not like this, but
I have no choice. I feel dutybound to
do'this. So I give you the language that
I have drafted thus far." It has been
modified, but the purpose is the same. I
said, "I have to find a vehicle on
which it can take a ride and land in the
middle of that big _beautiful desk in the
room next door. If it does not land there,
of course, we are out of court. We go
nowhere, and our objective fails. But I
am hopeful that it will land on that
table."
Then I hope he will summon our dis-
tinguished friend from Arkansas, the
majority leader, and myself, perhaps at
5 o'clock in the afternoon, the vesper
hour, when the spirit is in a state of re-
pose and, for-the hardened sinners, when
the sun is over the yardarm; and there
will be a great concourse of people as-
sembled. I hope there will be a hun-
dred pens in the pen set on the desk.
There are a hundred Senators. So, if
we are all present, I hope he will take
those pens and sign the foreign assist-
ance bill; and while he,may be expatiat-
ing upon what we are doing for the
benighted people in the Congo, the
wretches in some areas of Africa, for
those people who have hauled down our
flag in Ghana, and for people all over
the world, in our hearts there will be a
little throb of thanksgiving because we
are going to do a little something to try
to preserve the Federal-State Union.
If that is not an impulse for inspira-
tion, I do not know what is.
That is the way I came up. I do not
know where L got this strange belief, as
it seems to some people, but I learned
in high school, as a freshman, that we
had a Federal-State Union. Some people
have tried to disabuse me of that idea,
and some people would like to strike the
State part. As J. Hamilton Lewis, the
colorful Senator from my State, once
said to me in the Mayflower Hotel, "My
boy"?I was young enough then to be his
son?he gait', "My boy, I shall not live
to see the day, but you will live to see the
day when the boundaries of States are
nothing more than marks upon maps for
the guidance of tourists. If we persist in
denuding the powers of the State and
their legislatures, and if we continue to
build up this great central structure in
Washington, that will be the ultimate
end."
That issue is involved here.
I always thought we had a Federal-
State Union, even though some people
may think it is an aberration on the part
of a conservative who still lives in this
age.
I believe somewhere in the Constitu-
tion I read a clause which states that the
power that is not delegated to the Fed-
eral Government is reserved to the peo-
ple. By "people" we mean the States.
That clause is still there. Perhaps it is
bemusing and even amusing to a great
many people. I always thought that
those oldtimers who came to Philadel-
phia to fabricate that Constitution in
1887 knew what they were about when
they said, "So much power belongs to
the Federal Government, and no more;
and the rest of it we keep in our tight
fists."
It is still there, but subject, evidently,
to controversy. I learned long ago that
the people are the fountainhead of all
power in this country. If they are not,
let us take the preamble and strike out
the -first words, "We, the people," for
various purposes, "do ordain and estab-
lish this Constitution for the United
States of America."
August 13
I presume, as I read some of the con-
dign epithets and rather unpleasant
aspirations by the law school deans and
others on what I am trying to do?and
sometimes I suspect the deans a little,
having been in a law school?I feel that
perhaps one ought to look elsewhere for
a fundamental. So I go back to the
Constitution?"We the people of the
United States." They reserved their
powers and gave the Federal Govern-
ment so much. If Senators do not
think the Constitution is vibrant and
alive, let them push something through
this body and the other body and get a
signature from the President, and then
have some citizen, high or humble,
finally get up to the Supreme Court, that
white-structure across the way, and say,
"They cannot do this to me, because it
contravenes the Constitution." How
many times that has been done.
In the State of Georgia, long ago, a
man named Angelo Herndon, with his
pockets bulging with "Red" literature,
was walking around the square in At-
lanta. He was grabbed by the police,
and before he knew it, he was in the
chain gang.
There he stayed until, through his rep-
resentative and lawyer, his case was
brought before the Supreme Court. His
lawyer said the man had not been given
a fair trial under the Constitution.
What did the High Court say? One
would not expect any sympathy in the
hearts of those black-robed Justices for a
man who was wedded to a doctrine for
the destruction of this country. But
what did the High Court say? "Take
the chains off him and let him be, until
you give him a fair trial."
That is one of the great cases decided
by the Supreme Court.
Out in Nebraska anther case arose.
Under the impetus of war fever, legis-
latures can sometimes do strange things.
In Nebraska, a statute was enacted to
forbid the teaching of German in the
Nebraska schools. As I recall, it was a
group of highminded and patriotic
Legionnaires who brought the case to
the Supreme Court. They said to the
Court, "If a school board can stop the
teaching of German, it can also stop the
teaching of Latin; it can stop the teach-
ing of,biology; it can stop the teaching
of chemistry; it can stop the teaching of
rhetoric. The war, the fevers of war,
and the hates of war have nothing to
do with this."
The Court struck down that statute of
the State. of Nebraska. "We, the people"
were speaking, thank God.
Out in Oregon the legislature enacted
a law which provided, in effect, that
every child of school age must attend a
public school. What was wrong with
that? Was that not all right? Cer-
tainly.
But what about the Baptist fathers
and mothers who wanted their children
to learn something of the Bible? What
about the Catholic fathers and mothers
who wanted their children to attend
parochial school, where they could wor-
ship in the tradition of their fathers,
their grandfathers, and their great
grandfathers? What about the Metho-
dist children, the Mormon children, and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the other children, whose parents were
willing to pay the bill for educating their
children in their own schools, where they
could receive the teaching of the Great
Book and read the inspiring pages?
The Society of Sisters in Oregon,
through their counsel, came across the
country and stood before the High Court
and asked, "Can our legislature do this
to us?" The Court struck down the
Oregon statute. As the Preamble says,
"We, the people," were talking. "We,
the people," are involved here.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Is the Senator going
to get me off the track?
Mr. HART. No.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I have no track, any-
way.
Mr. HART. If the Senator from Illi-
nois?and rightly so?believes that the
Court is to be trusted to protect the peo-
ple, and did protect them in those cases,
why not let the Court continue to pro-
tect the people in the apportionment
cases?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Because the issue is
quite different.
Mr. HART. Just how?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Within the next 3 or
4 hours I expect to get around to that.
I have recited these cases to show that
the Constitution is still a vibrant thing.
Certain provisions in it?the powers re-
served to the States?are involved here,
including the power of the States to com-
pose and constitute their own legisla-
tures.
say to my distinguished friend from
Michigan, who is an able lawyer, that
if he has not read John Marshall
Hr-
Ian's dissent, ,he ought to read it, be-
cause Justice Harlan goes all the way
back. He examines meticulously the en-
tire history of this subject, and points out
the things that have been forgotten by
the Supreme Court.
I am glad the Senator has alluded to
that subject, because he gives me an op-
portunity to read from that decision. I
shall read from the conclusion. Perhaps
the conclusion will be enough at this
time. Incidentally, I placed the whole
dissent in the RECORD last night. It is
worthy of presentation to the Senate be-
cause it is the conclusion of Justice Har-
lan. It appears on page 38 of the de-
cision, which was handed down in the
October term of 1963.
CONCLUSION
With these cases the Court approaches the
end of the third round set in motion by the
complaint Med in Baker v. Carr. What is
done today deepens my conviction that ju-
dicial entry into this realm is profoundly
ill advised and constitutionally impermis-
sible. As I have said before, Wesberry V.
Sanders, supra, at 48, I believe that the vi-
tality of our political system, on which in
the last analysis all else depends, is weak-
ened by reliance on the judiciary for politi-
cal reform; in time a complacent body
politic may result.
These decisions also cut deeply into the
fabric of our federalism. What must follow
from them may eventually appear to be the
product of State legislatures. Nevertheless,
no thinking person can fail to recognize that
the aftermath of these cases, however de-
sirable it may be thought in itself, will have
been achieved at the cost of a radical alterna-
1
tion in the relationship between the States
and the Federal Government, more particu-
larly the Federal judiciary. Only one who
has an ,overbearing impatience with the
Federal system and its political processes
will believe that the cost was too high or was
inevitable.
Finally, these decisions give support to a
current mistaken view of the Constitution
and the constitutional function this
court. This view, in a nutshell, is that every
major social ill in this country can find its
cure in some constitutional "principle," and
that this Court should "take the lead" in
promoting reform When other branches of
government fail to act. The Constitution is
not a panacea for every blot upon the public
welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as
a judicial body, be thought of as a general
haven for reform movements. The Consti-
tution is an instrument of government, fun-
damental to which is the premise that in a
diffusion of governmental authority lies the
greatest promise that this Nation will realize
liberty for all its citizens.
There is something else tO be added,
but I believe that is enough for the mo-
ment.
I point out that what is involved is
the Federal-State relationship, the re-
serve powers, and how meticulously they
are justified and spelled out as to how
the authority is to be maintained in the
States with respect to the composition
of the legislatures. The majority of the
Court had their eyes centered on the first
section of the 14th amendment and com-
pletely forgot what was in section 2, so
far as the authority of the States and the
legislatures is concerned.
I mention two problems. One is time,
and the other is that we had no oppor-
tunity to formulate and complete action
on a constitutional amendment, in view
of the looming shadow of adjournment.
Therefore, we had to resort to the statu-
tory course, in order to accomplish our
object.
A statute is worth little or nothing in
a controversial area unless we are rea-
sonably sure that it is constitutional.
Let no one forget for a moment that
this proposal will go to the high court.
The subject has been carried on the front
pages of the newspapers all too long.
Editorials without end have been writ-
ten. In the Mansfield-Dirksen proposal,
there is an item to the effect that it is
appealable; and under the section of the
code that calls for expedition, it will get
to the high court in short order. Then
we shall know.
But, Mr. President, I am at liberty to
say tonight that the Deputy Attorney
General, Mr. Nicholas Katzenbach, be-
fore he left the conference in Senator
Mansfield's office yesterday, permitted
me to say that in his judgment what we
had achieved in the Mansfield-Dirksen
proposal was constitutional.
I could add the name of one other high
official in the Department of Justice, but
because of his peculiar relationship to
the courts and his very peculiar func-
tion, it is probably not the prudent thing
for me to do; otherwise I could have
given his name, also.
So we feel that what we have wrought
Is on good constitutional ground and will
stand the constitutional test.
Mr. President, I shall not undertake to
do more with the amendment tonight,
18845
except to say that tomorrow I hope to
go into an analysis of the problem and
answer any questions that may arise.
I would prefer not to be quizzed to-
night. It has been a long day. I was
at my desk at 5:30 o'clock this morn-
ing, and the spirit begins to quail a little
at his hour of the afternoon.
But before I complete these preliminary
remarks?and the next 2 or 3 hours I
shall save for tomorrow, when Senators
are fresher?and when I am fresher?I
must read a dispatch to the Senate be-
cause it is most interesting:
The leader of the House forces supporting
the Supreme Court, "one man, one vote,"
ruling said today he would accept a Senate
compromise proposal to delay its effect in
preference to a much tougher House bill.
A very distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee of another legisla-
tive body?and I continue the dispatch?
made the statement after testifying against
a surprise maneuver by court critics to force
a showdown on legislation that would seek
to eliminate Federal court jurisdiction over
State reapportionment cases.
This very distinguished chairman?
and I continue the dispatch?
told reporters if he had to take a choice
between a proposal by Senate Republican
and Democratic leaders that would provide
a delay in court-ordered reapportionment of
State legislatures and the bill?
By a distinguished Representative?his
name is here, but I cannot tell Senators
what it is?
that he would accept the Senate version.
The veteran?
From this particular State?
who earlier would go no further than saying
the Senate proposal was an "approach" to
an agreement, wound up his appearance be-
fore the Rules Committee by urging consid-
eration of the proposal advanced by Senator
'EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, Republican, of Illinois?
He should have included MICHAEL
MANSFIELD, Democrat, from Montana?
as a rider on the foreign aid bill.
The distinguished chairman of the
other legislative body?as I continue the
dispatch?
finding himself caught in a squeeze play on
the reapportionment issue, denounced the
Tuck bill as a radical attempt to start taking
away all the powers of the Federal court. ? He
said the bill was unconstitutional on its
face. -
Thus, we observe the thinking of
others, in what we have tried to incorpo-
rate in the bill before the Senate.
We believe that we have done a good
job. We believe that the amendment is
constitutional. We believe that it is re-
strained. We believe that it would con-
summate 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
Imminent, so that as the 89th Congress
comes into being, we shall be ready to
launch a resolution for a constitutional
amendment in the hope that it can be
expedited through the Senate and the
House of Representatives, and that there
will be ample time for the legislatures of
the various States to quickly impress
their will upon it. Then we shall have
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18846 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
found a durable solution to the problem
which emanated from the decision in
Reynolds against Sims.
Mr. President, this is the first chapter
of my story. Like the old serials?"Con-
tinued in our next"?I trust that I shall
get around to the rest of it tomorrow.
At the moment, I yield the floor.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
? Mr. HART. The State legislatures
which the Senator contemplates acting
on in a constitutional amendment would
or would not be constitutional under the
Reynolds decision This, at root, is what
we are faced with. Is it not?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Possibly so. But, as
a matter of fact we are fighting over a
condition that the Court has created. It
was not the making of the State legis-
latures. It was not initiated by the State
government. Why did the Supreme
Court not take a realistic view of it, as
they did in the Brown school case 10
years ago, and say, "They must go ahead
with all deliberate speed," instead of
setting up a three-man court and saying
to the Governor, "You have 15 days in
which to convene the legislature and
get the job done." What in the name of
commonsense kind of business is that?
getting so little time on a matter that
is of great moment to the State? And
when I say "great moment," I mean ex-
actly that.
I am glad the Senator asked the ques-
tion. It gives me an opportunity to add
one further statement. When the Chief
Justice was Governor of the Sunshine
State of California, back in 1948, this is
what he had to say:
? Many California counties are far more im-
portant in the life of the State than their
population bears to the entire population
of the State. It is for this reason that I have
never been in favor of restricting representa-
tion in the Senate to a strictly population
basis.
That was in 1948. But this is 1964.
The Governor is now the Chief Justice
of the High Tribunal. Sixteen years
later he said:
Legislatures represent people, not trees or
acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not
farms or cities or economic interests.
The Government had an entirely dif-
ferent notion about it than the Chief
? Mr. HART. Is it not true that his re-
sponsibilities were Ivastly different, and
today he is telling us what the Constitu-
tion of the United States tells us?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am not too sure
about that. I think the responsibility of
the Governor of California, which will
soon become the largest, most populous,
and probably the richest State in the
Union, is a responsibility that will com-
pare with that of the Chief Magistrate of
the High Tribunal of the country. And I
do not demean it for one moment so far
as its importance is concerned.
Mr. HART. With respect to the honor
accorded, each is high. With regard to
the obligation, it is clear. Earl Warren
spoke to us in the Reynolds case con-
cerning the constitutional rights of citi-
zens. As the Governor of California, he
was speaking about something else.
But I return to my specific question:
Would not this purchase of time, on
which it is argued we should make a
downpayment here, have the effect of
legislatures unconstitutionally organized
being legitimatized?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Perhaps so. This is
an enforced condition created by one
branch of the Government. All we are
trying to do is to say, "You have done it
in such a hurry that you have made it
impossible to come back with a remedy.
You have made it impossible to get a
constitutional amendment to meet your
challenge to this jurisdiction and the
other States that do not agree."
If not so, why should 30 States be so
openly hostile to this decision? And
why should the people be emotionally
wrought up and be thinking about judi-
cial oligarchy and judicial arrogancy?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOUGLAS obtained the floor.
AMENDMENTS NOS. 1219 THROUGH 1228
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I yield
with the understanding that I shall not
lose my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I send to
the desk, and ask to have printed, 10
amendments which I intend to propose
to the pending amendment at the appro-
priate time.
I ask unanimous consent that the so-
called Dirksen "rotten borough" amend-
ment may be printed at this point in the
RECORD, to be followed by the text of each
of my 10 amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments will be received, printed,
and lie on the table; and, without objec-
tion, the amendments will be printed in
the RECORD.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for yielding.
The amendment, No. 1215, submitted
by Mr. DIRKSEN (for himself and Mr.
MANSFIELD) is as follows:
? AMENDMENT No. 1215
? On page 17, after line 7, insert the fol-
lowing new section:
"SEc. 402. (a) Chapter 21, title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
" '? 461. Stay of proceedings for reapportion-
ment of State legislative bodies
(a) Any court of the United States hav-
ing jurisdiction of an action in which the
constitutionality of the apportionment of
representation in a State legislature or either
house thereof is drawn in question shall,
upon application, stay the entry or execution
of any order interfering with the conduct
of the State government, the proceedings of
any house of the legislature thereof, or of
any convention, primary, or election, for
such period as will be in the public interest.
" '(a) A stay for the period necessary?
"'(i) to permit any State election of rep-
resentatives occurring before January 1,
1966, to be conducted in accordance with the
laws of such State in effect immediately
preceding any adjudication of unconstitu-
tionality and
(ii) to allow the legislature of such
State a reasonable opportunity in regular
session or the people by constitutional
amendment a reasonable opportunity fol-
Attgust 13
lowing the adjudication of unconstitution-
ality to apportion representation in such
legislature in accordance with the Consti-
tution
shall be deemed to be in the public interest
in the absence of highly unusual circum-
stances.
"'(c) An application for, a stay pursuant
to this section may be filed at any time
before or after final judgment by any party
or 'intervenor in the action, by the State,
or by the Governor or attorney general or
any member of the legislature thereof with-
out other authority.
" '(d) In the event that a State fails to
apportion representation in the legislature
in accordance with the Constitution within
the time allowed by any stay granted pur-
suant to this section, the district court
having jurisdiction of the action shall ap-
portion representation in such legislature
among appropriate districts so as to conform
to the constitution and laws of such State
insofar as is possible consistent with the
requirements of the Constitution of the
United States, and the court may make
such further orders pertaining thereto and
to the conduct of elections as may be ap-
propriate.
"'(e) An order of a district court of three
judges granting or denying a stay shall be
appealable to the Supreme Court in the man-
ner provided under section 1253 of this title,
and in all other cases shall be appealable
to the court of appeals in the manner pro-
vided under section 1294 of this title. Pend-
ing the disposition of such appeal the Su-
preme Court or a Justice thereof, or the
court of appeals or a judge thereof, shall
have power to stay the order of the district
court or to grant or deny a stay in accord-
ance with subsections (a) and (b)'.
"(b) The chapter analysis of that chap-
ter is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new item:
"'461. Stay of proceedings for reapportion-
ment of State legislative bodies.'"
The amendments submitted by Mr.
CLARK are as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 1219
On page 2, line 18, strike out the words
"before or".
On page 2, line 19, strike out the words "or
intervenor".
On page 2, lines 20 and 21, strike out the
words "or any member of the legislature
thereof without other authority''.
AMENDMENT No. 1220
On page 2, line 10, immediately after the
word "or", insert a comma and the following:
"If the order held a provision of the State
constitution invalid,".
AMENDMENT No. 1221
On page 2, line 10, immediately after the
word "session", insert the words "convened
after the entry of such order".
AMENDMENT No, 1222
On page 2, line 10, immediately after the
word "in", insert the word "the".
AMENDMENT No. 1223
On page 2, line -7, immediately after the
word "unconstitutionality", insert the words
"rendered subsequent to June 1, 1964".
AMENDMENT No, 1224
On page 2, line 5, strike out "January 1,
1966", and insert in lieu thereof "January 1,
1965".
AMENDMENT No. 1225
On page 2, line 4, strike out the word
"representatives", and insert in lieu thereof
the words "members of the upper house".
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE?
? AMENDMENT No. 1226
On page 2, line 2, immediately after the
words "such period as", insert the words
"the court may determine".
AMENDMENT No. 1227
On page 1, line 8, immediately after the
word "in", insert the words "the upper house
of".
On page 1, lines 8 and 9, strike out the
words "or either house thereof".
On page 1, line 11, strike out the word
"any", and insert in lieu thereof the word
"such".
AMENDMENT No. 1228
On page 1, line 9, strike out the word
"shall", and insert in lieu thereof the word
"may".
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I did
not quite hear the last statement of the
distinguished Senator about his amend-
ments.
Mr. CLARK. I did not hear the Sena-
tor from Illinois.
Mr. DIRKSEN. ? I thought ?the Sena-
tor said something about having 10
amendments.
Mr. CLARK. I did.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Are they 10 amend-
ments to the Mansfield-Dirksen amend-
ment?
Mr. CLARK. They are amendments
to what I prefer to refer to as the Dirk-
sen amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. The Dirksen amend-
ment?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am grateful for that
statement. But this is a joint sponsor-
ship by the very distinguished majority
leader and a humble servant?myself.,
Mr. CLARK. I was thinking it was a
rather reluctant marriage.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I
would like to reply to my. colleague. I
rise in opposition to his amendment. I
do that in no unfriendly spirit whatso-
ever.
My colleague and I have until recently
seldom voted together, but we have had
most pleasant personal relations. He has
always been friendly and courteous to
me. And I have tried to be friendly and
courteous to him. There is no personal
animus in the position which I take.
But this is a very serious question?I
think perhaps the most serious issue
which has come before the Senate this
year.
, DIRKSEN AMENDMENT WOULD FREEZE PRESENT
. APPORTIONMENTS FOR INDETERMINATE TIME
In effect, what the amendment of my
colleague would do would be to freeze
the present apportionment of the State
legislatures for an indeterminate period
of time.
As my colleague has stated, during the
period of the freeze a constitutional
amendment, if passed by the House and
Senate by a two-thirds vote, would be
submitted to the legislatures of the var-
ious States for ratification. The terms
of the amendment would then perma-
nently freeze the legislatures of the vari-
ous States in their present unrepresenta-
tive character. Therefore, the objective
of the Dirksen amendment is to assure
that the grossly unrepresentative legis-
No. 158-----23
latures would pass upon the constitu-
tional amendment which would prevent
the Supreme Court from ever changing
the situation or ever producing a reap-
portionment more in accordance with
population.
Therefore, my friend and colleague, the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK],
was quite correct when he labeled the
amendment the "rotten borough"
amendment, because the practical effect
of it?and, I am' sorry to say, I believe
the intention?would be to freeze the
State legislatures in their present unrep-
resentative character and prevent the
Supreme Court from invoking the provi-
sion for the equal protection of the laws
to provide substantially equal?not pre-
cisely equal, but substantially equal?
representation in the State legislatures.
We should realize that the present
proposal is merely a forerunner of a con-
stitutional amendment which, if its pro-
ponents can get it through in the form
they most desire, would forbid the Su-
preme Court or any. Federal court from
ordering redistricting. In effect, this
would permit the present malappor-
tioned State legislatures quickly to ratify
such an amendment and thus freeze for-
ever, or for a long period of time, the
present unjust system, which denies to
both cities and suburbs?and I empha-
size that point?their fair representation
in the State legislatures, and continues
them as vassals of the over-represented
rural areas, with a denial in most cases
of the full rights of home rule.
PROCEDURES BEING FOLLOWED ARE HIGHLY
DUBIOUS AND IRREGULAR
Mr. President, there are many dubious
features of the procedural manner in
which such a highly important proposal
making possible fundamental changes in
our constitutional structure is being ad-
vanced.
First, I point out that the forerunner
of the amendment was reported from
the Committee on the Judiciary after
Only a brief, informal discussion, without
members of the public being permitted
to testify. There were no public hear-
ings. There could be no sifting of points
of view.
Second, as the Senator from Arkansas
has suggested, the amendment is im-
properly proposed as a rider to the for-
eign aid bill, Which deals with a totally
separate matter.
The proposal comes at the end of the
session, when the Senate has an over-
loaded and crowded calendar and we
are in the last few days compelled to
deal with a Multitude of issues which
we could not deal with before because of
the 90-day filibuster on the civil rights
bill. There is not sufficient time for the
discussion of the Dirksen measure, which
goes to the very fundamentals of the
American system of government.
The preliminary amendment was pre-
sented by the Senator from Illinois sev-
eral days ago. Suddenly today there
was sprung upon us a revision of that
amendment, the full nature of which we
have not had time to discuss.
- Third, if the amendment were adopted
as a rider)to the foreign assistance bill.
18847
It would become very difficult for the
President to deal with the measure upon
its merits. It would be very difficult for
him to veto the proposal if he should
disapprove of it, because it would be in-
cluded in a vital bill. That would re-
move the possibility of a Presidential
veto, or. would greatly diminish it.
We sometimes forget that the Presi-
dential veto was designed by the framers
of the Constitution as an integral part
of the legislative process. It was not
Intended as . something separate and dis-
tinct from legislative process. The possi-
bility of the veto was considered to be
a vital part of the legislative process.
Fourth, as the Senator from Michigan
has stated, the amendment would
amount to Congress suspending com-
pletely an interpretation of the Consti-
tution by the Supreme Court. It would
deny the operation of a constitutional
process to individuals and to States dur-
ing that Period. So far as I know, that
has been done only once before in the en-
tire history of the Nation, namely, in the
Reconstruction period after the Civil
War, when there was _a great dispute be-
tween the Supreme Court and the ma-
jority of the Congress about the Recon-
struction policies which could be fol-
lowed under. the Constitution.
My colleague has stated that the Dep-
uty Attorney General, Mr. Katzenbach,
now believes that the present amend-
ment is constitutional. I am not respon-
sible for Mr. Katzenbach's opinion; I do
not know that he has officially made the
statement. I am frank to say that if he
did make such a statement, it would not
necessarily be controlling in any sense.
People select constitutional opinions
which they like. My colleague quoted
the minority opinion of Justice Harlan
and seemed to think that that was a cor-
rect interpretation of the Constitution.
He did not quote the majority opinion,
which was handed down in three deci-
sions?in the case of Baker against Carr,
in the Reynolds case, and in the Colo-
rado case, all of which came to a con-
trary conclusion. In these decisions the
Court maintained that the phrase "the
equal protection of the laws" emO,odied
in the Constitution imposes an obliga-
tion upon the States to give to their citi-
zens approximately equal representation
in the legislature. If people are un-
equally represented, they cannot be said
to have the equal protection of the laws.
Personally I believe that that is a
sound point of view. I accept, as do
many people in this country not wholly
ignorant on the question, the doctrine
that the decisions of the Supreme Court
are correct in law; and certainly I be-
lieve that in these cases they are correct
in substance.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD SUSPEND THE CON-
STITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECT/ON
OF THE LAWS
I believe that what we are asked to do
is to suspend for an indetermined time
the constitutional guarantee of the equal
'protection of the law, and to deny this
protection to individuals who may wish
to obtain it.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE.
My colleague said that he wished to
explain tomorrow what his amendment
meant. He did not do so tonight. I
hope that I am not Poaching upon his
ground if I say that the vital section
seems to be section 402(b). On page 2
of the amendment we find that it would
apparently do two things. 'First, it would
provide that there shall be no change in
apportionment in any State election ,Of
representatives prior to the first of Jan-
uary 1966.
Therefore, it would freeze elections to
come in the near future.
In the second part of subsection (b) ,
it is provided that -there shall be?
"A stay for the period necessary?
NH) to allow the legislature of such State
a reasonable opportunity in regular session
or the people by constitutional amendment
a reasonable opportunity following the
adjudication of unconstitutionality to appor-
tion representation in such legislature in ac-
cordance with the Constitution
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ESTABLISH INDEFINITE
DELAY
I ask Senators to notice two things.
First, there must be a constitutional de-
cision, and presumably that would re-
quire ultimate decisions by the Supreme
Court, and not merely decisions by lower
courts. Grounds for differences and dif-
ferentiation between the cases that are
brought up and the previous Tennessee,
Alabama, and Colorado cases can always
be found, so that each case can be pre-
sented as being a fresh issue. Then after
this occurs the legislature of such State
is to be given "a reasonable opportunity
in regular session or the people by con-
stitutional amendment a reasonable op-
portunity"?
Then I skip the adjudication question
and come to the concluding words "to
apportion representation in such legisla-
ture in accordance with the Constitu-
tion."
This provides a delay of an indetermi-
nate duration. It is not limited to 1 year,
as the press reports seemed to indicate
earlier in the day. It is highly indefinite.
Who can say what is a "reasonable op-
portunity"?
In 1955, the Supreme Court, in the sec-
ond civil rights case, held that desegrega-
tion should proceed "with all deliberate
speed." That was 9 years ago, and after
9 years these cases are still being fought.
"Deliberate speed" was a very vague
phrase. '"Reasonable opportunity" is a
very vague phrase. So for an indetermi-
nate period, we may freeze the State leg-
islatures in their present unrepresenta-
tive positions.
This brings us back to the point from
which I started; namely, that my col-
league and those who agree with him
have openly stated that they plan to pro-
pose an amendment, again in January,
when the new Congress meets, to amend
the Constitution so that either reappor-
tionment will not proceed, or the Su-
preme Court and other Federal courts
will have no power to order reapportion-
ment. -
Indeed, they may not have to wait for
congressional action, because there is al-
ready pending before the legislatures of
the States one of the three so-called dis-
unity amendments which were submitted
to the States by the so-called General
Assembly of the States after representa-
tives of the State legislatures met at the
call of the Council of State Governments
in Chicago in 1962. This assembly pro-
posed three amendments, one of which
proposed to set up a super Supreme Court
composed of the chief justices of the 50
States in the Union, which would review
' basic decisions of the Supreme Court
dealing with the relationships between
the 'Federal Government and the States.
I believe that proposed amendment
was one of the? most irresponsible ideas
that has ever sprung from the mind of
man.
But there was also one which stated
that the Supreme Court was to have no
power over ordering the apportionment
of seats in the State legislatures.
Fourteen State legislatures have ap-
proved resolutions applying to the Con-
gress?under the hitherto unused
amendment procedure authorized by
article V?for the calling of a constitu-
tional convention to act on this pro-
posal. The constitutionality of one rati-
fication; namely, that of Nebraska, is
dubious, however. This amendment has
also been approved by one house or the
other in six additional States.
This may be the vehicle which the op-
ponents of judicial control over reap-
portionment may use; and if so, they
have a good head start since they have
from 12 to 14 applications already, and
favoring amendments in 1 house of 6
additional legislatures.
I think I have said enough to indicate
that this is a very grave issue.
I do not know what the intentions of
the majority and minority leaders are.
I had thought that I would like to follow
the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN], who really did not discuss the
issue appreciably. He has said he will
postpone his discussion until tomorrow.
I would prefer to have the major thrust
of my argument come after his. I have
quite a long speech prepared. I can
speak for several hours. I am ready to
do it if necessary, but I would prefer to
have unanimous consent to have this
speech not count as one speech and be
permitted to continue tomorrow after
the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] has made his explanation of
what his amendment really means.
I therefore ask unanimous consent
that this speech may not be considered
as one speech on this measure and that
I may be permitted to continue my
speech tomorrow following the speech
of the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object?and I shall
not object?I wonder if the Senator from -
Illinois would mind offering the amend-
ment proposed by his colleague, the Sen-
ator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and
several others, which is the objective for
which the delay period is being asked,
made a part of his remarks before he
asks unanimous consent?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thought the junior
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DnumENl was
about to present his own amendment,
but apparently he is not. The Senator
August-13
from Florida asked for the printing of the
Dirksen ainendment. Is the Senator re-
ferring to the amendment suggested in
Chicago in 1962?
Mr. HOLLAND. No. I am referring to
the amendment that was offered in the
Senate a few days ago by the junior Sen-
ator from Illinois[Mr. DIRKSEN] and a
number of other Senators, including my-
self, which is the objective for which
the delay period is being asked.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I always thought it
was the function of the proponents to
insert the necessary documents in the
RECORD. If the Senator from Florida re-
quests it, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment to which he refers, pro-
posed by the junior Senator from Illinois
and other Members of the Senate, be
printed. And then I shall renew my
earlier request.
Mr. HOLLAND. I am very happy to
have that done.
There being no objection, the ? joint
resolution (S.J. Res. 185) was ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each
House concurring therein), That the follow-
ing article is proposed as an amendment to
the Constitution of the Untied States, which
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States:
"ARTICLE ?
"SECTION 1. Except as otherwise provided
by this article the citizens of each State
shall have exclusive power to determine the
composition of its legislature and the appor-
tionment of the membership thereof, and
such power shall not be infringed nor the
exercise thereof be reviewed in an original
action or on appeal or controlled by the
United States or any branch of the Govern-
ment thereof. The membership of at least
one house of the legislature of each State
shall be apportioned as nearly equally as pos-
sible according to the number of persons
determined by the enumeration provided in
article I, section 2, or if there is only one
house of the legislature then upon such com-
bination of population and area as the citi-
zens of the State shall determine.
"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 States within
seven years from the date of its submission
to the States by the Congress."
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I did not an-
ticipate this kind of request. I wonder
if the Senator would reserve it until I
have an opportunity to confer with the
majority leader?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. Do I correctly under-
stand that the Senator is going to have
printed as a part of his remarks the pro-
posed constitutional amendment offered
by his colleague [Mr. DIRKSEN] and oth-
ers of us, and which I am saying for the
RECORD is the objective in connection
with the legislation now pending?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is a very frank
statement. I have asked to have it
printed. I wish to add, however,' that
several other constitutional amendments
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
196k CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
on this issue?perhaps more objectiona-
ble ones?have been proposed and are
being considered. ?
Mr. HOLLAND. I express my appre-.
ciation to the Senator from Illinois.
I have no objection to his request,
though I think the Senator from Ar-
kansas has made an appropriate sug-
gestion that the leadership be conferred
with before the order is entered. I per-
sonally have no objection.
THE ROTTEN BOROUGH AMENDMENT IS WRONG
IN SUBSTANCE
Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me again refer
to the "rotten borough" amendment.
I want to lay major stress on my
opposition to the present Dirksen amend-
ment on substantive rather than pro-
cedural grounds. I have been talking
about procedure up to this time, but my
basic objections are substantive. I want
to stress that the apportionment of State
legislatures was and is in general dispro-
portionate and unfair, and would deny
to the cities and the suburbs, which now
comprise nearly 65 percent of the popu-
lation of the country, and which in a
few .years will comprise 70 percent, then
'75 percent and, in the not-to-distant
future, 80 percent of the population of
this country, their fair and proportion-
ate share of representation in State
legislatures. As a derivitive, indeed it
would deny proper representation in the
National House of Representatives, since
the congressional districts are laid out
by the State legislatures; and an unrep-
resentative State legislature is likely to
lay out unrepresentative congressional
districts.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the -Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator knows,
does he not, that the constitutional
amendment proposed by his distin-
guished colleague from Illinois and oth-
ers has no reference to staying the hand
of the Supreme Court or the Federal ju-
diciary with respect to their jurisdic-
tion with reference to the districts for
the election of Members of the House of
Representatives?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Whether that is the
objective can be made evident in the fu-
ture. The rotten borough amend-
hient would freeze the present malap-
portionment in the State legislatures
and, I believe, a constitutional amend-
ment will then be pushed to continue
the freeze indefinitely. This situation
has already led to malapportionment of
congressional districts.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. I believe it would be
appropriate at this stage for me to say,
that the proposed constitutional amend-
ment would not freeze the membership
in both houses of the State legislature,
but it would provide that only as to one
house, if a State so determines, the mem-
bership of that house may be elected
upon a basis that recognizes other fac-
tors than population. The other house
must have its membership based sole-
ly on population.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The proposals have
been changed almost every day. We do
not know what is coming up the next
day. We do not know what is going to
be the proposal in January. I will deal
with .this question in a little while.
To state the matter again, the pres-
ent Dirksen amendment is an attempt to
enable the present malapportioned State
legislatures to ratify a forthcoming con-
stitutional amendment to freeze for an
'interminably long period of time the
present unfair system; and that would
be done by State legislatures which are
adjudged unconstitutionally created be-
cause they violate the 14th amendment.
It would permit unconstitutionally cre-
ated State legislatures to perpetuate
themselves through ratifying a consti-
tutional amendment.
PRESENT LEGISLATURES WOULD BE BIASED JURIES
I do not object to a constitutional
amendment being put up to a fairly
constituted set of State legislatures in
which the members are reasonably dis-
tributed, and without an appreciable
conflict of interest. But here they would
be interested parties, who naturally
would not in the main wish to have
themselves reapportioned out of their
jobs, or to give up their control over the
cities. Hence, with certain honorable
exceptions, they would tend to jump at
the chance of freezing themselves into
their jobs. This would amount to send-
ing the amendment before a biased set
of jurors. Legislatures have not in the
main basically reapportioned themselves
in the past, except under judicial com-
pulsion, as in the past 2 years, and as
under the Baker against Carr decision
and the Alabama and Colorado decisions.
There is little prospect that they would
do so in the future.
I take it that the majority leader is
being consulted as to whether or not he
wishes to have this speech counted as a
first speech. In default of that, I shall
continue.
ORIGINALLY IN AN AGRICULTURAL AGE, THE
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY
JUST
When State legislative districts were
originally laid out, they were in the
main substantially fair and just. I know
that there were variations. I know that
the tidewater counties of Virginia, for
example, discriminated against the up-
country counties. I know that in Penn-
sylvania the counties around Philadel-
phia discriminated against the Scotch-
Irish counties on the frontier.
In the main, however, the legislative
districts were approximately equal.
This was true because we were primarily
a rural and agricultural country, and the
population was more or less evenly
spread over the area of a State, with very
few cities, and evenly distributed small
towns. The small towns were the trad-
ing centers serving the adjoining coun-
tryside. Here would be found the handi-
craftsmen, like blacksmiths, shoemakers,
.barbers, tailors, and coopers as well as
the small stores. Generally, the small
towns were located approximately 1
hour's travel from the farthest farm in
the trading area. In the days of the
horse and buggy 6 to '71/2 miles distance
on one side, plus 6 to 71/2 miles on the
other side, tended to determine the loca-
tion of towns. That is why towns were
18849
located 12 to 15 miles apart. In laying
out the counties, it was generally pro-
vided that a person would not have to
take more than half a day to get, to :the
county seat and a half day to come from
the county seat, allowing some time to
conduct business while there.
Therefore counties tended to be rough-
137%30 by 30 miles in extent, with the
county seat in the center of the county,
12 to 15 miles from the nearest points
on the border of the county.
Those were rough rules. Some coun-
ties were smaller and some larger. In
Texas, they were much larger, of course.
BUT TIME BROUGHT VITAL SHIFTS OF POPULATION
TOWARD THE CITIES
In the course of time, as we all know,
manufacturing developed, and with it
the concentration of population. Trans-
portation brought concentration, mining
brought concentration, and nation-wide
selling agencies, nation-wide banks, na-
tion-wide newspapers and publishing or-
ganizations all brought centralization of
population and the growth of the cities
and, more recently, the suburbs. All this
has multiplied apace.
I do not wish to labor the issue, but
there are certain -facts which are ex-
tremely striking. In 1790,when George
Washington was President, there were
only two cities in this country which had
a population of,more than 25,000. They
were New York and Philadelphia. They
each had less than 50,000 people. In
1830, 40 years later, there was only one
city with a population of more than
-100,000, and only 3 with populations be-
tween 50,000 and 100,000.
Now let us skip to the Civil War. At
the beginning of the Civil War, there
were 2 cities?again New York and Phil-
adelphia?with populations of from half
a million to 1 million; one from a
quarter of a million to a half a million;
and 6 from 100,000 to 250,000. There
were 9 cities with a population of over
100,000.
Let us see what had happened by
1880.
In 1880 one city had risen above a
million. That was New York. Three
had populations of from 500,000 to 1 mil-
lion. Four cities had populations of
from 250,000 to 500,000, and 12 cities
had populations of from 100,000 to
250,000.
By 1900 3 cities had populations of
over 1 million. Those cities were New
York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Three
cities had populations of from 500,000 to
1 million. Nine cities had populations of
from 250,000 to 500,000. Twenty-three
cities had populations of from 100,000 to
250,000. That made a total of 38 cities
in 1900 with populations of over 100,000.
In 1910, there were still 3 cities with
populations of over 1 million; 5 had pop-
ulations of from. 500,000 to 1 million; 11
cities had populations of from 250,000 to
500,000; 31 cities had populations of from
100,000 to 250,000; that made a total of
50 cities that had populations of over
100,000.
, Let us see what the situation was 20
years later, in 1930. There were 5 cities
of over 1 million, 8 over 500,000'to 1 mil-
lion, 24 over 250,000 to 500,000, and 56
over 100,000 to 250,000. That made a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?"SENATE
total of 93 cities of over 100,000 people.
Now let us take 1950: There were still
5 cities having a population of more than
1 million, although the population of
each city had increased; 13, not 8, hav-
ing a population from 500,061) to 1 mil-
lion; 23 having a population from 250,-
600 to 500,000; 65 having a population
from 100,000 to 250,000; or 106 cities hav-
ing populations of more than 100,000, as
compared with 9 in 1860, 12 in 1880, 38
in 1900, and 50 in 1910.
Let us take the last census. There
were still 5 cities having more than a
million population; 16 having from 500,-
000 to 1 million; 29 from 250,000 to 500,-
000; 81 from 100,000 to 250,000; or a
total of 131 cities having populations of
more than 100,000.
Now let us consider the current popu-
lation of some of the cities. New York,
in 1960, had a population inside the cor-
porate limits, not including the suburbs,
of 7,781,000; Chicago, 3,550,000; Phil-
adelphia,, 2,002,000; Detroit, 1,670,000.;
Los Angeles, 2,479,000. Los Angeles is
very expansive, so it likes to include
Long Beach in its population. If that is
done, the total population is 2,823,000.
Baltimore, inside the city limits, had
939,000; San Francisco, 740,000. In keep-
ing with the expansive ideas of Cali-
fornia, San Francisco likes to include
Oakland's population. If that is done,
the total population is 1,003,000.
San Diego, which I knew when its
population was about 100,000, now has
a population of 573,000.
The other large cities had these popu-
lations in 1960: Cleveland, 876,000; St.
Louis, 750,000; Milwaukee, 741,000; Bos-
ton, 697,000; Pittsburgh, 604,000; Seat-
tle, 557,000; Cincinnati, 502,006; Atlanta,
487,000; Birmingham, 340,000; Indian-
apolis, 476,000; Phoenix, the City in the
Sun, which has expanded at a geometric
rate, aided by Government-furnished
water at the general taxpayers' expense,
439,000; Honolulu, 294,000 in the central
city, but including the suburbs of Hono-
lulu, close to half a million; Houston,
938,000; Dallas, 679,000; San Antonio,
588,000; Fort Worth, the last of the big
4 cities of Texas, 356,000.
The old America, which we loved has,
with the passage of time, largely dis-
appeared. I grew up in rural America,
as I presume the distinguished Presiding
Officer [Mr. MCINTYRE Ill the chair] did.
In my youth I read Longfellow's "The
Village Blacksmith," which has very ap-
propriate, because in the small town in
which I grew up the village blacksmith
did work, and he worked under a spread-
ing chestnut tree. He hammered out
horseshoes with which he shod the
horses of the farmers and the towns-
people.
We knew everybody in town, and they
knew us. I liked that sort of life. I
still like it. I like to go back into it
periodically. It has many virtues. The
close relationships the people have to
one another are, at times, possibly too
close. Possibly we knew too much about
the neighbors, and they knew too much
about us. But on the whole, it was a
very warm, intimate relationship.
But that is an America which, instead
of being predominant, is now in the
distinct minority. We know this in gen-
eral, but sometimes we do not realize the
full extent to which life and develop-
ments have ,gone.
A great many people who are acting
as legislators in the State legislatures?
and, indeed, in Congress?still think of
this country as a place of the village
blacksmith under the spreading chest-
nut tree, with the sparks flying from the
horseshoe being beaten upon the anvil.
They think of the foreign relations of
the United States as they were in the
days when there was a monthly boat
from Boston to Liverpool. That is their
idea of America. It is difficult to correct
their ideas and to bring their thoughts
and emotions up to the actual events.
We have become primarily a nation of
large cities. I have not mentioned all
the cities having populations of more
than 500,000, nor have I mentioned many
cities-having populations under 500,000.
For example, in the State of Ohio there
is not only the great metropolis of Cleve-
land, from which come the two distin-
guished Senators from Ohio; but there
Is a bevy of smaller cities, including Cin-
cinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Akron, Day-
ton, Zanesville, and Youngstown.
In New York there is not only New
York City; there are Buffalo, Albany,
and the chain of cities along the old Erie
Canal?Rome, which used to be called
out on the New York Central; Utica,
Syracuse, Rochester, and so on.
In the State of the distinguished Sen-
ator from New Hampshire [Mr. McIN-
TYRE] , who now graces the chair of the
Presiding Officer, are the larger cities of
Nashua and Manchester, which are very
different from Keene and the other
smaller communities in New Hampshire.
In Pennsylvania, the State so well rep-
resented by its senior Senator [Mr.
CLARK], there are not only the giant
metropolises at the eastern and western
ends of that State, Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh, but there are the intermedi-
ate cities of Harrisburg, Altoona, Wil-
liamsport, and Scranton?about which
we have heard recently?Wilkes-Barre,
Allentown, and Bethlehem?Bethlehem,,
first founded by the gentle Moravians,
and which became one of the world's
greatest armorers , and producers of
munitions.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Bethlehem is also the
home of the famous Bach Choir, which
is one of the great cultural assets of our
Nation.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is one of the gifts
of the Moravians not only to the city of
Bethlehem and the State of Pennsyl-
vania, but to the country, as well.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. One can hear the
oratorios of Bach along with the clang-
ing machinery.
Mr. CLARK. Sometimes, if the Sen-
ator from Illinois will permit the inter-
ruption, the sweet music of the Mora-
vians speaks more loudly for peace on
earth and good will toward men than the
clanging of the machinery of the muni-
tions makers, important as that is, as
August 13
the Senator knows, as an ex-marine, in
the interest of our national security.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Moravians,
though few in number, have had a strong
permeative influence on the country.
They founded the city of Salem, which
now forms the second part of the city of
Winston-Salem in North Carolina. I
think they would somewhat regret the
fact that they also have given its name
to the Salem cigarette.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I Yield.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator is making
a most important address. I hope it will
be read more carefully than it is pres-
ently being listened to, in view of the
usual status of the Chamber at this hour
of the afternoon.
However, I should like to point out,
since the Senator has mentioned the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that
there is no crisis, no chaos in connec-
tion with reapportionment in our State.
Both parties are in accord on a sensible
procedure for remedying the unconsti-
tutional inequity which was so well
pointed out by Chief Justice Warren in
the Wonderful decision which he handed
down on June 15 in the Reynolds case.
So we have already had a three-judge
court declare our reapportionment?
which was instituted, really, in the inter-
est of a Republican gerrymander?un-
constitutional. The decree of the court
has been stayed until after the 1964 elec-
tion, as was suggested by Chief Justice
Warren in the 10th part of that magnifi-
cent opinion. It might be in order to
prevent the crisis of chaos upon which
the Senator from Illinois laid such stress
earlier.
The Republican Governor of our State
has agreed to call the legislature into
session early in 1965. It will be a regular
session. I have every reason to believe
that equitable reapportionment of both
houses of the legislature will then take
place.
There is no panic in Pennsylvania ex-
cept on the conservative Republican side.
They see themselves about to lose their
illegal control over the State senate, and
to some extent the State house. I was
told by the former Governor of our State,
a than who ,knows the State as well as
'does anyone alive today, former Gover-
nor David L. Lawrence, that the Demo-
crats could carry the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania by a' majority of 600,000
this fall and still not control the State
senate or the State legislature?which
to my mind makes it all the more impor-
tant that the "rotten borough" amend-
ment should be defeated.
(At this point, Mr. SALINGER took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
NO CHAOS AS THE RESULT OF THE SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS
, Mr. DOUGLAS. I- thank the Senator
from Pennsylvania. There is no chaos in
Illinois, either. The elections for the
State senate will proceed in an orderly
manner. The present 58 districts will be
used in the November 1964, election.
It is true that the election to the lower
house in the State legislature will be at
large with 118 of the 177 members named
by each party, so that no party will have
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 18851
more than 118 seats. But this election
at large was not required by any decision
of the Supreme Court, or any Federal
court. It came about under provisions
of the Illinois Constitution because of the
decision of the Illinois State courts,
difficulties in the Illinois Legislature, and
disagreements between the legislature
and the Governor?in which, inci-
dentally, I believe the Governor was
completely in the right. But no trouble
or chaos has been caused in Illinois by
decisions of U.S. courts.
POPULATION IN THE CENTRAL CITIES OVER MOST
OF THE COUNTIES HERE RECENTLY WEL-
COMED-IT IS THE SUBURBS WHICH HAVE
GROWN
The statistics I have cited so far tell
only a part of the story. What has hap-
pened in the past few years has been a
decrease in the size of the population
living in the central cities over most of
the 'country, and a great increase in
population in adjoining suburbs. The
Census Bureau has therefore adopted as
a measurable unit what are properly
termed "metropolitan districts," rather
than corporate entities, as the best judge
of population density.
These suburban districts are areas
where a major portion of the wage earn-
ers and salaried workers commute to
work in the central cities, or as is in-
creasingly the case, in peripheral manu-
facturing and other enterprises closely
tied to the central cities.
But the interests of the suburbs are
vitally connected to the central cities
with respect to transportation, water
supply, sanitation, smoke abatement,
control over fires, police, coordination of
streets and highways, zoning, taxation,
and the like.
Virtually the entire growth of the
country from 1950 to 1960 occurred in
the suburbs. The open country lost
population. The number of farmers
diminished. The big cities, in the main,
lost population, with the exception of the
cities on or -near the Gulf of Mexico?
such as the Miami-Tampa-New Or-
leans?the Houston complex; the cities
of the sun, in New Mexico and Arizona;
and in southern California, Los Angeles,
and San Diego. But the major cities of
the East and of the Midwest lost popula-
tion.
In my city of Chicago, the population
diminished from 3,629,000 to 3,550,000?
a population loss of 2 percent.
The city of Pittsburgh fell from 679,-
000 to 604,00,0?a loss of 11 percent.
The city of St. Louis diminished from
a population of 857,000 to 750,000?a 13-
percent loss.
Boston, which used to regard itself as
the hub of the universe, diminished from
801,000 to 679,000?a loss of 13 percent.
The corporate city of New York di-
minished from 7,891,000 to 7,781,000?a
loss of 110,000, or approximately 11/4 per-
cent.
Philadelphia fell in population from
2,071,000 to 2,002,000, or a loss of 31/2
percent.
Nevertheless, in 1960, cities with a pop-
ulation of over 1 million-5 of them?
had 9.8 percent a the population of the
country, or approximately 10 percent.
Cities over 500,000, including those over
a million, had 15.9 percent of the popu-
lation of the country?approximately 16
percent, or roughly one-sixth of the pop-
ulation of the country.
Cities over 250,000 had 21.9 percent
of the population of the country?ap-
proximately 22 percent, or two-ninths of
the population of the country.
Cities over 100,000 had 28.4 percent, or
over a quarter of the population of the
country.
Cities over 50,000 had 36.4 percent of
the population of the country. -
Cities over 25,000 had 44 percent of
the population of the country.
The suburban trend has progressed to
the 'point where, taken as ,a whole, the
suburbs probably now have more people
than do the central cities.
For example, take New York, with 7,-
781,000 people in the central city and
2,912,000 outside the central city?in
Westchester, Suffolk and Nassau Coun-
ties?or a total of 10,684,000. If we in-
clude the overlap in the New York metro-
politan area in the New Jersey communi-
ties, on the other side of the Hudson
River, and do not include Connecticut,
or such places as Westport, we have 14,-
759,000 in the New York metropolitan
area.
It is accurate to say that there are
15 million people in the New York metro-
politan area, of whom approximately
one-half live outside the city of New
York.
In Chicago, as I have stated, there are
3,550,000 in the central city, but 2,670,-
000 live outside the central city, inside
Illinois?namely, in the counties of Lake,
Will, Du Page, Kane, and McHenry. If
I include Gary, East Chicago, and the
Hammond area close at hand on the lake
in Indiana, we obtain a total figure of
approximately 6,800,000 in the metro-
politan area of Chicago.
Mr. President, I see the distinguished
junior Senator from California [Mr. SAL-
INGER] in the chair. He waged a strenu-
ous campaign in California. It is riot
news to him that while there are 2,833,-
000 people inside the corporate limits of
Los Angeles, there are 3,919,000 people
outside the central city in the Los Ange-
les' metropolitan area, or a total of 6,742,-
000.
Mr. DOUGLAS. These figures are ob-
tained by Los Angeles annexing Long
Beach. we felt that if it was* fair for
Long Beach to be counted with Los
Angeles, we should count Gary, East Chi-
cago, and Hammond. If those- are in-
cluded, Chicago is still the second largest
metropolitan area in the country. -Los
Angeles must take a back seat.
Philadelphia, Pa., has 2,002,000 in the
central city, but 2,340,000 in the subur-
ban area, or 4,243,000 in the metropoli-
tan area.
No life is more pleasant than the life
along the main line of Philadelphia. If
one goes down the Swarthmore branch,
it is very pleasant there, or if one turns
northward. The Philadelphia suburbs
are perhaps the most pleasant in the
country. I shall not make any comments
about the intellectual level of the Phil-
adelphia suburbs, lest I offend my dear
colleague from Pennsylvania. That does
not include the suburban areas near
Philadelphia, on the Delaware River,
Morrisville, Haddonfield, and the other
areas. I believe perhaps Philadelphia
has at least 5 million people who regard
It as the trading and cultural center.
Detroit, ' with 1,670,000 people inside
the city, and 2,092,000 outside the city,
has a total metropolitan population of
3,762,000. And they do not have to claim
Windsor, in Ontario, Canada, in getting
that figure.
THE STRIKING CASE OF MARYLAND
Baltimore has 939,000 in the city, and
787,000 people outside of the central city.
The total is 1,727,000. When we come to
the representation figures for Baltimore,
we shall find something interesting.
There are nine little counties on the
Eastern Shore, .each one with a senator.
Their total population is about 220,000.
They have nine senators. The county
of Baltimore, with a population of 550,-
000 has but one senator. One county on
the Eastern Shore?I am not quite cer-
tain whether it is Calvert or Somerset
County?has 15,000 people. It has a
senator. But Baltimore County, with a
population of 550,000i, haeonly one sen-
ator. It requires 37 people in the county
of Baltimore to have the same represen-
tation as 1 person in either Calvert or
Somerset County.
Two hundred and twenty thousand
people on the Eastern Shore have 9 times
the representation of the 550,000 people
in the county of Baltimore.
Take the other two big counties in
Maryland?Montgomery, which is just
to the north of us, and Prince Georges,
to the northeast of us. Montgomery
County has approximately 340,000 people.
It has one senator.
Prince Georges County has approxi-
mately 360,000 people. It has one
senator.
Add Baltimore County, Montgomery
County, and Prince Georges County to-
gether, and we get a total of 11/4 million
people, with three senators. And the
nine little counties on the Eastern Shore,
with only about one-sixth of the popula-
tion, have three times the representation.
That is why the Eastern Shore tends to
control the Maryland Legislature.
If the 9 Senators are banded together,
as they are, they can make alliances and
can control 16 votes?the majority of the
Maryland Senate.
Maryland is largely controlled by the
overrepresented Eastern Shore. That is
one of the great difficulties that Mont-
gomery County, Prince Georges County,
Baltimore City, or Baltimore County have
in getting /legislation through.
Maryland is a State which lies just
at our gates. It is characterized by gross
malrepresentation. I see sardonic smiles
from some of the onlookers. I say that
is an abuse of representative government.
WHAT ABOUT CALIFORNIA?
Let me turn to California. I shall pro-
duce more detailed evidence on this
tomorrow. The county of Los Angeles
has over 6 million people. It has one
senator. There is one county, or one
senatorial district, in California with a
population of approximately 14,000 which
has 1 senator. One voter in this
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18852 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
mountain senatorial district has the same
effect as approximately 457 voters inside
the county of Los Angeles. ?These are
examples of what is occurring all over the
Nation.
I have some detailed figures which I
shall present tomorrow when I am able
to present my argument in more detail
and at greater length than I am able to
do tonight. But this can do for a starter.
Mr. President, I recommend the U.S.
census to all students of politics. It is
a very revealing book. It gives a great
deal of information.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that three tables based on the census
of population showing the 1960 and the
1950 populations inside and outside cen-
tral cities of standard metropolitan
statistical areas, and in their component
counties, plus a table for the major
SMSA's, be printed at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING QFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
THE BALANCE BETWEEN CITIES AND SUBURBS
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, in
brief, in 216 urban areas of this country,
there are 115,800,000 people, which?
with a national population of 178 mil-
lion?amounts to well over 60 percent of
the total population in the Nation. Of
this amount, 58.4 million are in the cen
tral cities, and 57.4 million live just out-
side of the central -cities. The cities and
suburbs are approximately even.
. Since 1960, there has, of course, been
a continuation of this same shift in popu-
lation, so that today it is undoubtedly
true there are more people living in the
metropolitan areas outside the central
cities than inside the central cities.
Between 1950 and 1960, the population
of the central cities increased by 11 per-
cent. The outside communities in-
creased by 47 percent. The city increase,
as I have mentioned, was mainly in cer-
tain specified areas of the country, where
there is a great /deal of sun?Florida,
Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,
southern California. There was no in-
crease in the East and in the Midwest,
except in isolated cases.
Mr. President, thus far I have been
discussing the concentration of popula-
tion in cities-and metropolitan areas, in-
cluding both cities and suburbs.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY COUNTIES
The census also gives a classification by
counties and by size. These figures have
been well assembled by. Prof. Paul David
and Ralph Eisenberg of the highly con-
servative University of Virginia at
Charlottesville. But, some of their re-
search may have been done under other
auspices.
On page 8 of their study they have
figures on how the small counties and
the large counties have been faring in
the past 50 years.
Let us consider counties with popula-
tions under 25,000. In 1910 there were
2,149 of them. They had a total popula-
tion of 27.2 million. In 1930 the number
had diminished very slightly to 2,062, but
their population had gone down by a
million to 26,331,000.
In 1950 their population fell again to
24,261,000.
In 1960 their population fell once more
to 23,064,000. ,
While the country was almost doubling
In population, the population of these
counties, comprising approximately two-
thirds of the counties in the Nation, had
diminished from 27,400,000 to 23 million,
or a decline of 4,400,000, or about 16
percent.
Let us compare the counties with
populations of over 500,000. In 1910
there were only 15 of them. They had
14.8 million people.
In 1930, the number increased to 23,
and the population to 28.6 million.
In 1950, the number rose again to 41,
and the population to 44,800,00.
In 1960, there were 64 of them; the
population was 65.7 million. There had
been an increase of 41/2 times in the
population of those counties in 50 years,
or an increase of about 350 percent,
while the small counties, those under
25,000 in population, were diminishing
by about 14 or 15 percent.
A county with a population of from
100,000 to one-half million is a large
county. There were 87 of those in 1910.
They had a population of 1'7.1 million
August 13
people. By 1930, their number increased
to 142 and their population to 29.9
million people.
In 1950, there were 200 of them, with
40.1 million people.
In 1960, there were 238 of them?al-
Most three times the number in 1910?
with a total population of 48.5 million.
' If we add all the counties with popu-
lations of 100,000 or more, in both of
those groups, we get a total of 302 coun-
ties in 1960 with a total population of
114 million people out of the 178 million
people in the country at that time. This
was 64 percent of the total.
Need anything more be said to show
that we have become an urban nation,
a nation of large cities and their affili-
ated suburbs, a nation of large coun-
ties?
I ask unanimous consent that the
table from page 8 of the study by Paul
David and Ralph Eisenberg, "Devalua-
tion of the Urban and Suburban Vote,"
be printed at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Number and population of counties in the United States, grouped by categories of population
size, 1910, 1980, 1950, and 19601
[Population in thousands]
Categories
1910
.1930
1950
1960
Number
Popula-
Number
Popula-
Number
Popula-
Number
Popula-
tion
tion
tion
tion
Under 25,000
2,149
27,421
2,062
26, 331-
1,994
24, 261
1,942
25,064
25,000 to 99,999
796
32, 203
869
57,411
901
40, 757
884
41, 247
100,000 to 499,990
87
17, 154
142
29,911
200
40, 088
238
48, 542
500,000 and over
15
14, 853
23
28, 634
41
44, 789
64
65, 705
Total
3,047
91, 632
5,006
122, 288
3,096
149, 895
3, 128
178, 558
1 Independent cities not eontai led within a county, such as exist in a few States, are treated as counties and are
included in the above tabulations. The District of Columbia, which is not a part of any State and which had no
locally elective legislative representation in any of the years studied, is omitted from this table. Totals include
only areas with representation in State legislatures.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Illinois is performing a great service to
the country by spelling out in clear de-
tail exactly what are the real social and
economic problems behind the whole re-
apportionment struggle.
I ask him if it is not true that, in the
absence of population reapportionment,
there will continue to be inaction in
State legislature after State legislature
and refusal in many States, on the basis
of experience which goes back many
years, to cope with the problems of urban
and.suburban areas, with the result that
there will be great pressure on Washing-
ton to do the job that should be done on
a local level? Is that not true?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is absolutely
true. There are many illustrations of
the truth of that statement. Cities have
been compelled, in may cases, to go to the
Federal Government because the State
legislatures were so apportioned against
them that they could not get justice from
their State governments. Congress has
been compelled to act for them, rather
than turn them over to the untimely
mercies of the legislatures of the States.
This is notably the case with respect to
airports. It is also the case in housing.
It is also the case in mass transit. I
think it is probably the case, at least
partially, in the field of recreation. It is
the case in many other areas.
Senators will remember that President
Eisenhower established a committee to
go into Federal-State relationships. He
expected that it would result in turn-
ing over a great many Federal functions
to the States, which could then deal with
the cities. After the committee had been
at work on the problem a number of
years, the members virtually decided they
could not do it. I have talked with the
directors of research and the chairman
of the committee, Mr. Meyer Katzenbach,
a distinguished resident of my State, and
president of Hart Schaffner Sz Marx.
He said that what the problem came
down to is that the cities had no real
place to go except to the Federal Gov-
ernment. It was the unrepresentative
character of the State legislatures that
forced cities to go to Washington and
ask the Federal Government to bypass
some of the State governments.
What the Senator from Wisconsin is
saying is that if the cities could only be
assured of a fair deal through represen-
tative State governments, they -Would not
have to come running to the Federal
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
tONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Government, but they could largely ful-
fill their functions in our national life
through their State governments.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not also true
that the main criticism against the bur-
geoning powerful Federal Government
comes from two sources? It comes, in
the first place, from Republicans, and
with, great sincerity. The Governors of
Pennsylvania, New York, and other
States have said that their solution for
a progressive nation is to solve more of
the Nation's problems at the State level.
Also, the opposition has come from
southerners, who place their belief in
States rights. They say the responsibil-
ity for economic progress should be left
to the States.
If their plea for more progressive
States is to be effective, is it not essen-
tial that the State legislatures be respon-
sive to the popular will? If the enor-
mous change in population, which is
characteristic of every State in our
Union, moving fromrural areas into
the cities and from the cities into the
suburbs, is not reflected in the State
legislatures, is not this sincere convic-
tion of many outstanding leaders, that
States should act going to be a hollow
and empty plea, because we knowAf we
do not provide for population reappor-
tionment in this area we will not solve
the Nation's problems as we should at
the State level?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.
Those who believe in federalism as op-
posed to centralism should support re-
apportionment and support the decisions
of the Supreme Court, because by making
State governments more representative,
they would permit State governments to
deal more adequately with the problems
of the urban people who live in the cities
and suburbs.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Certainly in Cali-
fornia we have the most striking ex-
ample. State Senator Tom Rees repre-
sents a district with 4 million people
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is 6 million people.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it 6 million peo-
ple?
Another representative represents a
county having?
Mr. DOUGLAS. He represents 14,000
people.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Fourteen thou-
sand people. This is a disproportion
which is grossly unfair. Obviously, the
needs of Los Angeles, which has 40 per-
cent of the population of California with-
in the county, cannot be handled ap-
propriately by one of the two bodies of
the California Legislature,
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. By putting in the
statistics and background showing that
in case after case there is gross misrepre-
sentation and total lack of representa-
tion in the State legislature, the Senator
is showing very pointedly and convinc-
ingly the basic reason for our States
failing to meet the social and political
problems of our times, and the neces-
sity for our Federal Government doing
more for the people. Poor apportion-
ment prevents State action, and makes
Federal action more likely.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator.
DID THE STARS PALL ON ALABAMA?
My colleague had harsh things to say
about the Supreme Court in the Reynolds
case, the reapportionment in Alabama.
Let me read from the factual description
of the matter given in the majority
opinion on page 10 of the Supreme Court
decision in the Reynolds case:
On July 21, 1962, the district court held
that the inequality of the existing repre-
sentation in the Alabama Legislature violated
the equal protection clause of the 14th
amendment, a finding which the court noted
had been "generally conceded" by the parties
to the litigation, since population growth
t and shifts had converted the 1901 scheme, as
perpetuated some 60 years later, into an
invidiously discriminatory plan completely
lacking in rationality.
They were operating in 1961 with the
reapportionment laid down by the Ala-
bama legislature 60 years before. Said
the Chief Justice:
Under the existing provisions, applying
1960 census figures, only 25.1 percent of the
State's total population resided in districts
represented by a majority of the Members of
the Senate, and only 25.7 percent lived in
counties which could elect a majority of the
Members of the House of Representatives.
In other words, one-quarter of the
people elected slightly more than half of
the representatives in the House and in
the Senate. Three-quarters of the
people elected less than half.
Population-variance ratios of up to about
41 to 1 existed in the Senate, and up to about
16 to 1 in the House. Bullock County, with
a population of only 13,462, and Henry
County, with a population of only 15,286,
which were allocated two seats in the Ala-
bama House, whereas Mobile County, with a
population of 314,301, was given only 3 seats,
and Jefferson County?
I presume that is where Birmingham is
located?
with 634,864 people, had only 7 representa-
tives.
That is in the Alabama House. We
see that the representation in the House
of Mobile County was only about one-
seventeenth or one-eighteenth of what it
was for Henry and Bullock Counties.
With respect to senatorial apportionment,
since the pertinent Alabama constitutional
provisions had been consistently construed
as prohibiting the giving of more than one
senate seat to any one county, Jefferson
County with over 600,000 people, was given
only one Senator, as was Lowndes County,
with a 1960 population of only 15,417, and
Wilcox County, with only 18,739 people.
In other words, the representation of
Lowndes County in the senate was ap-
proximately 40 times as great per person
as it was in Jefferson County, and 32
or 33 times as great in Wilcox County
as in Jefferson County.
No wonder the Supreme Court ruled
as it did. It had to do so in the face of
such unfairness.
I shall give some more horrible exam-
ples now, and reserve more detailed fig-
ures for tomorrow, when I shall speak in
greater detail and at greater length.
WHAT ABOUT CONNECTICUT?
Let us take Connecticut. In Connecti-
cut, in the lower house, the largest dis-
trict represents 81,089 people, and the
smallest represents 191 people. In Con-
18853
necticut, each town or 'city in the State
has two members in the house of repre-
sentatives. There 118 of such towns and
cities, and there are therefore, 236 mem-
bers in the lower house. The 5 great cit-
ies of Connecticut, namely, New Haven,
Hartford, Bridgeport, Danbury, and 1
other, have 10 representatives out of the
236, or 4 percent of the membership.
They have approximately half or more
than half of the total population. There
is a hill town on Connecticut where by
1960 census figures 191 people are enti-
tled to a repreesntative. However, it
takes 81,000 to have a representative in
the largest districts.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Now let us take the State of New
Hampshire. I wish the junior Senator
form New Hampshire [Mr. MCINTYRE]
who graces this body so charmingly, were
present, as I go through these figures.
The average population in a district is
1,517. The largest population figure is
3,244. What do Senators suppose the
smallest district is which sends a repre-
sentative to the New Hampshire Legis-
lature? It is a town with three inhabi-
tants. The three inhabitants send one
legislator to Concord.
This is like the rotten borough outside
Salisbury Cathedral prior to the Reform
Act. Outside Salisbury Cathedral there
was a parliamentary district known as
Old Sarum. Nobody lived there, but it
sent two members to Parliament. At the
time of the election the man who owned
the feudal estate would come down and
have a tent erected, and he would send
his two representatives to Parliament
from that rotten borough, while the cit-
ies of Birmingham, Manchster, Liver-
pool, and Sheffield, rising industrial
cities, were completely unrepresented or
had only a small fraction of representa-
tion.
It was the existence of this unequal
repepresentation which threatened Eng-
land with revolution. It was not until
the reform bill of 1830 was passed, under
the threat of revolution, that steps were
taken to remedy the situation.
I notice, since I started my remarks,
my good friend the senior Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Dom] has come in the
Chamber. I should explain to him that
I was holding Connecticut up as a hor-
rible example in the matter of repre-
sentation in the lower house in Con-
necticut.
Mr. DODD. The Senator is right. I
believe it is probably the worst example
in the Union.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I may have one
other that is just as bad. New Hamp-
shire is just as bad.
Mr. DODD. I do not know the situa-
tion in New Hampshire, but in Connecti-
cut we have towns of 500 or 600 inhabit-
ants with 'two representatives in the as-
sembly, and the-city of Hartford, with
over 160,000 inhabitants, has only two
representatives.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The table seems to
show one town that has six people.
Mr. DODD. In Connecticut?
Mr. DOUGLAS. In Connecticut. Six
people send two representatives.
Mr. DODD. I believe the Senator's
figures are out of date.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18854 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am quoting from
Eisenberg',s "Devaluation of the Urban
and Suburban Vote," at page 2.
Mr. DODD. I do not know of any
town that has six inhabitants.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It may be tucked in
the Connecticut Berkshires somewhere.
Mr. DODD. Anything is possible un-
der our terrible system.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, the Senator is
correct. The figure I cited refers to the
ratio of the largest to smallest popula-
tion per member of the Connecticut
lower house. That is, the largest popu-
lation per member exceeds the smallest
by 670 percent or a ratio of 6.7.
VERMONT
Now let us take Vermont. I wish
the senior Senator from Vermont were
on the floor. Vermont, so far as its
assembly is concerned, is operating on
a 1793 apportionment. They laid out
the districts in 1793, and have not
revised them since then. In Ver-
mont, one town with a population of 36
elects one member to the lower house.
Another town with 35,535 elects one
representative. Here, in this minute
hamlet, one voter has the same influence
as a thousand voters in the largest town
in the-State.
Mr. President, I have been both in
New Hampshire and Vermont and have
inspected the quarters of the State leg-
islatures. The New Hampshire lower
house is one of the largest legislative
bodies in the world. As I remember, it
is larger than the National House of Rep-
resentatives. It is second only to the
British House of Commons.
It is impossible to throw a stone in
New Hampshire without hitting someone
who has been in the legislature. It used
to be said in the old days, when the Bos-
ton & Maine Railroad controlled the
State, and the railroad gave passes to
the legislators, that no one paid any fare
on the railroad between Bretton Woods
and Boston.
WHAT ABOUT MONTANA?
If we may believe David and Eisenberg,
in the Montana upper house, in the
smallest district, 894 people elect a sen-
ator; in the largest district, which I pre-
sume is Butte, 79,916. In other words,
one voter from the smallest senatorial
district in Montana has as much repre-
sentation as 88 voters in the _ largest
county.
I could continue for hours describing
this situation.
A MINORITY GENERALLY ELECTS A MAJORITY
Let me take a cognate phase of the
subject, namely, the percentage of the
population which can control a majority
of the lower houses in State legislatures
and a majority of the Members in State
senates. Let us start with the lower
house.
In Kansas, less than 20 percent can
elect a majority of the lower house; in
Delaware, 18.5 percent; in Rhode Island,
46.5 percent; in Connecticut, 12 percent.
That is what enabled the Connecticut
Light & Power Co.?Mr. J. Henry Rohr-
bach?to control the politics of Con-
necticut for many years.
In Florida?and I wish the senior Sen-
ator and the junior Senator from Florida
were in the chamber-29 percent of the
population elect a majority of the lower
house. Until recently, approximately 13
percent could do this, but now 29 percent
can elect a majority because much re-
form has been adopted Under the shot-
gun of the Supreme eourt decisions.
I have prepared a table and chart on
this subject, which was originally devel-
oped by the New York Times and pub-
lished in the issue of Sunday, June 21,
1964. I shall place it on the desks of
Senators tomorrow; I do not wish to
waste its potency on the desert air
tonight.
I should point out :that while in gen-
eral the upper houses of State legisla-
tures are more unreprensentative than
the lower houses, this is not true in cer-
tain cases, notably in Kansas, Vermont,
and Connecticut.
In Vermont, 12 percent of the popula-
tion can elect a majority of the lower
house. In Connecticut, 12 percent of the
population can elect a majority. In
Kansas, 19.4 percent can elect a majority
of the lower house. In Delaware, 18.5
percent can elect a majority.
An interesting bit of colonial history
is involved in the Vermont-New Hamp-
shire situation. As I understand it, each
State was desirous of obtaining the alle-
giance of the towns along the Connecti-
cut River, New Hampshire hoping to in-
duce towns west of the Connecticut River,
and Vermont hoping to "induce towns
east of the Connecticut River. So
guarantees of equal representation of
the towns were offered. With the move-
ment of population since the Revolu-
tionary War, these ratios have become
grossly disproportionate. In Vermont,
they have not been revised since 1791
with respect to the lower house.
In terms of State Senates, there are
some interesting facts. In Nevada, 8
percent of the population can elect a
majority of the State Senate. The cities
of Reno and Las Vegas, with their flour-
ishing enterprises, do not send many
representatives to the Nevada Senate,
but the sagebrush counties and towns do.
In Idaho, 16.6 percent of the popula-
tion can elect a majority. In Wyoming,
24 percent of the population can elect
a majority. In Montana, 16.1 percent,
or about one-sixth of the population, can
elect a -majority of the State Senate.
Now consider Arizona, from which we
have heard much about the fact that we
should allow the States to take over?
although they wish a billion and a half
dollars from the Federal Government for
the central Arizona water project. In
Arizona 12.8 percent of the population
can control a majority of the Arizona
Senate.
In New Mexico, only 14 percent?one-
seventh of the population?can elect a
majority of the State senate.
In California, which we have covered
before, 10.7 percent, or less than one-
August 13
ninth of the population, can elect a ma-
jority, of the State senate.
In Fonda, 15 percent can elect a ma-,
jority.
In Delaware, 22 percent.
In Maryland, 14.2 percent.
These are States with "rotten bor-
oughs." That is all they can be de-
scribed as?"rotten boroughs."
New Jersey-19 percent can elect a
majority of the State senate.
Rhode Island-18 percent.
I have spoken of the Eastern Shore,
which dominates the Maryland Legis-
lature.
South Jersey, in similar fashion, dom-
inates the New Jersey Legislature.
South Jersey counties have vegetation,
pine trees, sand, and ocean beaches, but
they do not have much in the way of
population. Still, they dominate the
New Jersey Senate?under the State
constitution's provision, T believe, of one
senator per county; with the result, of
course, that the great cities of New Jer-
sey?Jersey City, Newark, and Cam-
den?are relatively underrepresented.
The sand barons and the pine barons
of south Jersey are said to represent
them.
Pine trees control. Sand controls the
New Jersey Senate.
If one can control the senate one can
veto legislation which goes through.
One can exact a price for compliance and
powerfully shape legislation and not
merely exercise a veto.
Tomorrow, when I have time to speak
at greater length on the subject, and
have the opportunity to develop my argu-
ment more fully, I shall be able to bring
out additional facts. But I should like
to deal with one final point, and that is
the question: To what degree have the
State legislatures moved to reduce these
great disparities in representation?
STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE REFUSED TO REFORM
THEMSELVES
My friend and colleague the Sentaor
from Illinois [Mr. DisicsExl would issue
a stay order and prevent the Supreme
Court or the Federal court from ordering
reapportionment. He would put these
matters up once again to the State legis-
latures, which have had this question be-
fore them for year after year and decade
after decade. What have they done?
Let me take up some of these items?
and I shall be speaking of facts as of
January 31, 1964.
The last time Connecticut reappor-
tioned its house was in 1876. Eighty-
eight years had rolled by and Connecti-
cut still stood where it stood in 1876.
Before that, the last time it had reappor-
tioned was in 1818.
According to my figures, as of January
31 of this year, the last time Connecticut
apportioned its Senate was in 1903.
The last time Delaware apportioned,
according to the statistics published in
"The Book of the States-1964-65," was
in 1897.
The last time Rhode Island appor-
tioned its House was in 1930. I can re-
member the time when one branch of the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Rhode Island legislature took automo-
biles and went out of the State so that
they could not be compelled to reap-
portion. They took refuge in the Whale
Inn, west of Northampton, in a place
called, I believe, Chesterfield. They hid
out there through late summer and fall,
in order to prevent reapportionment in
Rhode Island. I am sure that both Sen-
ators from Rhode Island know these
facts.
Six States in the Union are clearly in
violation of their own constitutions.
Among such States, Connecticut, Dela-
ware, Louisiana, and Rhode Island, are
conspicuous.
Moreover, to the degree that there has
been compliance in the years 1962, 1963,
and 1964, it has been accomplished under
the shotgun of State and Federal court
orders. If it had not been for the court
orders now complained about, the State
legislatures would not have reappor-
tioned.
Such progress as we have made, an
article published in the Washington Post
described it as "inching," has been under
either a direct order of a Federal court or
under a fiat, that if they did not act
there would be Federal reapportionment.
In many cases, the legislatures came in
with a grossly unsatisfactory act in the
hope that they could deal with the Fed-
eral courts, and with an unjust order?
but not quite so unjust as the apportion-
ment was originally. These include
Georgia and Tennessee--Possibly they
may include New York.
Governor Rockefeller, anticipating
that the verdict at the polls may be ad-
verse to his party, is. desirous of calling
a meeting of the present legislature be-
fore the new legislature is elected. This
would be done so that it can apportion
the seats in New York so as to preserve
a Republican majority, as has been done
in the past, When the Democrats have
heavily carried the State, yet have not
been able to gain control of both
branches of the State legislature.
Let me take up the question of the
slowness of the States to reapportion,
despite, in most cases, clear mandates in
their State constitutions to do so every
10 years.
Alabama did not reapportion between
1906 and 1962. The constitution re-
quired it in Alabama, but they did not do
it.
Connecticut did not reapportion, as I
have stated, between 1818 and 1876 for
its house; and up to the 1st of January
of this year had not reapportioned again.
Illinois did not reapportion between
1901 and 1955. The legislature put it-
self beyond the control of the courts. It
found that nothing could be done to en-
force the State constitution.
Indiana did not reapportion between
1921 and 1963.
Kentucky did not reapportion between
1942 and 1963.
Louisiana did not reapportion between
1921 and 1963. It still has not reappor-
tioned its senate.
No. 158-24
Minnesota did not reapportion be-
tween 1913 and 1959.
Mississippi did not reapportion be-
tween 1916 and 1963.
Nebraska did not reapportion between
1935 and 1963.
New Hampshire did not reapportion its
senate between 1915 and 1961.
New Jersey did not reapportion be-
tween 1941 and 1961.
North Carolina did not reapportion
between 1941 and 1961 for its house, and
between 1941 and 1963 for its senate.
North Dakota did not reapportion be-
tween 1931 and 1963 for its house, and
still has not reapportioned its senate.
Pennsylvania has not reapportioned its
senate between 1921 and 1964.
The State of Washington did not re-
apportion between 1931 and 1957?and
prior to 1931, I believe, it did not re-
apportion either senate or house since
1901 or 1891.
It was my good fortune, many years
ago, to know the late J. Allen Smith,
professor of political science at the Uni-
versity of Washington, who in many ways
was one of the most farsighted and
prescient political scientists of the last
three or four generations. He was, to my
mind, as great a political scientist as
Charles A. Beard, of Columbia Univer-
sity.
J. Allen Smith once told me?this was
over 40 years ago?that he thought the
greatest weakness of the State govern-
ments was the failure of the State legis-
latures to reapportion. He pointed to
his own State of Washington as a horri-
ble example. I believe he said there had
been no reapportionment since 1901?
but it was probably since 1891. He
pointed out that some of the desert
counties in eastern Washington had as
much representation as the cities. I am
sorry to hurt the feelings of my good
friend from Washington, but I know he
is not a part of it.
Wisconsin did-not reapportion between
1920 and 1951, as the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. PaoxmmE] knows. I know
that when he was a member of the Wis-
consin Senate he tried very hard to get
adequate reapportionment.
Wyoming did not reapportion between
_1951 and 1962.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I would like to tell
the Senator from Illinois that the State
of Wisconsin has recently reapportioned
both -houses of the legislature. Both
houses of the Legislature of the State
of Wisconsin are perfectly, almost pre-
cisely, almost mathematically precisely
representative.
This was a tremendous 'achievement
by my distinguished colleague [Mr. NEL-
SON] when he was Governor, and by the
present Governor, John Reynolds. Both
did a terrific job.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Both happen to be
Democrats.
. Mr. PROXMIRE. Both happen to be
Democrats. And the point is that I have
18855
consulted with the leading legal experts
on this subject. They tell me that if the
Dirksen amendment is passed, the Wis-
consin apportionment may go out the
window. That means that the people
who have filed for election to the Wis-
consin Legislature, under the apportion-
ment that was perfect, which was made,
as I say, about 2 months ago?may have
to refile in new districts. Candidates
running for the 100 seats in the assem-
bly, and the 16 or 17 seats in the senate
that are open will have to file on an en-
tirely different basis. Just one person,
one member of the former legislature?
of course there will be several who are
reapportioned out of a job under section
3?will be in a position to file after the
order. The entire Wisconsin perfect ap-
portionment may be in jeopardy. It
seems to me that this is a matter which
is not only one of fundamental princi-
ples, but also one of the greatest practi-
cal interest to my State. I have a duty to
do all that I can to defeat this amend-
ment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is good enough.
I know the persistence of the Senator
from Wisconsin. Well do I remember
that night some years back when we
were trying to get an additional 1,000
cubic feet of Lake Michigan water for
the Chicago sanitary system. The Sen-
ator from Wisconsin with assembled
pages before him announced that he was
ready to talk all night. The news that
the Senator from Wisconsin will do
everything possible to defeat this amend-
ment fills me with the same enthusiasm
that the army of the Commonwealth, in
the days when they were fighting against
Charles II, had when they saw Oliver
Cromwell riding over the moors. The
prospect of the energetic Senator from
Wisconsin coming to our assistance
raises my heart just as the sight of Oli-
ver Cromwell raised the hearts of the
Roundheads fighting against the Cava-
liers,
Mr. PROXMIRE. I ask the distin-
guished Senator from Illinois if it is not
true that in view of the complexity of
this subject and the fact, that so many
States are involved, we should go into
each State and examine the problem?
Is it not true that to have a proper, ade-
quate, comprehensive, educational job
performed, this amendment will require
many days of discussion'?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. This
amendment has been sprung without
hearings in the Judiciary Committee. It
was developed under secret negotiations.
Its final form was brought out only to-
day.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And in its final
form it has not been considered by any
committee.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And it is entirely
different, according to the distinguished
junior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.
Now, Mr. President, as an example of
the absurdity, as I have mentioned,
Vermont has not apportioned its house
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R00030008-0052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
since 1793. The State legislatures have,
In the main, refused to act. When they
have acted, they have acted only under
the orders of the courts, and the Federal
courts in most cases.
The junior Senator from Illinois, my
colleague, would stop this entire process
of having the Federal court orders oper-
ate. He would turn over to the State leg-
islatures, most of which are already
grossly unrepresentative, the decision as
to whether or not they should reform
themselves.
As Patrick Henry said, "I know of only
one way to judge the future, and that is
by.the past." And the record of the past
Indicates that State legislatures have not
acted and will not act unless under court
pressure.
This amendment purposes to put a
gag on the court, to put gags in the
mouths of the Federal courts of this
country, and depend upon those who are
the beneficiaries of an unfair and unjust
system to reform themselves. There is
little or no evidence of self-reform on
the part of the State legislatures. The
proponents want to put a stay in effect,
and then rush through their constitu-
tional amendment. And with the prej-
udice against the big cities which exists,
they may get it through the Congress.
But they will have to fight for it. They
might get it through. Once it gets
through the Congress, the present State
legislatures are pretty safe if they can
only hold off reform for a time.
Now, Mr. President, I shall briefly
discuss another crucial issue in this con-
troversy.
NO PROPER ANALOGY BETWEEN U.S. SENATE AND
STATE SENATES
In the Senate of the United States, two
Senators represent each State. That was
a compromise which the large States
were forced to make in 1787 in order to
have any Union whatsoever. The small
States, of course, control the Senate. I
worked these figures out in recent years
and I think I can correctly recall them.
States with only 25 percent of the popu-
lation control the majority of the Sena-
tors in this body. The eight Mountain
States with a total population of only ap-
proximately 6 million people have 16
votes. And the eight largest States in
the Union?some of which are New York,
California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio,
and New Jersey?have 16 votes. But
they have over 80 million people.
This is the result of the compromise of
1787. Th16 was the price which the big
States paid for the Union. The small
States at that time stated that they
would not join the Union unless they had
equality of representation in at least
one House of the National Legislature.
And the Delegate from Delaware, Gun-
ning Bedford, as I remember?according
to Madison's journal, threatened at one
point in the proceedings that if Delaware
were not given equal representation, Del-
aware would not join the Union, but
? would make an alliance with a foreign
power. We would have had either
France or Great Britain planted on our
shore. And with the pistol pointed at
their heads, the delegations from Massa-
chusetts and Virginia permitted equality
of representation in order to get union.
This is the one feature in the Federal
system which cannot be altered. Article
V of the Constitution states that no State
shall be deprived of equal representation
in the Senate without its consent, the
precise language being:
No State, without its consent, shall be de-
prived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
That is the one feature in the Consti-
tution which cannot be amended, and
which is beyond the control of amend-
ments.
Mr. President, we in the big cities,
while we regret this, are not threatening
to secede from the Union, as Delaware
threatened in 1787. We know that the
provision places us at a disadvantage in
this body. We know that in a sense we
are second-class citizens in this body.
But that was the pride of union.
I, as senior Senator from lllinois, voted
for the admission of Alaska and Hawaii,
which, in effect, diluted the already di-
luted strength of my State. I did so
because I thought it was good for the
United States of America. Unlike cer-
tain Members of the Senate, I placed the
interests of the United States ahead even
of the interests of my State. I make
that statement without any reflection
upon individuals. I try to act for the
interests of the United States, because
we are a nation and not a confederation.
We were a confederation under the
Articles of Confederation, but we be-
came a federated power with the adop-
tion of the Constitution.
The advantages are great. As a. na-
tion, we have contributed greatly to the
world; and we of the big States are ready
to accept the permanent shackles which
are fastened upon us and the frequent
humiliations which are heaped upon us
as individuals. We will suffer all of
those disadvantages in the interest of the
United States.
But there is no reason why that ar-
rangement should be carried out inside
the States. There is no reason, as I shall
develop at greater length tomorrow when
I have an opportunity fully to make my
arguments, why land should be equally
represented in the States. There is no
reason why each county should have
equal representation in the Senate of
Maryland or in the Senate of Califor-
nia or in the Senate of New Jersey or in
the. Senate or Nevada or the Senate of
Montana or the other States, because
while States were sovereign at the for-
mation of the Union, counties and towns
are not sovereign within the States.
They are creatures of the State. The
State is not their creature. If in the
early days of New Hampshire, Vermont,
and Connecticut it was necessary to fed-
erate the towns in order to get them in,
that necessity has long since passed, and
in law and in practice, in New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, and Connecticut, as well
as in the rest of the Union, the town,
which is the predominant system of gov-
ernment in New England, is a legal crea-
ture of the State. Their consent is not
August 13
needed as the consent of Delaware,
Maryland, and New Jersey was needed at
the formation of the Republic.
Therefore, the argument by analogy
that because there is an equality of rep-
resentation of States in the U.S.
Senate there should be equality in the
representation in the bodies of State leg-
islatures, generally the senate, but in
certain cases the house, falls completely
to the ground. I shall deal with that
subject tomorrow at greater length and
in more detail.
In my judgment the Supreme Court
has been completely correct. It has
moved to try to correct an old injustice
which has operated against the people of
both the cities and of the suburbs, be-
cause the suburbs are now as important
as the cities. The Sup'reme Court has
moved to remove injustices which the
legislatures themselves would not remove
becaues they failed to act over long pe-
riods of time. Instead of condemning
the Supreme Court, we should praise it.
Instead of holding up John Marshall
Harlan II, we should hold up Earl War-
ren and the majority of the Court. They
were correct in the civil rights cases;
they are correct in the apportionment
cases. It is a tragedy that a campaign
against the Supreme Court has operated
to inflame a certain section of the pub-
lic mind against it.
In my judgment, the Supreme Court
has never risen to greater heights than
in the last 10 years, and the decisions
on reapportionment match the great de-
cisions on denial of civil rights through
segregated education handed down in
1954 and 1955. So, far from impeach-
ing Earl Warren, I think he is one of
the greatest citizens this Nation has ever
had, and I take my stand along with
him.
WHAT ARE THE EMOTIONS BEHIND THIS MAN
Mr. President, I know that in matters
of this kind it is not pure reason which
governs,- but rather emotion and, in a
sense, prejudice. I know what the prej-
udices and emotions are which run be-
low the surface. A part of the feeling
is resentment against the Supreme
Court for its civil rights decisions; part
of it is fear on the part of entrenched,
petty, peanut politicians that they would
not be reelected to the State legisla-
tures if the districts were properly ap-
portioned.
There are even stronger motives than
that. There is a fear on the part of
some of those across the aisle or in the
Republican Party that implementation
of the Court's decision would strength-
en Democratic control over the State
legislatures.
Mr. President, if it is right and just,
it should not be condemned because it
would help the Democrats. Justice is
independent of party; and I do not be-
lieve that we Democrats should lacerate
ourselves and acknowledge our inferi-
ority because the decision might help
the Democratic Party. I believe our
friends across the aisle have no right
to favor their measure because they
think it would help their party.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
196-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ? 18857
Justice does not reside entirely in the
Republican Party. It does not reside
entirely in the Democratic Party. .But
merely because a proposal might help the
Democratic Party is no reason why this
body should reject it. I hope that
Democrats may cure themselves of any
inferiority complex which the Republi-
cans may strive to instill in them, and
stand for this measure if they think it is
right.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
the most rapidly growing sections of our
States and the most unrepresented are
the suburbs?
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that,
by and large, the central cities are los-
ing population?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I have already de-
veloped that point at great length. The
Senator is .absolutely correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that
it is quite possible, if not likely, that in
areas which are usually Republican?
as it would work in my State in relation
to apportionment; which I discussed a
few minutes ago with the Senator?the
Republicans would gain at least as much
as would the Democrats by the proposed
apportionment? As the Senator has said,
the question should be decided on the
basis of justice, and not on the basis of
partisan advantage.
Mr. DOUGLAS. What the Senator
has said is completely correct. I pointed
out that the suburbs now in many cases
are more populous than the central
cities. We all know that the suburbs
tend to be strongly Republican, more
strongly Republican, indeed, than the
central cities tend to be Democratic.
In my State of Illinois a very able po-
litical reporter, Mr. Tom Littlewood, who
is the political correspondent at Spring-
field for the Chicago Sun Times, has pre-
pared an analysis of what would be the
likely results of the reapportionment of
the Illinois State Senate' In Illinois, 29
percent of the population elect a ma-
jority of the Illinois State Senate, and 71
percent of the population elect a minor-
ity. The 29 percent of the population
have two and a half times- the voting
power in the State senate that the 71
percent of the population have. Mr. Lit-
tlewood said that "down State," which is
known as the area outside the Chicago
metropolitan area, would lose eight Sen-
ate seats. It is believed that at least two
of those would be Democrats, possibly
three. How would those eight seats be
reapportioned? First Chicago would
gain two seats, and the suburbs in Cook
County outside of Chicago would gain
three seats. These three new suburban
seats would undoubtedly, under present
conditions, be Republican. We hope to
change that, but as of now, they are
Republican.
Second, three more seats would be
'gained in the following counties:
Du Page, which is the strongest Repub-
lican county, stronger than Westchester
County; Kane, which is an industrial
county, but with some rural residences;
and Lake, which, with a population along
the lake front, is heavily residential, as
is McHenry County. They are all strong
Republican counties. They would gain
three seats.
So the Democratic gains in Chicago
would just about offset the Democratic
losses downstate. The six Republican
gains in the Chicago area would roughly
balance the six or five Republican losses
downstate.
There would be no real party change
in this respect, but there would be a real
change with regard to the representation
of the cities and suburbs. So Chicago
would be more adequately represented in
accordance with its population and so
would the suburbs to an even greater
extent.
What is true of Chicago is true of most
cities. I think in the South the Demo-
cratic Party would definitely be hurt,
because the situation in the South is dif-
ferent from that in the North and West.
It is the country districts there which are
Democratic, and it is the cities which are
becoming Republican. There is no more
conservative city in the country than
Houston or Dallas. They are grossly un-
derrepresented in the State legislatures,
and indeed in the Congress. This is true
throughout the South. There would be
a decrease in Democratic strength and
an increase in Republican strength.
I am for that, even though it would
hurt the Democratic Party, because it is
just and because I think right and justice
should stand above party. But I would
also before it if it helped the Democratic
Party. I appeal to my friends to put
the country first, and insofar as the
South is concerned, they will benefit
by it.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. MILLER. I should like to ask a
question or two of the Senator from Il-
linois. The first is with respect to the
pending amendment--
Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator
mean the so-called Dirksen amendment?
Mr. MILLER. The amendment pro-
posed by the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] and the Senator from Montana
[Mr. MANSFIELD] , No. 1215.
As I understand the amendment in
application to my own State of Iowa, a
three-man court in Iowa directed the
Iowa Legislature to reapportion itself on
an interim basis. It directed further that
it should also reapportion itself on a per-
manent basis in line with the Iowa con-
stitution.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator
mean that the Iowa constitution had
previously been violated?
Mr. MILLER. Parts of the Iowa con-
stitution were held to be unconstitutional
under the 14th amendment of the Fed-
eral Constitution.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Was it not violated
by the refusal of the Iowa Legislature
to reapportion?
Mr. MILLER. That is not quite cor-
rect. I point out, however?I think this
is responsive to what the Senator is in-
terested in?that parts of the Iowa con-
stitution were held to be unconstitutional
under the Federal Constitution, more
particularly under the 14th amendment.
As a result of the three-man court order,
the Iowa Legislature inaugurated an in-
terim apportionment plan. It was duly
adopted. Primary elections were held
last June to fill seats in the newly appor-
tioned legislature. Both houses were
apportioned in line with the court order,
one house being strictly on a population
basis, and the other house being on a
substantially population basis but with
some area factor involved, so that, as. a
result, about 40 percent of the population
would be in control of the second house,
rather than 51 percent.
The Iowa Legislature also passed a so-
called permanent reapportionment plan
which would require adoption in identi-
cal form in the nextsuccessive session of
the legislature, and then a vote of the
people.
I find it impossible to believe, as a re-
sult of the Supreme Court decision in
Reynolds against Sims holding that both
Houses must be on a population basis,
that this three-man court would, in im-
plementing the Supreme Court's decision,
now order the Iowa Legislature to be re-
convened, to adopt the reapportionment
plans in accordance with the Reynolds
against Sims opinion, and then to have a
special primary election some time in
September, to be followed by the general
election in November.
In my best judgment, and according
to my best advice, the effect of the three-
man court order would?
Mr. DOUGLAS. What is the question
of the Senator?
Mr. MILLER. I am leading up to the
question. I think it important, in order
to develop the question, that the founda-
tion be laid, as I am doing it.
I find it impossible to believe that the
three-man court would do this. I think
it will let things remain as they are.
They will let the election go forward in
November and the interim legislature
meeting next year, in line with the three-
man court direction of last spring?
Mr. DOUGLAS. What is the ques-
tion?
Mr. Mu ,T,F,R. The most that could
be done then would be for the regular
session of the legislature next year to
adopt a reapportionment plan in line
with Reynolds against Sims.
The election thereunder would not be
held until 1966, and the newly reappor-
tioned legislature would not meet until
January 1967.
As I read the amendment, it would
have absolutely no impact on that situa-
tion. The newly apportioned legislature
would come into being quite naturally,
regardless of the fact that the amend-
ment was adopted.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope my good
friend will not object if I again ask him
what his question is.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. MILLER. I will ask the Senator
the question if he will be a little more
patient.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I have been patient
for many minutes. I hope the Senator
will forgive if I repeat. I should like to
hear the question.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Il-
linois and I have had many colloquies
before. I have always been more than
willing to let him lay his foundation for
a question. However, the question is
this: Why, in the face of this situation,
would the Senator from Illinois object to
the adoption of the pending amendment?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is that the question?
Mr. MILLER. That is the question.
Mr. DOUGLAS. My reply is that Iowa
certainly needed to reapportion, and that
it would not have done so without the
prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
Reading from this study by David and
Eisenberg, as of the 1960 census, in the
lower house, there were 108 members.
The smallest population per member was
7,468. The largest population per mem-
ber was 133,157. The smallest district
had approximately 19 times as much
representation per person as the largest
district. I presume that would be Des
Moines.
So far as the upper house is concerned,
which has a membership of 50, the small-
est district had 17,756, and the largest
266,315 per member. So the ratio there
was about 16 to 1.
Mr. MILLER. I served in that legis-
lature. I already know those figures.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The country may not
know the figures. So far as the lower
House is concerned, the lowest district
had 17.8 times the representation per
person. So far as the Senate is con-
cerned, it was 15 times.
The Senator from Illinois is not an ex-
pert on the subject, but we might find
that the same situation that the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin anticipated will hold
good for Iowa, namely, that if the
amendment goes into effect, the previous
reapportionment will fall to the ground
and the State will have to go back to the
previous legislature, which was badly ap-
portioned. That may be true. I ask my
friend from Iowa to stop, look, and listen
before he follows my junior colleague
down the primrose path, which may have
a bear trap at the end.
Mr. MILLER. Almost anything could
happen. We might have a tornado in
Iowa which would destroy the general
assembly. What I am interested in is
how the amendment would affect the
situation in Iowa.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Every man seems to
be his own constitutional lawyer. The
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE]
pointed out that it might well be that
the reapportionment in the Wisconsin
Legislature, which I believe is more
thoroughgoing than it is in Iowa, may
be thrown out by the court because of
the provisions of the present amend-
ment, if it is enacted. I merely say that
this is something to consider. I advise
my friend from Iowa to watch, look, and
listen before he goes overboard in stip-
port of the Dirksen amendment.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
? Mr. MILLER. As I read the amend-
ment, all it provides is that the Governor
of Iowa or the Attorney General of Ohio
or any member of the Legislature of
Iowa may go before the three-man
court in Des Moines and request a stay
with respect to the implementation of
the Reynolds versus Sims decision.
I suggest to my friend from Illinois
that it is not necessary to do that at all.
I know every member of the three-man
court. I am sure they will not im-
mediately order the Iowa Legislature to
convene and adopt a new reapportion-
ment plan, then set up special laws for
the primary election in September, and
then go through with the November elec-
tion, so that in January they will come in
under the newly reapportionment pro-
gram. I am sure they will go through
with their original decision to have the
interim legislature, for which members
have already been nominated, and to
which they will be elected in November,
convene, and that then they will expect
the new legislature to reapportion along
the lines of the Reynolds versus Sims
case.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope my friend is
correct in his reading of the crystal ball.
However, there is no surety about it. My
friend from Wisconsin may wish to com-
ment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If we adopt the
amendment, we take discretion away
from the court. We would provide that
a stay for the period necessary shall be
deemed to be in the public interest in
the absence of highly unusual circum-
stances. The author of the amendment,
Senator DIRKSEN, has said that this
means that in 99.66 percent of the cases,
it would be mandatory. The court
would be stopped cold from putting its
orders into effect.
The courts were proceeding to bring
voting equality throughout America.
They will not be able to proceed if this
amendment is adopted. The three-man
Iowa court must stop the execution of its
apportionment decision. It would re-
vert back to the previous situation be-
fore apportionment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If the decisions of
the court will not further affect Iowa, the
Senator from Iowa does not have to vote
for the Dirksen amendment. Things
will take their course. Why take a
chance on muddying the waters?
Mr. MILLER. The answer to that, of
course, is the same answer the Senator
from Illinois and the Senator from Wis-
consin gave in a situation like that,
namely, we are not that provincial; we
are legislating for all the 50 States.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator started
on Iowa.
Mr. MILLER. I cited Iowa because I
was most familiar with it.
kagust 13
Mr. DOUGLAS. Then, on a matter
with which the Senator is most familiar,
there is no doubt.
Mr. MILLER,. The only danger that I
can see is what the Senator from Illinois
would suggest, namely, that if the
amendment were not adopted, the three-
man court in Des Moines would convene
the Iowa Legislature and tell it to reap-
portion in a matter of 10 or 11 days; then
have a special primary election held in
September, and go through with the
regular election in November. If the
Senator is suggesting that as a possibil-
ity, I certainly would be in favor of the
Dirksen amendment, because it would be
chaotic to have such a procedure. It
would be so chaotic that I am sure the
three-man court in Des Moines would not
do it. However, if the Senator from Illi-
nois is suggesting this as a possibility,
I have every reason to support the pend-
ing amendment, which has been offered
by the two leaders in the Senate.
Mr. DOUGLAS. My good friend has
spoken about taking the National point
of view and not the State point of view.
If that is the case, I advise him to look
to the State of Wisconsin, where, the
Senator from Wisconsin has said, things
might be thrown into chaos. It is ad-
mitted that things would not be thrown
into chaos in Iowa by the decisions of
the Court as they now stand. My good
friend says he is not particularly con-
cerned about Iowa, but concerned about
other States. I am concerned about
Iowa. I do not want his fair State, the
greatest corn-producing State in the
Union, thrown into chaos. I do not want
tO have the great State of Wisconsin
thrown into chaos. We should proceed
in an orderly manner to reapportion
in accordance with court orders.
Mr. MILLER. If the Senator wishes
to proceed in an orderly manner to re-
apportion, he should have more faith in
the reasonableness of the Federal courts.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I prefer the courts
to the State legislatures but we have been
speaking about State legislatures.
Mr. MILLER. He should have more
faith in the courts applying standards
set forth in the amendment. They are
to see to it that a stay is granted, but
only for a reasonable time. I point out
to the Senator from Illinois that a rea-
sonable time in the mind of the three-
man court in Des Moines is a matter of
months, not a matter of years.
Furthermore, I suggest that if there
should be a court in some other State
which saw fit to delay the matter unduly,
there would be opportunities to carry the
issue before the Supreme Court; and my
guess is that the Supreme Court is not
interested in moving slowly in this mat-
ter; nor is this amendment designed for
slow movement. I think that the part
relating to January 1, 1966, shows an
evidence that it is intended?I believe the
junior Senator from Illinois will point
this out, if he has not already done so?
that legislatures that convene in regular
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
session after January 1, 1966, will be re-
apportioned according to the Constitu-
tion.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It does not say that;
it says that the legislatures of such
States shall have "a reasonable oppor-
tunity in regular session * * * follow-
ing the adjudication of constitutionality
to apportion representation in such leg-
islature in accordance with the Constitu-
tion."
Mr. MILLER. If the Senator will read
the paragraph previous to the one he
just read, he will see the date "January
1, 1966."
Mr. DOUGLAS. That merely relates
to the State election of representatives
before 1966; it does not concern future
reapportionment.
Mr. MILLER. The January 1966
target date, referred to in the previous
paragraph, lends credence to the un-
derstanding that has been expressed,
and will be expressed, that legislatures
be properly apportioned when they con-
vene in regular session following Janu-
ary 1, 1966. If the Senator from Illinois
has any question about that intention,
he might wish to develop it, because I
think it is important and is reasonable.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I intend to develop
my questioning tomorrow, when I shall
have an opportunity to expand at greater
length upon this subject.
Mr. MILLER. May I go on to another
point?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be glad to
yield for questions; otherwise, after a
brief statement, I shall yield the floor,
and the Senator from Iowa may make a
speech.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Iowa
does not wish to make a speech; he
wishes to enjoy a colloquy with the Sen-
ator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be glad to
answer questions; but one of the rules
of this body is that a Senator may not
yield for a speech without taking a
chance on losing his right to the floor.
I do not wish to have someone take me
off my feet because I might forget to say
that I will yield on condition that I shall
not lose my right to the floor.
Mr. MILLER. I assure the Senator
from Illinois that he need have no fears
on that point.
The Senator from Illinois is familiar
with the fact, is he not, that several
constitutional amendments on this sub-
ject are pending in both the House and
Senate?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is just the point.
Mr. MILLER. One of them provides
that in States having bicameral legis-
latures, one house must be elected strictly
on a population basis; but that the peo-
ple shall have the exclusive right to de-
termine the composition of the other
house.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Whose constitutional
amendment proposal is that?
Mr. MILLER. Several such proposals
have been introduced in the House. One
has been introduced in the Senate by sev-
eral members of both parties, including
the junior Senator from Iowa. Is the
Senator from Illinois familiar with the
essence of the amendment to which I
am referring?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I have not had an op-
Portunity to study it in detail.
Mr. MILLER. The essence is, as I
have stated, that one house must be
elected strictly on a population basis,
while the people of the State will decide
for themselves the composition of the
second house.
I ask the Senator from Illinois if he
has any objection to leaving it to the peo-
ple of the State, whether they come from
Chicago, from the suburbs, or from the
rural areas, deciding, in a proper refer-
endum?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Not by the legisla-
ture, but by the people?
Mr. MILLER. That is correct; the
People in a general election or referen-
dum would decide the question for them-
selves.
Mr. DOUGLAS. First, I have not
studied the amendment of the Senator
from Iowa. I am not p:t all certain that
it will be the one actually proposed. But
I shall make a basic point on this subject.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the
Preamble to the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, he spoke of the basic rights of
man:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain un-
alienable rights.
That means that one generation can-
not give away its rights and bind a future
generation. If, one set of people cannot
give away their rights, an individual can-
not give away his rights.
It is an accepted principle of law that
a man cannot contract himself into
slavery or into serfdom. Suppose he
signs a contrnct to give up his liberty.
The courts have held that this is uncon-
stitutional, Fe-cause they knew that the
contract might have been exacted from
the person under conditions of which
he was relatively ignorant, because he
had unequal bargaining power, or
be-
cause he was deluded.
The Senator from Iowa misunder-
stands the fundamental, basic rights of
man. Jefferson said they are unalien-
able. There are certain rights that the
community cannot take away from him,
and which he himself cannot assign.
WHAT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT
I myself believe that the 14th amend-
ment deserves more recognition than it
gets in this body. Let me read the words
of the 14th amendment:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of - the
United States and of the State wherein they
reside.
They are to have national citizenship
as well ? as State citizenship. All are
first-class citizens; none are second-class
citizens. The 14th amendment con-
tinues:
No State shall make or enforce any law
Which shall abridge the privileges or immu-
nities of citizens of the United States; ,nor
shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of
law.
Now we come to the essential point:
Nor deny to any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the law.
18853
The Supreme Court has held?and I
believe correctly?that there cannot be
ectual protection of the laws if there is
appreciably unequal representation; that
approximately equal representation is
needed to guarantee the equal protec-
tion of the laws; and that this is an
unalienable right that man cannot sign
away or vote away. Neither can a State
legislature take it away.
An attempt is being made to fasten
these- shackles on the people of the vari-
ous States, if malrepresented State leg-
islatures choose to pass the amendment
which is sent up to them and which, even
under popular referendum, under pres-
sure of the party press, might be ap-
proved. Deputy Attorney General Katz-
enbach says that the attempt is consti-
tutional. I doubt it.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. If the people do not
like or do not agree with the decision of
the Supreme Court, they certainly have
the right, do they not, to adopt an
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to change the decision of
the Supreme Court?
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is not the
thrust of the proposed amendment. The
Senator from Iowa may have this in
mind; but the amendments I have seen
and studied in detail provide that the
matter is to go to the State legislatures,
or may go to the State legislatures.
I point out that the State legislatures,
in spite of the recent shotgun reforms
they have carried out, are grossly mal-
represented; and the amendment would
turn over to unrepresentative bodies the
power to continue themselves in office
for a long period of time, and perhaps in
perpetuity, by a constitutional amend-
ment to that effect. That is the gist of
what I am trying to say.
Mr. MILLER. That is the reason why
I asked the question. I wanted to find
out whether the Senator had misunder-
stood the proposal.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I may not under-
stand the Miller amendment as thor-
oughly as the Senator does, but I promise
him that I will study the amendment.
Nevertheless, I think I know what some
of the amendments originally put before
the Committee on the Judiciary mean.
They mean something totally different
from what the Senator from Iowa says
they mean.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Iowa
has studied the amendment, so he would
understand it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator
produce it, so that I may read it?
Mr. MILLER. I shall be happy to ob-
tain a copy for the Senator.
Mr. DOUGLAS. May I read it now?
Mr. MILLER. While the pages are
obtaining a copy of the amendment, I
should like to point out that the Senator
from Illinois said that if this particular
amendment were adopted, it would then
be submitted, for ratification, to the
State legislatures which are malappor-
tioned, and that they could adopt the
amendment and perpetuate themselves
in office.'
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I point out again to the Senator from
Illinois that the amendment of which I
am speaking states specifically what has
been stated earlier, that it would merely
provide that the people of the State, and
not the State legislature, would decide
for themselves whether the second house
should be on some other basis than a
strictly popular basis.
I cannot understand the logic of the
Senator?although he is one who always
reasons with a great deal of logic?in
concluding that such a provision would
lead to the perpetuation of malappor-
tionment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator from
Iowa has stated his amendment accu-
rately?and I do not have it yet, so it is
not so available to Senators as it might
be and so I may be pardoned if I do not
have the details of it yet. But if the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa
is as he has stated it to be?which I am
ready to believe it is?then it is a vast im-
provement on the amendments which
came out of or are before the Judiciary
Committee. However, it still does not
deal with the basic question as to whether
the equal protection of the laws is a
fundamental right under the Constitu-
tion which cannot be waived even hY a
person himself or even by a majority.
Mr. MILLER. While I sometimes dis-
agree with the Senator from Illinois and
I sometimes agree with him, it has been
my observation that he professes to have
great faith in the people. It was there-
fore my hope that his support could be
enlisted for my amendment because it
does place in the people of a State?the
very people the Senator is talking about
In the case of his own State, the people
In the big cities, the people in the sub-
urbs, and the people in the rural areas?
/the power to decide the composition of
the second house. I would hope that on
review of my amendment, his support
could be obtained. I believe that regard-
less of what the Supreme Court decisions
may be, ultimately the power resides in
the people of this country. If the people
do not agree with the Supreme Court's
decisions?and they may not?they have
not on previous occasions?they have the 8,
power to change them.
I hold in my hand a copy of the pro-
posed constitutional amendment, Senate
Joint Resolution 185. There are many
cosponsors of the amendment, as I point-
ed out earlier, from both sides of the
aisle.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent
to have it printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the joint
resolution was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States: ?
"ARTICLE?
"SECTION 1. Except as otherwise provided
by this article the citizens of each State shall
have exclusive power to determine the com-
position of its legislature and the apportion-
ment of the membership thereof, and such
power shall not be infringed nor the exercise
thereof be reviewed in an original action or
on appeal or controlled by the United States
or any branch of the Government thereof.
The membership of at least one house of the
legislature of each State shall be apportioned
as nearly equally as possible according to
the number of persons determined by the
enumeration provided in article I, section 2,
or if there is only one house of the legislature
then upon such combination of population
and area as the citizens of the State shall
determine.
"SEC. 2. This article shall be inopera-
tive unless it shall have been ratified as an
amendment to the Constitution by the legis-
latures of three-fourths of the States within
seven years from the date of its submission
to the States by the Congress."
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I invite
the attention of the Senator from Illinois
to section 1 on page 2.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is this the original
Dirksen amendment? ?
Mr. MILLER. This has nothing to do
with any amendment. This is a Senate
joint resolution. Let me point out that
similar measures have been introduced
in the House.
Mr. DOUGLAS. This is Senate Joint
Resolution 185.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The first sponsor of
this amendment is my colleague, the
junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRK-
SEX] I.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct.
There are many others, including Sena-
tors from both sides of the aisle. As I
said earlier, they include myself.
If the Senator will look on page 2, he
will note that:
* = ? citizens of each State shall have ex-
clusive power to determine the composition
of its legislature * * *.
And then in the next sentence on line
S.J. RES. 185
Joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution to reserve to each State
exclusive power to determine the composi-
tion of its legislature and the apportion-
ment of the membership thereof.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each
House concurring therein), That the follow-
ing article is proposed as an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, which
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the
The membership of at least one house of
the legislature of each State shall be appor-
tioned as nearly equal as possible according
to the number of persons determined by the
enumeration * * *.
Which is the census.
It is this language to which I have re-
ferred. I believe I have stated the es-
sence of it quite accurately. As I said
earlier in my observation of the frequent
references of the Senator from Illinois to
the people, I was persuaded that perhaps
he might support the amendment, be-
cause it gives power to the people of a
State to determine the composition of the
second house. It would be a gross mis-
statement and a gross misunderstanding
of the situation to suggest?as I am
afraid the Senator from Illinois did
earlier?that the adoption of the amend-
ment and its ratification by a malappor-
tioned legislation would lead to the per-
petuation of themselves in office.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot, at this time,
go into an amendment which I have had
Zugust 13
no opportunity to study. I shall con-
sider the amendment later. I merely
ask whether this is the original constitu-
tional amendment which the Senator
from Illinois prepared?
Mr. MILLER. I cannot 'respond to
that. I know only what is before me.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It does not seem to
me to be the original amendment which I
read. I shall be very glad to study it
and consider the whole matter.
Mr. MILLER. The ultimate question
resolves itself into whether the Senator
from Illinois would be willing to leave it
to the people to decide the composition
of the second house.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to con-
sider the whole amendment, because
there are frequently beartraps in
amendments which one should be care-
ful about. I shall give the amendment
careful consideration.
Mr. MILLER. I can understand why
the Senator from Illinois would wish to
study very carefully something as impor-
tant as my amendment, but the point I
wish to make?and I thank him for
yielding to me so" that I can do so?is
that I believe it is very important to un-
derstand what we are talking about, be-
cause if there are any misunderstand-
ings, I am afraid that the public may
get some wrong impressions which will
not be helpful.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall
look into this question and try to secure
a copy of the original constitutional
amendment as it came from the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary so that it may be
printed in the RECORD.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, before
the Senator asks unanimous consent for
that insertion in the RECORD, let me
suggest that he may be laboring under
a misapprehension. To my knowledge,
there has been no proper constitutional
amendment reported from the Senate
Judiciary Committee. I regret that it
has not been reported, but I do not be-
lieve that it has. This amendment is
still in the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am
ready to yield the floor under one con-
dition?namely, that tomorrow, at the
conclusion of the argument of the Sena-
tor from Illinois [Mr. DrxxszNl, I be
permitted to take the floor to reply, and
that this will not be counted 17t a second
speech.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
have no objection. I am sure that the
Senator need have no worry about any
second speech in this or any other de-
bate, because I believe that that proce-
dure is fallacious and useless.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclu-
sion of the explanatory address of the
junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRK-
mg], I be recognized and be permitted
to respond, without the speech being
counted as a second speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Presid-
ing Officer, and I also thank the ma-
jority leader.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
18861
EXHIBIT 1
TABLE 1.-1960 and 1950 population of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1968
[Asterisk (*) identifies additions to standard metropolitan statistical areas as defined for 1960 census. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease]
?,
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percen
increaseincreasi
United States (216 areas)
115, 796, 265
91, 568, 113
26. 5
Boston, Mass.-Continued
.1 I I
0.0 C.0 00 b0 ND b.) Ca Ca 1,0 ts, CO [0 b., 1,0 n0 CZ C0 it? C0 4s. Crt C0 ND tn 01.- t?D p?-? 00 0 0 0 0 4... ,1 CA 0 CO Vy C.0 OA tJ 0,1, 0.0 ND Gr, NJ 00 C.0 Ca 00 IA 02 07 )1:.
Middlesex County-Continued
120,377
85, 517
40.8
Abilene, Tex
Belmont Township
28, 715
27, 381
Jones County
19, 299
22, 147
-12.9
Burlington Township
12,852
3,250
Taylor County
101,078
63,570
59.5
Concord Township
12, 517
8,623
Akron, Ohio
605,367
473,966
27.7
Framingham Township
44,526
28, 086
Portage County*
91, 798
63,954
43.5
Lexington Township
27, 691
17,335
Summit County
513, 569
410, 0.32
25.3
Lincoln Township
5, 613
2, 427
Albany, Ga
75, 680
43, 617
73. 5
Natick Township
28, 831
19,838
Dougherty County
75, 680
43, 617
73.5
North Reading Township
8,331
4, 402
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y
657, 503
589, 359
11.6
Reading Township
19, 259
14,006
Albany County
272, 926
239,386
14.0
Sherborn Township*
1,806
1, 245
Rensselaer County
142, 585
132,607
7.5
Stoneham Township
17, 821
13,239.
Saratoga County
89, 096
74, 689
19.0
Sudbury Township
7,447
2, 596
Schenectady County ?
152, 896
142,497
7.3
Wakefield Township
24, 295
19, 633
Albuquerque, N. Mex
262, 199
145, 673
80.0
Watertown Township
39, 092
37, 329
Bernalillo County
262, 199
145, 673
80.0
Wayland Township
10, 444
4,407
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-NJ
492, 168
437, 824
12. 4
Weston Township
8, 261
5,026
Lehigh County, Pa
227, 536
198, 207
14.8
Wilmington Township
12, 475
7,039
Northampton County, Pa
201, 412
185, 243
8.7
Winchester Township
19, 376
15, 509
Warren County, NJ
63,220
54, 374
16.3
Norfolk County (part)
446, 524
348, 156
Altonna, Pa
137, 270
139, 514
-1.6
Quincy City
87, 409
83, 835
Blair County
137, 270
139, 514
-1.6
Braintree Township
31, 069
23, 161
Amarillo, Tex
149, 493
87, 140
71.6
Brookline Township
54, 044
57, 589
Potter County
115, 580
73, 366
57. 5
Canton Township
12, 771
7,468
Randall County
33, 913
15,774
146. 2
Cohasset Township
5,840
3, 731
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif.'
703, 925
216,224
225. 6
Dedham Township
23, 869
18, 487
Orange County
703, 925
216, 224
225. 6
Dover Township
2, 846
1, 722
Ann Arbor, Mich
172, 440
134, 606
28. 1
Holbrook Township
10, 104
4, 004
Washtenaw County
172,440
134,686
28. 1
Medfield Township
6,022
4,549
Asheville, N.0
130,074
124,403
4.6
Milton Township
26,375
22,395
Buncombe County ?
130, 074
124,403
4. 6
Millis Township*
4,374
2, 551
Atlanta, Ga
1,017, 188
726, 989
39.9
Needham Township
25, 793
16, 313
Clayton County
46,365
22, 872
102. 7
Norfolk Township
3,471
2, 704
Cobb County
114,174
61, 830
84.7
Norwood Township
24,898
16, 636
De Kalb County
256, 782
136,395
88.3
Randolph Township
18, 900
9,982
Fulton County
556,326
473, 572
17. 5
Sharon Township
10, 070
4,847
Gwinnett County
42,541
32,320
34.7
Walpole Township
14, 068
9, 109
Atlantic City, NJ
160, 880
132,399
21. 5
Wellesley Township
26, 071
20, 549
Atlantic County
168,880
132,399
21.5
Westwood Township
10,354
5, 837
Augusta, Gs..-S.0
216, 639
162,013
33. 7
Weymouth Township
48, 177
32, 690
Richmond County, Ga
135, 601
108, 876
24. 5
Plymouth County (part)
74, 290
43, 914
Aiken County, S.0
81,038
53, 137
52. 5
Duxbury Township
4, 727
3, 167
Austin, Tex
212, 136
160, 980
31. 8
Hanover Township
5, 923
? 3,389
Travis County
212, 136
160, 980
31. 8
Hingham Township
15, 378
10,665
Bakersfield, Calif
291, 984
228,309
27. 9
Hull Township
7,055
3, 379
Kern County
291, 984
228,309
27. 9
Marshfield Township
6, 748
3, 267
Baltimore, Md
1, 727, 023
1, 405, 399
22.9
Norwell Township
5, 207
2, 515
Baltimore City
939, 024
949, 708
-1. 1
Pembroke Township
4, 919
2, 579
Anne Arundel County
206, 634
117;392
76.0
Rockland Township
- 13,119
8,960
Baltimore County
492,428
270,273
82. 2
Scituate Township
11,214
5,993
Carroll County
52, 785
44,907
17.5
Suffolk County
791, 329
896, 615
Howard County
36, 152
23, 119
56.4
Boston City
697, 197
801, 444
Baton Rouge, La
230,018
158,236
45.4
Chelsea City
33,749
38,912
East Baton Rouge Parish
230, 058
158,236
45. 4
Revere City
40, 080
36, 763
Bay City, Mich
107,042
88,461
21. 0
Winthrop Town
20,303
19, 496
Bay County
107, 042
88,461
21. 0
Bridgeport, Conn
337,983
275, 888
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex
306, 016
235, 650
29.9
Fairfield County (part)
296, 321
249, 018
Jefferson County
245, 659
195, 083
25.9
Bridgeport City
156, 748
158, 709
Orange County
60,317
40, 567
48.8
Shelton City
18, 190
12,694
Billings, Mont
79, 016
55, 875
41.4
Easton Township
3,407
2, 165
Yellowstone County
79, 016
55, 875
41.4
Fairfield Township
46, 183
30,489
Binghamton, N.Y.-Pa
283,600
246, 834
14.9
Monroe Township
6,402
2,892
Broome County, N.Y
212,681
184, 698
15. 1
Stratford Township
45, 012
33, 428
Tioga County, N.Y.*
. 37, 802
30,166
25.3
Trumbull
20,379
8,641
Susquehanna County, Pa."
33, 137
31,970
- 3.7
New Haven County( part)
41, 662
26, 870
Birmingham, Ala
634, 864
558, 928
13. 6
Milford Township
41, 662
26,870
Jefferson County
634, 864
558, 928
13.6
Brockton, Mass
149, 458
119, 728
Boise City, Idaho'
93, 460
70, 649
32.3
Bristol County (part)
9, 078
6, 244
Ada County
93, 460
70, 649
32. 3
Easton Township
9,078
6, 244
Boston, Mass
2, 595, 481
2, 414,388
7. 5
Norfolk County (part)
20, 629
13, 812
Essex County (part)
308, 051
269, 584
14.3
Avon Township
4,301
2, 666
Beverly City
36, 108
, 28, 884
25. 0
Stoughton Township
16, 328
11, 146
Lynn City
94, 478
f 99, 738
-5. 3
Plymouth County (part)
119, 751
09,672
Peabody City
32, 202
22, 645
42.2
Brockton City
72, 813
62, 860
Salem City
39,211
41, 880
-6. 4
Abington Township
10, 607
7, 152
Danvers Township
21, 926
15, 720
39.5
Bridgewater Township
10, 276
9, 512
Hamilton Township
5, 488
2, 764
98. 6
East Bridgewater Township ,_
6, 139
4, 412
Lynnfield Township
8, 398
3, 927
113. 9
Hanson Township
4,570
3, 264
Manchester Township
3, 932
2,868
37. 1
West Bridgewater Township
5, 061
4, 059
Marblehead Township
18, 521
13, 765
34. 6
Whitman Township
10, 485
8, 413
' Middletown Township
3, 718
2, 916
27. 5
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Tex
151, 098
125, 170
Nahant Tow, nship
3,960
2,679
47.8
Cameron County
151,098
125, 170
. Saugus Township
20, 666
17, 162
20.4
Buffalo, N.Y
1, 306, 957
1, 069, 230
Swampscott Township
13, 294
11, 580
14.8
Eric County
1, 064, 688
899, 238
Topsfield Township
3,351
1, 412
137.3
Niagara County
242, 269
189, 992
Wenham Township
2, 798
1, 644
70.2
Canton, Ohio
340, 345
283, 194
Middlesex County (part)
975, 287
856, 099
13. 9
Stark County
340, 345
283, 194
Cambridge City
107, 716
120, 740
-10.8
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
136, 899
104, 274
Everett City
43, 544
45,982
-5.3
Linn County
136, 899
104, 274
Malden City
57, 676
59, 804
-3. 6
Champaign-Urbana, Ill
? 132, 436
106, 100
Medford City
64, 971
66, 113
-1.7
Champaign County
132, 436
100.100
Melrose City
29, 619
26,988
9.7
Charleston, S. C
254,578
195,107
Newton City
92,384
81, 994
12. 7
Berkeley County*
38, 196
30, 251
Somerville City
94,697
102, 351
-7. 5
Charleston County
216,382
164,856
Waltham City
55, 413
47, 187
17.4
Charleston, W.Va
252, 925
239, 629
Woburn City
31, 214
20,492
52.3
Kanawha County
252,923
239, 629
Arlington Township
49, 953
44,353
12.6
Charlotte, N.0
316,781
239,086
Ashland Township
7, 779
3, 500
122.3
Mecklenburg County
272, Ill
197,052
Bedford Town shin _
10. 969
5.234
109.6
Union County*
44.670
42.034
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
6
1
3
3
4
8
5
1
4
7
3
8
4
9
4
4
2
3
8
2
8
6
0
7
4
1
7
0
3
0
1
5
0
2
3
4
5
4
7
8
1
1
8
4
4
4
3
5
1
8
3
9
7
6
7
7
0
4
5
2
2
3
3
8
8
5
3
3
5
5
5
1
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
'August 13
ExHIBIT 1-Continued
TABLE 1.-1960 and 1950 population of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1968-Continued
[Asterisk (*) identifies additions to Standard metropolitan statistical areas as defined for 1960 Census. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease]
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga
283, 169
246,453
14. 9
Flint, Mich
416,239
.
'
CD 0 OD OD N., ... 0 , . . NI 00 CA 00 0,1 I. C. g . 0 .. I-, to .. ND Ca C. ,A... ND ND 0 C. . I-, . t. G.
.1.. 42. 0 0 ND ... , 0 0 ND tO 0 ND ND ND ND 0 -4 0> 0 ... ,II? C. 0 ,P. 0 CD 0 0 ,-, . ..... 0 I-, tO , CO ND CO 0 . IA. ,0. ,... 0 0 0 c0 CO CO 0 CT ^.1 00 CD ,,,,,. 0 0 ,--, . CO CO , -.4 CD OD 0. 00 0 . c. 0 N0 ... CO OD c.,, y a
7-, ..-. 2P- 2.- .9. I's :-.:...--,..90.F.,,...-..p,:g........?..K.,,p,.90.5).!..9..20,9,pp....os.e-1-...-.5, ...........`,P.t..14'.....e'S?.5,......:...-"S.P...F.:"S...P'S.,',.:`,P- o...:..etz-4.7...,.?...9.-9?.'"...'.9..90.5.;4.5.9.-..99.9...5...P.S.S.P.P.:-.5.5.10.5,44'1'....'.5...5*.5.-o-
.+, ,.. o o op ,--, o oo o o -. -4 ,--c o., oo $.4 ,-, oo -, o ,-, to co o --I, , CO CI . 0 0 ND 0 0 ND 1,0 ND 00 0 IA 00 0 00 ... CD 00 CD .? oo o ooco-o.o.o.co-o-o,o.o 00000. ND 0 CO C. Co 0 0 , ND 0 0 . b0 0000coco 0 0 Cc 0 V -a V OD t. V 0 V> ,.....,E -4
0. C. ND 0,2 0 CD ... C. NO NO NO , og to uo o oo OD 0 CD . ,... CO 0. 0 0 CD t. ND. 0 ... , C. --1 00 CC, l. C. C. C> 0, 0 on co .. to . oo co CA Co 0 r-? IA V 0 G. 0 CO CO Crf t. 10O 0 V, CA . cr. 0... 0 0 0. 0 ca v c,? 0 0 0, 0 0 .... c., 0, 0 , 0 0 v v 0 0 v 0 0 oo ,,,
, , . c0 .. ... C.. C. C. CD 0 , coa W. NJ . CO C. CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 C. 0 ,P. 0 CD 0 . OD C. ND 0 CD L. 00 0 CD C. OD 0 ... 0 0 -4 C. 0 . , cz m loo . , co co c.o oo oo 0 , V olD...., V . NO C.. 03 C. 00 CD CD ND ND 0 0 0 CD 0 NO ND 0 CD NO --1 00 0 C. IA ,
35. 7
Hamilton County, Tenn
237,905
208,255
14.2
Genesee County
374,313
38. 1
Walker County, Ga .,
45,26438,
198
18.5
Lapeer County*
41,926
17.1
Chicago, Ill
6, 220, 913
5, 177, 868
20. 1
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla
333,946
297. 9
Cook County
5, 129,725
4, 508, 792
13.8
Broward County
- 333, 946
297.9
Du Page County
313,459
154, 599
102.8
Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla
135, 110
-4. 8
Kane County
208,246
150,388
38. 5
Crawford County, Ark.*
21, 318
-6.2
Lake County
293,685
179,097
64.0
Sebastian County, Ark
66, 685
3. 9
McHenry County_
84,210
50,656
68.2
Le Flora County, Okla.*
29,106
-17.5
Will County
191,617
134,336
42.6
Sequoyah County, Okla.*
18,001
-9.0
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ind.-Ky
1, 268, 479
1, 023, 245
24. 0
Fort Wayne, Ind
232, 196
26. 4
Clermont County, Ohio*
80,830
42, 182
90.9
Allen County
232,196
20. 4
Hamilton County, Ohio
864, 121
723, 952
19.4
Fort Worth, Tex
573,215
46.fi
Warren County, Ohio*
65, 711
- 38, 505
70. 7
Johnson County
34, 720
10. 6
Dearborn County, Ind.*
28,674
25, 141
14. 1
Tarrant County _
538, 495
49. 1
Boone County, Ky.*
21,940
13,015
68.6
Fresno, Calif
365,945
32.3
Campbell County, Ky
86,883
76, 196
13. 9
Fresno County
365, 945
32. 3
Kenton County, Ky
120,700
104,254
15.8
Gadsden, Ala
96, 980
3. 3
Cleveland, Ohio
1, 909, 483
1, 532, 574
24. 6
Etowah County
96, 980
3.3
Cuyahoga County
1, 647, 895
1,389, 532
18.6
Galveston-Texas City, Tex
140,364
24. 1
Geauga County*
47, 573
26,646
78.5
Galveston County
140,364
24.1
Lake County148,
700
75, 979
95. 7
Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind
573, 548
40. 5
Medina County*
65,315
40,417
61.6
Lake County
513,269
39,4
Colorado Springs, Colo
143, 742
74,523
92.9
Porter County
60,279
50. 4
El Paso County
143, 742
74,523
92. 9
Grand Rapids, Mich
461, 906
27. 6
Columbia, S.0
260,828
186, 844
39.6
Kent County
363, 187
26. 0
Lexington County
60,726
44, 279
37.1
Ottawa County*
98,719
33.9
Richland County
200,102
142, 565
40.4
Great Falls, Mont
73, 418
88.5
Columbus, Ga.-Ala
217,985
170,541
27.8
Cascade County
73,418
38.5
Chattahoochee County, Oa
13,011
12,149
7.1
Green Bay, Wis
125,082
27.2
Muscogee County, Oa
158,623
118,028
34.4
Brown County
125,082
27.2
Russell County, Ala
46,351
40,364
14.8
Greensboro-High Point, N.0
246,520
29.0
Columbus, Ohio
754, 924
553,040
34.1
Guilford County
246,520
29.0
Delaware County*
36,107
30, 278
19.3
Greenville, S.0
228,806
22.9
Franklin County
682,962
503, 410
35. 7
Greenville County
209, 776
24.8
Pickaway County*
35,855
29, 352
22. 2
Pickens County*
46,030
14.9
Corpus Christi, Tex_
'
221, 573
153,471
33.9
Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio
199,076
38.2
? Nueces County
221, 573
165, 471
33.9
Butler County
199,076
35.2
Dallas, Tex
1, 083, 601
743,501
45.7
Harrisburg, Pa
371, 653
17.2
Collin County
41,247
41, 692
-1. 1
Cumberland County
124, 816
32. 1
Dallas County
951, 527
614, 799
54. 8
Dauphin county
220,255
11.4
Denton County
47, 432
41,365
14.7
Perry County*
88,582
7.3
Ellis County
43.395
45, 645
-4.9
Hartford, Conn
549, 249
30.8
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill
319, 375
280, 748
13. 8
Hartford County (part)
508, 868
28.5
Scotts County, Iowa
119,067
100, 698
18. 2
Hartford City
162, 178
-8.6
Henry County, Ill
49, 317
46, 492
6. 1
Avon Township
5,273
66.3
Rock Island County, HI
150, 991
133, 558
13. 1
Bloomfield Township
13,613
136.9
Dayton, Ohio
727, 121
545, 723
83.2
Canton Township
4,783
32.4
Greene County
94, 642
58, 892
60. 7
East Granby Township*
2, 434
83.4
Miami County
72, 901
61, 309
18. 9
East Hartford Township
43, 977
46. 9
Montgomery County
527,680
398, 441
32. 3
East Windsor Township
7,500
54.4
Preble County* ?
32, 498
27, 081
20.0
Enfield Township
31,464
103.5
Decatur, Ill
118,257
98, 853
19. 6
Farmington Township
10,813
53.0
Macon County
118,257
98, 853
19. 6
Glastonbury Township
14,497
64.4
Denver, Colo
929,383
612, 128
51. 8
Granby Town*
4,968
84. 5
Adams County
120, 296
40, 234
199. 0
Manchester Township
42, 102'
23.4
Arapahoe County
113, 426
52, 125
117. 6
Newington Township
17,664
93. 9
Boulder County
74, 254
48, 296
53. 7
Rocky Hill Township
7,404
44. 9
Denver County
493, 887
415, 786
18. 8
Simsbury Township
10,138
510.2
Jefferson County
127, 520
55, 687
129. 0
South Windsor Township
9,460
132. 7
Des Moines, Iowa
'266,315
226, 010
17. 8
Suffield Township
6, 779
38.5
Polk County
266, 315
226, 010
17. 8
West Hartford Township
62,382
40.5
Detroit, Mich
3, 762, 360
3,016, 197
24. 7
Wethersfield Township
20,561
64. 1
Macomb County
405, 804
184, 961
119. 4
Windsor Township
19,487
64. 5
Oakland County
690, 259
396, 001
74. 3
Windsor Locks Township
11,411
118.6
Wayne County
2, 666, 297
1, 435, 235
9. 5
Middlesex County (part)
6, 780_
58. 2
Dubuque, Iowa
8,0048
71,337
12.2
Cromwell Township
6, 780
58.2
Dubuque County
80,048
- 71, 337
12. 2
Tolland County (part)
33,601
71.7
Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wis
276, 596
232,777
9.4
Andover Town*
1, 771
71. 3
St. Louis County, Minn
231,588
206,062
12.4
Bolton Town*
2, 933
129. 3
Douglas County, Wis
- 45,008
46, 715
-3. 7
Coventry Town*
6,350
57.2
Durham, N.0
111, 995
101,639
10. 2
Ellington Town*
5,580
80. 1
Durham County
111,995
101,839
10 2
Vernon Township
16, 961
67. 7
El Paso, Tex
314, 070
194, 968
? 61. 1
Honolulu, Hawaii
500, 409
41. 8
El Paso County
314, 070
194,568
61. 1
Honolulu County
500,409
41.8
Erie, Pa
250,682
219,388
' 54.3
Houston, Tex'
1,243, 168
54. 1
Erie County
250, 682
219,388
14. 3
Barris County
1,243, 158
54. 1
Eugene, Oreg
162, 890
123,776
29. 5
Huntington-Ashland, W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio
254, 780
3. 7
Lane County
162,890
125, 776
29. 5
Cabell County, W.Va
108, 202
. 2
Evansville, Incl.-Ky
'222,896
212,664
4.8
Wayne County, W.Va
38,077
.7
Vanderburgh County, Ind
165, 794
160, 422
3. 3
,
Boyd County, Ky
62, 163
4. 4
Warrick County, Ind.*
23, 577
21,527
0,5
Lawrence County, Ohio
55, 438
12.9
Henderson County, Ky
33, 519
30, 715
9. 1
Huntsville, Ala
153,861
41. 6
Fall River, Mass.-R.I
138, 156
137, 298
0. 6
Limestone County*
36, 513
2. 1
Bristol County, Mass. (part) -
128, 695
131, 639
-2. 2
Madison County
117, 348
65.0
Fall River City
99, 942
111,963
-10. 7
Indianapolis, Ind
916, 932
30. 4
Somerset Township
12, 196
8, 566
42. 4
Hamilton County*
40, 132
40. 9
Swansea Township
9,916
6, 121
62. 0
Hancock County*
26, 665
31. 1
Westport Township
6,641
4, 989
33. 1
Hendricks County*
40, 896
66. 3
Newport County, R.I. (part)
9,461
5, 659
67. 2
Johnson County*
43, 704
66. 9
Tiverton Township
9, 461
5, 659
67. 2
Marion County
697, 567
26.4
Fargo-Moorhead, N. Dak.-Minn
106, 027
89. 240
18.8
Morgan County*
33, 875
42.8
Cass County, N. Dak
66, 947
58, 877
13. 7
Shelby County*
34,093
21. 6
Clay County, Minn
39, 080
80,383
28. 7
Jackson, Mich
131. 994
22.3
Fitchburg-Leominster, Mass
90, 158
- 80, 528
12. 0
Jackson County
131, 994
22.3
Middlesex County (part)
8,852
7,088
24.9
Jackson, Miss
221,367
20.4
. Shirley Township
5, 202
4, 271
21.8
Hinds County
187, 045
31. 6
Townsend Township* -?
Worcester County (part)
3,696
81, 306
2,817
73, 440
29. 6
10. 7
Rankin County*
34, 322
18. 8
Fitchburg City
43, 021
42,691
.8

Jacksonville, Fla
455, 411
49. 8
Leominster City
27,929
28,075
16.0
Duval County
455, 411
49. 8
Lunenburg Township
6,33
3,906
62.2
Jersey City, N.J
610, 734
-5.7
Westminster Township*
4, 022
2.768
45. 3
Hudson County
610. 734
-5. 7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
18863
EXHIBIT 1-Continued
TAB Ln 1.-1960 and 1950 popitlation of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, /968-Continued
[Asterisk (*) identifies additions to standard metropolitan statistical areas as defined for 1960 census. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease]
?
. ,
,
.., 55
PP:9,I0P!-'!-PP.P..-',.P0?,,9,..?,5.PP:.74F.S.5.PP?PP5,9,,..PPF-.7,Pr"!-90P!.P59........0,.?. a
..............................-..,...................,.......
,
*
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Johnstown, Pa
280, 733
?
?
.. .. .. . . 1.P.......... .. .. . NNN N W . CA W..
WcotPooN.WNNW.,000 ....14,41AM,CA.141.0..MPap. ,PNMG.50701 N ...MW.,1,4+0101,14.Wo4.WWMWONOINOTOIW,T,IM...-4.-..-NNW8
VVP,t'n.2PSPP.F..S.P.P..:.P..!-YJ'P:.9..P4-':'PPw.2.4P.r'2"PPPP?P,P..P.PPPe.PS-.9?P..C..5t"P..',9?.e'I'2?PP.PPPP.9..P.P1..P..."1.-I.e......P.7...."4.'?'.'N'...'-',....m.'..'
ZsAelgp,,l'..WW.4"=?:"...''c'E.W..'=,...'"""'OnC,OMMM."....-.".W.'...4.4'....'00......WW,,,,..N,AW,4NN..m:+0..?4.4.01?.M.P..MMW,,O0WW.,,W,,.W
.,..? ....? -. ? IP CU en Olr.-1 ..-40.2NO, ..C.3.00>00.-..... . OP CO. C:b 05 00 00 .. FP.. Ca rP? tA ]-, --I COCO ba 0. 0 0.1 -4 0 .00 -,1 0 46 . WQ0C0.4a. N COW .4, it.? ,P. t,3 0 Cm .-, . Ca C414, IP 0. 00eia da . 0. , 0., t., b., 01 OCD . Xc.r.
Memphis, Tenn.-Ark
674, 583
529, 577
27.4
Cambria County
203, 283
Shelby County, Tenn
627, 017
482, 393
30.0
Somerset County
77, 450
Crittenden County, Ark*
47, 564
47, 184
0.8
Kalamazoo, Mich
169, 712
Meriden, Conn
51,850
44, 088
17. 6
Kalamazoo County
169, 712
New Haven County (part)
51,850
44,088
17. 6
Kansas City, Mo.-Kans
1,092, 515
Meriden City
51, 850
44,088
. 17. 6
Cass County, Mo.*
29, 702
Miami, Fla
935, 047
495, 084
88. 9
Clay County, Mo
87, 474
Dade County
935, 047
495, 084
88. 9
Jackson County, Mo
622, 732
Midland, Tex
67, 717
25, 785
162. 6
Platte County, Mo.*
23, 350
Midland County
67, 717
25, 785
.162.6
Johnson County, Kans
143, 792
Milwaukee, Wis
1, 232, 731
980, 309
25. 7
Wyandotte County, Kans
185, 495
Milwaukee County
1,036, 041
871, 047
18. 9
Kenosha, Wis
100, 615
Ozaukee County*
38,441
23, 361
64. e
Kenosha County
100, 615
Waukesha County
158, 249
85, 901
84. 2
Knoxville, Tenn
368, 080
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn
1, 482, 030
1, 151, 653
28. 8
Anderson County
60, 032
Anoka County
859, 916
35, 579
141. 5
Blount County
57, 525
Dakota County
78,300
49, 019
59. 7
Knox County
250, 523
Hennepin County
842, 854
676, 579
24. 6
Lafayette, La.,
Lafayette Parish
84,616
84,656
Ramsey County
Washington County
422, 525
62, 432
355, 332
34, 544
18.9
51.8
Lake Charles, La
145, 475
Mobile, Ala
300,389
272, 102
33. 5
Calcasieu Parish
' 141,475
Baldwin County*
49,088
40, 997
19. 7
Lancaster, Pa
278, 359
Mobile County
314, 301
231, 105
36. C
Lancaster County
288,359
Monroe, La
101,663
74,713
36.1
Lansing, Mich
298, 949
Ouachita Parish
N.
101, 663
74, 713
36. 1
Clinton County
37, 969
Montgomery, Ala
199, 734
170, 614
17. 1
Eaton County
49, 684
Elmore County*
30,524
31, 649
-3. e
Ingham County
211,296
Montgomery County
169, 210
138, 965
21.8
Laredo, Tex
64,791
Muncie, Ind
110,938
90, 253
22. 9
Webb County
64, 791
Delaware County
110,938
90, 253
22.5
Las Vegas, Nev
127, 016
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mich
149,943
121, 545
23. 4
Clark County
127, 016
Muskegon County
149, 943
121, 545
23. 4
Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass-N.H
199, 136
Nashville, Tenn
463,628
381, 609
21. 5
Essex County, Mass. (part)
185, 592
Davidson County
399, 743
321, 758
24. 2
Lawrence City ?
70, 933
Sumner County*
36, 217
33, 533
8. 0
Haverhill City
46, 346
Wilson County*
27, 668
26,318
5. 1
Andover Township
17, 134
New Bedford, Mass
143, 176
141,984
.8
Georgetown Township*
3,751
Bristol County (part)
137, 178
137, 469
-.2
Groveland Township
3,297
New Bedford City
102, 477
109,189
-6.1
Merrimac Township*
3,261
Acushnet Township
5, 755
4,401
30.8
Methuen Township
28, 114
Dartmouth Township
14,607
11, 115
31.4
North Andover Township
10, 908
Fairhaven Township
14,339
12, 764
12.3
West Newbury Township"
1, 844
Plymouth County (part)
5, 998
4,119
32.8
Rockingham County, N.H. (part)
13, 544
Marion Township
2,881
2,250
28.0
Newton Township*
1,419
Mattapoisett Township
3, 117
2,265
37.6
Plaistow Township
2,915
New Britain, Conn
129,397
104, 251
24. 1
. Salem Township
9,210
Hartford County (part)
129,397
104, 251
24. 1
Lawton, Okla
90, 803
New Britain City
82, 201
73, 726
11. 5
Comanche County
90, 803
Berlin Township
11, 250
7, 470
50. 6
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine
70,291
Plainville Township
13, 149
9,994
31.6
Androscoggin County (part)
70, 295
' Southington Township
22, 797
13,061
. 74.5
Auburn City
24,449
'New Haven, Conn
320,836
273,049
17.5
Lewiston City
40,804
New Ifaven County (part)
320,836
273, 049
17.5
Lisbon Township
5, 042
New Haven City
152, 048
164,443
-7.5
Lexington, Ky
131,990
Bethany Township*
2,384
1,318
80.9
Fayette County
131, 906
Branford Township
16, 610
10, 944
51.8
Lima, Ohio
103, 691
'
East Haven Township
21,388
12,212
75. 1
Allen County
103, 691
Guilford Township
7,913
5, 092
55. 4
Lincoln, Nebr
155,272
Hamden Township
41, 056
29, 715
35.2
Lancaster County_
155,272
North Branford Township*
6,771
2, 017
235.7
Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark
242, 980
North Haven Township
15, 935
9,444
68.7
Pulaski County
242,980
Orange Township
8, 547
3, 032
181.9
Lorain-Elyria, Ohio '
217,506
West Haven Township
43, 002
32, 010
34. 3
Lorain County
217, 500
Woodbridge Township
5, 182
2,822
83.6
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif
6, 038, 771
New London-Groton-Norwich, Conn
170, 981
134, 612
27.0
Los Angeles County
6,038, 771
New London County (part)
3
170,981
134, 612
27.0
Louisville, Ky.-Ind_
725, 139
New London City
34, 182
3,551
11.9
Jefferson County, Ky
610,947
Norwich Township
38, 506
37, 633
2. 3
Clark County, Ind
62, 795
Norwich City
38, 506
23, 429
64. 4
Floyd County, Ind
51,397
East Lyme Township
6, 782
3, 870
75.2
Lowell, Mass
164,243
Griswold Township*
6,472
5,728
13. 0
Middlesex County (part)
164,243
Groton Township
29, 937
21,896
36.7
Lowell City
92, 107
Ledyard Township
5, 395
1,749
208. 5
Billerica Township
17, 867
Lisbon Township*
2,019
1,282
57. 5
Chelmsford Township
15, 130
Montville Township
7, 759
4,766
62.8
Dracut Township
13,674
Old Lyme Township*
3, 068
2, 141
43. 3
Tewksbury Township
15,902
Preston Township
4,992
1,775
181.2
Tyngsborough Township
3,302
Stonington Township
13,969
11, 801
18. 4
Westford Township*
6,261
Sprague Township*
2, 509
2, 320
8. 1
Lubbock, Tex
156, 271
Waterford Township
15, 391
9, 100
69. 1
Lubbock County_
156,271
New Orleans, La
907, 123
712, 393
27. 3
Lynchburg, Va
110,701
Jefferson Parish
208, 769
103, 873
101. 0
Lynchburg City
54, 790
Orleans Parish
627, 525
570, 445
10. 0
Amherst County
22, 953
St. Bernard Parish
32, 186
11,087
190. 3
Campbell County
32,958
St. Tammany Parish*
38,643
26, 988
43. 2
Macon, Ga
180, 403
New York, N.Y
10,694, 633
9, 555, 943
11. 9
Bibb County
141, 249
New York City
7, 781, 984
7, 981, 957
-1.4
Houston County
39, 154
Bronx County
1,424, 815
1,451, 277
-1. 8
Madison, Wis
222,095
Kings County
2, 627, 319
2, 738, 175
-4. 0
Dane County
222,065
New York County
1, 698, 281
1,960, 101
-13. 4
Manchester, N.H
102,861
Queens County
1,809, 578
1, 550, 849
16. 7
Hillsborough County (part)
Manchester City
99, 148
88, 282
Richmond County
221, 991
191, 555
15.9
Bedford Township*
3,636
Nassau County
1, 300,171
672, 765
93.3
Goffstown Township
7, 230
Rockland County
136, 803
89, 276
63. 2
Merrimack County (part)
3,713
Suffolk County
666, 784
276,129
141. 5
Hooksett Township*
3,713
Westchester County
808, 891
625, 816
29.3
No. 158-25
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
?
18864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
August 13
ExnunT 1-Continued
TABLE 1.-1900 and 1950 population of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1 963--0011 ti Lied
[Asterisk (*) identifies additions to standard Metropolitan statistical areas as defined for 1960 census. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease)
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
I II FIT'
. 2
1,01..wc.ocowl
-
Newark, N.J
1, 689, 420
1, 468, 458
15.0
Paovidence-Pawtucket, RJ.-Mass.-Continued
i
,
1
. I
oz.P.S...:.2,Mb...0.P.P..P.S.....r.-.,..20'.P.'',...P.P.,.M.P.P.Pa...1....1-',50.9..,-.9.9,MM,...R.P.:..9.9.
,.,-,.t....*.c0,0tOCACA,C,COONN,,WCJOCAOCA.cat.0--1W.....NN,WWW.0,-,00..4WwW0W......400.4.WW4.....NNIV.,-,y0,CA004.=COW.SOCNO.0
Essex County
923, 545
905, 949
1. 9
Providence County, R. I.-Continued
Morris County
261,620
164, 371
59. 2
johnston Township
12, 725
Union County -
504, 255
398, 138
26. 7
Lincoln Township
11, 270
Newport News-Hampton, Va .
224, 603
154, 977
44. 9
North Providence Township
13, 927
Hampton City
89, 258
2 60, 994
46. 3
North Smithfield Township
5,726
Newport News City
113, 662
4 82,233
38. 2
Smithfield Township
6,690
York County
21, 583
11, 750
83. 7
Washington County, R.I. (part)
17, 098
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va
578, 507
446,200
29. 7
Narragansett Township
2, 288
Chesapeake City 5
73, 647
110,371
-33. 3
North Kingstown Township
14, 810
Norfolk City
354,869
213, 513
42. 8
Bristol County, Mass. (part)
45, 759
Portsmouth City
114, 773
80, 039
. 43.4
Attleboro City
23, 809
Virginia Beach City '
85, 218
42, 277
101. 6
North Attleboro Township
12, 146
Norwalk, Conn
96, 766
65, 685
47. 3
Rehoboth Township*
3, 700
Fairfield County (part)
96, 756
65, 685
47. 3
Seekonk Township
6, 104
Norwalk City
67, 776
49, 460
37. 0
Norfolk County, Mass. (part)
19, 566
Westport Township
20,655
11,667
79.6
Bellingham Township
4, 100
.
Wilton Township
8, 026
4, 558
76. 1
Franklin Township
8,037
Odessa, Tex
90, 995
42, 102
116. 1
Plainville Township
2,088
Ector County
90, 995
42, 102
116. 1
Wrentham Township
5,341
Ogden, Utah
110,744
83, 319
32.9
Wdrcester County, Mass. (part)
6,660
Weber County
110, 744
83,319
32. 9
Blackstone Township
4, 968
Oklahoma City, Okla
511, 833
392, 439
30. 4
Millville Township
1, 692
Canadian County
24, 727
25, 644
-3. 6
Provo-Orem, Utah
81, 912
Cleveland County
47, 600
41, 443
14. 9
Utah County
81,912
Oklahoma County
439, 506
325, 352
35. 1
Pueblo, Colo
90, 138
Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa
457, 873
366, 395
25. 0
Pueblo County
90, 188
Douglas County, Nebr
343, 490
281, 020
22.2
Racine, Wis
109, 585
Sarpy County, Nebr
31, 281
15, 693
99. 3
Racine County
109, 585
Pottawattamie County, Iowa
83, 102
69, 682
19. 3
Raleigh, N.0
136, 450
Orlando, Fla
318, 487
141, 833
124. 6
Wake County
136, 450
? Orange County
283,540
114, 950
129. 3
Reading, Pa
255, 740
Seminole County
54, 947
26, 883
104. 4
Berks County
255, 740
Paterson-Clifton-Passiac, NI_
1, 186, 874
876,232
35.5
Reno, Ncv
50, 205
Bergen County
780, 255
539, 139
44. 7
Washoe County
50,205
Passiac County
406, 618
337,003
20. 6
Richmond, Va
350,035
Pensacola, Fla
203, 376
131, 260
54.9
Richmond City
230,310
Escambia Cohnty
173,829
112, 706
54. 2
Chesterfield County _
44), 400
Santa Rosa County
29, 547
18, 554
59. 2
Hanover County*
21, 985
Peoria, 111 ....
313, 412
271, 847
15.3
Henrico County
57, 340
Peoria County
189, 044
174, 347
8.4
Roanoke, Va
133, 407
Tazewell County
99, 789
76,165
31.0
Roanoke City
91,921
Woodford County*
24, 579
21, 335
15. 2
Roanoke County
41, 486
Philadelphia, Pa.-NI
4, 342, 897
3, 671, 048
18. 3
Rochester, N.Y
615, 044
Bucks County, Pa
308, 567
144, 620
113. 4
Livingston County*
40, 257
Chester County, Pa
210, 608
159, 141
32. 3
Monroe County
487, 632
Delaware County, Pa
553, 154
414, 234
33. 5
Orleans County*
29, 832
Montgomery County, Pa
516, 682
353,060
46. 3
Wayne County*
57, 323
Philadelphia County, Pa -
2,002, 512
2,071, 605
-3. 3
Rockford, III
169,455
Burlington County, N.J
224, 490
135, 910
05. 2
Boone County*
17, 070
Camden County, N.J
392, 035
300, 743
30. 4
Winnebago County
152,385
Gloucester County, N.J
134, 840
91, 727
47. 0
Sacramento, Calif
359, 429
Phoenix, Ariz
663, 510
331, 770
100.0
Placer County*
41,640
Maricopa County
663, 610
331, 770
100. 0
Sacramento County
277, 140
Pittsburgh, Pa
2, 405, 435
2, 213, 236
8. 7
Yolo County*
40, 640
Allegheny County
1, 623,587
1,515, 237
7. 5
Saginaw, Mich
153, 515
Beaver County
206, 948
175, 192
18.1
Saginaw County
153, 515
Washington County
217, 271
209, 628
3. 6
St. Joseph, Mo ?
96, 826
Westmoreland County
.
Pittsfield, Mass
352,629
76,772
313, 179
68,636
12. 6
11.9
Buchanan County
St. Louis, Mo.-111
96,825
1, 755, 334
Berkshire County (part)
76, 772
68, 636
11.9
St. Louis City, Mo
856, 796
Pittsfield City
57, 879
53, 348
8. 5
Franklin County, Mo.*
36, 046
Dalton Township
6,436
4,772
34. 9
Jefferson County, Mo
36,007
Lanesborough Township*
2, 933
2,069
41.8
St. Charles County, Mo
29,834
Lee Township ---
5,271
4,820
9.4
St. Louis County, Mo
406, 349
Lenox Township
4, 253
3,627
17.3
Madison County, Ill ?
182,307
Portland, Maine
139,122
133,983
3.8
St. Clair County, Ill
205,995
Cumberland County (part)
139, 122
133, 983
3.8
Salt Lake City, Utah
305, 762
Portland City
72, 566
77, 634
-6. 5
Davis County*
10,867
South Portland City
22, 788
21,666
4.2
Salt Lake County
274, 895
Westbrook City
13, 820
12. 284
12.5
San Angelo, Tex .
58, 929
Cape Elizabeth Township
5,505
3,816
44.3
Tom Green County
58,929
Cumblerland Township*
2, 765
2, 030
36. 2
San Antonio, Tex
525, 852-
Falmouth Township
5,976
4,342
37.6
Bexar County
500, 460
Gorham Township*
5, 767
4, 742
21.6
Guadalupe County*
25, 302
Scarborough Township*
6,416
4,600
39.5
San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif
451, 688
Yarmouth Township*
3.517
2,669
31.8
Riverside County
- 170, 046
Portland, Oreg.-Wash
821,897
704,829
16.6
San Bernardino County
281,642
Clackamas County, Oreg
113, 038
86, 716
30.4
San Diego, Calif
556, 808
Multnomah County, Oreg
522,813
471, 537
10. 9
San Diego County
556, 808
Washington County, Greg
92, 237
61,269
50. 5
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif
2, 135, 934
Clark County, Wash
93,809
85, 307
10. 0
Alameda County
740, 315
Providence-Pawtucket, RI.-Mass
821,101
763, 902
7. 5
Contra Costa County
298, 984
Bristol County, RI
37, 146
29, 079
27. 7
Marin County '
85, 619
Barrington Township
13,826
8, 246
67. 7
San Francisco County
775, 357
Bristol Township
14, 570
12,320
18.3
San Mateo County
235, 659
Warren Township
8,750
8,513
2.8
San Jose, Calif
290, 547
Kent County, RI. (part)
111,450
76, 916
44.9
Santa Clara County
290, 547
Warwick-City
68,504
43,026
59.2
Santa Barbara, Calif
9220
Coventry Township
55,432
9,869
56.4
Santa Barbara County
98, 220
East Greenwich Township
6,100
4,923
23.9
Savannah, Ga
051,481
West Warwick Township
21,414
19,086
12. 1
Chatham County
151, 481
Newport County, RI. (part)
2,267
2,060
9.6
Scranton, Pa
257, 396
Jamestown Township ?
2,267
2,088
9.6
Lackawanna County
257. 396
Providence County, R.I. (part)
558, 074
566,750
-1. 5
Seattle, Wash
844, 572
Central Falls City
19,858
23, 550
-15.7
King County
732, 992
Cranston City
66, 766
55, 060
21.3
Snohomish County
111, 580
' East Providence City
41, 955
35, 871
17.0
Shreveport, La
216, 686
Pawtucket City
81,001
81,436
-0.5
Bossier Parish
40, 139
Providence City
207, 498
248, 674
-16.6
Caddo Parish
176, 547
Woonsocket City
47, 080
50,211
-6.2
Sioux City, Iowa-Nebr
114,318
Burrillville Township
-
9,119
15 909
8,774
19 fid9
3.9
50 !I
Woodbury County, Iowa
11 a Irnt n (Inrintxr Mohr *
103, 917
15 An,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
18865
EXHIBIT 1-Continued
TABLE 1.-1960 and 1950 population of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1963-Continued
[Asterisk (*) identifies additions to standard metropolitan statistical areas as defined for 1960 census. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease]
Standard metropolitan statistical area
?
1960
1950
.
Percent
increase
..
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Sioux Falls, S. Dak
.
.. GI NI, NI 0 0 0 ... A. ci I-? . C.4 W., GO Go A- CP 0 0 . .. . 4,.......... 0 0 0 0
0 OtC., t ,-' c. g g o ,... o -4 0, ,-. o., 0, 0 o . esD tsD -.. v co , n. t. oo 4 @ .......". to . ,-, 0 .0 , , . . GU E 0 I. .. ' .. 0 --I Gn 0, 0 0 G.4 GO 0 0 4.. t --I -I G0 C.4 , 00 Z
..0Y. ..P... 9?S.- . .p4-.....:-.1.4.,P1-40.i-'90:-..:-:...P. A'' ' ?...-'..t" ?.. - .5:' ''''.P.P?,!..:',P.' . ,..P .9...c.PP.5.....S.P..!..P. .:....-S,,....P....-^p..0.?,,Pe-1.1?S,'S....-',..L.P.P.P. ..909,.9.-,>,..'..m.Y.,
.28t,,,,.._,,o,..?.,?.c.?,.....,,,,,c,Roa... 0 -,I 0 0 0, -4 ii, CT 01 .., 0 . .4 0 0 al 4 . -a 1.1I. , 4.. , ,II.. ,G , --I CAz Go c0 g 0 04 0 0, GO 0 . Ca , Ca Gn GI 0 --I 00 OI. 0, 0 0 0 t . 0 0 0 0 0./ 0../ 0, t 0 0 0,
...,- no ._, - ?- r,- 6i - - ,0 0 ..... , 4 0 00 0, 0, 00 0 0 . 0 00 00 GO 00 p-, 0 0 0, 00 GI . 0 0 0 0 00 OD 0 0 0 a, OD 0 G0 & . 0 0, AI.. 0 . G, 0 o0 0 c.0, t , , ,,, ,.., 0, ,,,, ,.., , ..,, ,
- , - , .n - - 0 0 0 0 - 0 .. ---1 0 ,-` I., . , 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 Gn . 0 0 Gn CI . 0 0, GI --I 0., 0 0 0 0 Gu GO 0, 0 . 0, 0 -4 ,1,.. 0 t0 0 0 01 . 00 DO G., 0 GO 0 0 0 0 0 0 GI G,P. Cu, 0 0
.
70,960
22. 1
Tyler, Tex
86, 350
74, 701
15. 6
Minnehaha County
70, 910
22. 1
Smith County
86,350
74, 701
15. 6
South Bend, Ind
234, 526
15. 6
Utica-Rome, N.Y
330, 771
284, 262
16. 4
Marshall County*
29,468
10. 1
Herkimer County
66, 370
61, 407
8. 1
St. Joseph County
205,058
16. 4
Oneida County
264, 401
222, 855
18. 6
Spokane, Wash
221, 561
25. 6
Vallejo-Napa, Calif.7
200,487
151, 436
32. 4
Spokane County
221, 561
25.6
Napa County
65, 890
46, 603
41.4
Springfield, Ill
131, 484
11.5
Solon? County
134, 597
104, 833
28. 4
Sangamon County
131, 484
11. 5
Waco, Tex
150, 091
130, 194
15. 5
Springfield, Mo
104, 823
20.5
McLennan County
150, 091
130, 194
15. I
Greene County
104, 823
20.5
Washington, D. C.-M d.-Va
2, 001, 897
1, 464, 089
36.1
Springfield, Ohio -
111,661
17.7
Washington, D.0
763, 956
802, 178
-4.1
. Clark County
111, 661
17.7
Montgomery County, Md
340, 928
164, 401
107. 4
Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke, Mass.-Conn
422, 163
17.0
Prince Georges County, Md
357,395
194, 182
84.1
Hampden County, Mass. (part)
361, 724
16. 7
Alexandria City, Va
91,023
61, 787
47. 1
Chicopee City
49, 211
25. 1
Fairfax City, Va.'
13, 585
1, 946
598. 1
Holyoke City
54, 661
-3. 6
Falls Church City, Va
10, 192
7,535
35. 1
Springfield City
162, 399
7. 4
Arlington County, Va
163, 401
135, 449
20. 1
Westfield City
20, 962
25. 5
Fairfax County, Va
. 261, 417
96, 611
179. (
Agawam Township
10, 166
54. 6
Waterbury, Conn
185, 548
. 157, 220
18. C
East Longmeadow Township
4,881
110. 9
Litchfield County (part)
24,597
18, 159
35. t
Hampden Township*
? 1,322
77.4
Thomaston Township
5,850
4,896
19.1
Longmeadow Township
6, 508
62. 3
Watertown Township
14, 837
10, 699
38. 1
Ludlow Township
8, 660
59. 4
Woodbury Township*
3,910
2, 564
52.1
Monson Township
6, 125
9.6
New Haven County (part)
160, 951
139,061
15.1
Palmer Township ,
9, 533
8. 7
Waterbury City
107, 130
? 104,477
2.1
Southwick Township* -
2, 855
80. 0
Naugatuck Borough
19, 511
17, 455
11.1
West Springfield Township
20, 438
21.9
Beacon Falls Township
2, 886
2,067
39.1
Wilbraham Township
4,003
84. 5
Cheshire Township
13, 383
6,205
112.1
Hampshire County, Mass. (part)
64,402
18.9
Middlebury Township
4, 785
3, 318
44.1
Northampton City
29, 063
3. 4
Prospect Township
4.367
1,896
130.;
Easthampton Township
. 10, 694
15.3
- Wolcott Township
8,889
3,553
150.1
Granby Township*
1, 861
126. 8
Waterloo, Iowa
122,482
100, 448
21.1
Hadley Township
2, 639-
17.4
Black Hawk County
122, 482
100, 448
21.1
South Hadley Township
10, 145
47.4
West Palm Beach, Fla
228, 016
114,688
98.1
Worcester County, Mass. (part)
3,406
Palm Beach County
228, 106
114, 688
98.1
Warren Township
3,406
-. 7
Wheeling, W. Va.-Ohio
190,342
196, 305
-3. (
Tolland County, Conn. (part)
2,631
40. 7
Ohio County, W. Va
68, 437
71, 672
-4.1
Somers Township
2, 631
40. 7
Marshall County, W. Va
38, 041
36, 893
3.1
Stamford, Conn
Fairfield County (part)
134, 896
134, 896
32.3
32.3
Belmont County, Ohio
Wichita, Kans
83,864
381, 626
87, 740
263,291
-4. ,
50. ?
Stamford City
74, 293
24.8
Hutler County*
38, 395
31,001
23.1
Darien Townsmp -
11,767
56. 7
Sedgwick County
343, 231
222, 290
54. , ?
'Greenwich Township
, 40, 835
31, 7
Wichita Falls, Tex
129, 638
105, 309
23.
New Canaan Township
8,001
68.3
Archer County
6,110
6,816
-10. ,
Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-W. Va
157, 787
6.3
Wichita County
123, 528
98, 493
25. ,
Jefferson County, Ohio
96, 495
2.8
Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa
346, 972
392,281
-11.1
Brooke County, W. Va ,.
26,904
7.6
- Luzern? County
346,972
392;24l
-11.1
IIancock County, -W. Va
34, 388
15.2
Wilmington, Del.-Md.-N.J
414, 565'
301, 743
37,
Stockton, Calif
290,750
24. 5
New Castle County, Del
307,446
218, 879
40.
San Joaquin County
200, 750
24. 5
Cecil County, Md*
48, 408
33, 356
45.
Syracuse, N.Y
465, 114
21.2
Salem County, N.J.
58, 711
49, 508
18.1
Madison County
46,214
18. 2
Winston-Salem, N.0
189,428
146, 135
29.1
Onondaga County
341, 719
23. 8
Forsyth County
189, 428
146, 135
29.1
Oswego County
77, 181
11.6
Worcester, Mass
328, 898
306, 269
, 7.'
Tacoma, -Wash
275, 876
16. 6
Worcester County (part)
328, 898
306, 269
-- 7.'
Pierce County
275, 876
16. 6
Worcester City
186, 587
203, 486
-8.;
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla
409, 143
88. 8
Auburn Township
14, 047
8, 840
58. '
Hillsborough County_
249, 894
59.2
Berlin Township
1,742
0,349
29..
Pinellas County
159, 249
135.3
Boylston Township
2, 367
1, 700
39. !
Terre Haute, Ind
172,466
-0.2
Brookfield Township
1,751
1,567
11. '
Clay County*
23,918
1.2
East Brookfield-Township
1,533
1,243
23.
Sullivan County*
23, 667
-8.2
Grafton Township
10, 627
? 8,281
28.
Vennillion County*
19,723
-10.3
Holden Township
10, 117
5,975
69. ,
Vigo County
105, 160
3. 1
Leicester Township
8, 177
6, 029
35.
Texarkana, Tex.-Ark
94, 580
-3. 1
Millbury Township
9, 623
8, 347
' 15.
Bowie County, Tex
- 61, 966
-3.2
Northborough Township
6, 687
3, 122
114.
Miller County, Ark
32, 614
-2.8
Northbridge Township
10, 800
10, 476
3.
Toledo, Ohio-Mich
530, 822
18.8
North Brookfield Township
3, 616
3, 444
5.
Lucas County, Ohio
395, 551
15. 5
Oxford Township
9, 282
- 5, 851
58.
Wood County, Ohio*
59, 605
21.8
Paxton Township*
2, 399
1, 066
125.
Monroe County, Mich.*
75, 666
33.6
Shree sbury Township
16, 622
10, 594
56.
Topeka, Kans
405, 418
34.0
Spencer Township
7. 838
7, 027
11.
Shawnee County
105,418
34. 0
Sterling Township*
3, 193
2, 166
47.
Trenton, NJ
229, 781
1.5.9
Sutton Township
3,638
3,102
17.
Mercer County
229,781
15.9
Upton Township
3,127
2,656
17.
Tucson, Ariz
141, 216
88. 1
Westborough Township
9, 599
7, 378
30.
Pima County
141, 216
88. 1
West Boylston Township
5, 526
2, 570
115.
Tulsa, Okla -
327, 900
27.8
York, Pa
290, 242
246, 934
17.
Creek County
43, 143
-6.1
Adams County*
51. 906
44, 197
17.
Osage County
33, 071
-1.9
York County
238,336
202, 737
17.
Tulsa County \
251, 686
37. 5
Youngstown-Warren, Ohio
509, 006
416, 544
22.
Tuscaloosa, Ala
94,902
15.9
Mahoning County
300,480
257, 629
16.
TUscaloosa County
94,902
15.9
Trumbull County
208, 526
158, 915
31.
1 New area formed by detachment of Orange County from Los Angeles-Long Beach
SMSA.
2 New area.
Includes population (55,028) of Elizabeth City County which was consolidated with
Hampton City between 1950 and 1960.
Includes population (39,875) of Warwick County which was consolidated with
Newport News City between 1950 and 1960.
Population shown is that of South Norfolk City and Norfolk County, wh'eli were
consolidated as Chesapeake City Jan. 1, 1963.
6 Population shown is that of Virginia Beach City and Princess Anne County, which
were consolidated Jan. 1, 1963.
New area formed by detachment of Solano County from San Francisco-Oakland
SMSA and addition of Napa County.
'Fairfax Township became independent city after Apr. 1, 1960 1950 population
excluded from 1950 population of Fairfax County.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
August 13
TABLE 2.-1960 and 1950 population inside and outside central city or cities of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States
? as defined on Oct. 18, 1963
[Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.11
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
United States (216 areas)
115, 795, 265
91, 568, 113
26. 5
Brockton, Mass
149,458
119,728
24. 8
Brockton
72,813
62,860
15. 8
58, 441,995
52, 648, 185
OD DC I , ,
I b.,. OD CO I . IA 0 0 -.4 I CO b0 t0 OD 0, I 03 14. I OD IA. OD I . OD tO CO t0 IND 0 ,0 , 1?? 1 en en 0 1,3
tuP:4P:41.. .574:1PrrP.Poc.!?'
0,4 OD OD 0 0, CP 0 00 CO 00 CD CO 00 Oa 0, -4 0, en 0 OD CO 03 C.,D ts. cn 1.. CD CD -4 .CD t.P. --I 03 0 CP CO 0 . CP 0, Cr, OD CO 0 -4 0 0, 00 CP O. 0 0 ?,1 V CO OD GO IA 0
In central cities
Outside central city
76,645
56,868
,
34. 8
Outside central cities
57, 354, 270
38, 919,928
Brownsville,Harlingen-San Benito, Tex
151,098
125,170
20. 7
Abilene, Tex
120,377
85, 517
In central cities
105, 669
72, 566
45. 6
Abilene
90,368
45, 570
Brownsville
48,640
36,066
53.2
Outside central city
30,009
39,947
Harlingen
41,207
23,229
77.4
Akron, Ohio
605,367
473,986
San Benito
15,422
13,271
23. 7
Akron
290,351
274, 605
Outside central cities
45, 429
52,604
13. 6
Outside central city
315,016
199, 381
Buffalo, N.Y
1,306, 957
1,089, 230
20.6
Albany, Ga
75,680
43,617
Buffalo
532,759
580,132
-8.2
Albany
55,890
31, 155
Outside central city
774,198
509,098
52. 1
Outside central city
19, 790
12,462
Canton, Ohio
340,345
283, 194
20.2
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y
657,603
589,359
Canton
113,631
116,912
-2.8
In central cities
278,900
299,091
Outside central city
226, 714
166,262
36.3
Albany
129,720
134,995
Cedar Rapids, Iowa_
? 136, 899
104, 274
31. 3
Schenectady
81,682
91,785
Cedar Rapids
92, 035
72, 296
27. 3
Troy
67,492
72,311
Outside central city
44,864
31,978
40. 3
Outside central cities
378,603
290, 268
Champaign-Urbana, Ill
132, 436
106, 100
24. 8
Albuquerque, N. Mex
262,199
145,673
In central cities
76, 877
62,397
23. 2
, Albuquerque
201, 189
96, 815
Champaign_
49, 583
39,563
25.3
Outside central city
61,010
48, 858
Urbana
27, 294
22,834
19. 5
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa., and New Jersey__
492, 168
427,824
Outside central cities
55, 559
43, 703
27. 1
In central cities
215, 710
208, 728
Charleston, S.0
254, 578
195, 107
30. 5
Allentown
108,347
106, 756
Charleston
65, 925
70, 174
-6. 1
Bethlehem_ ..
75, 408
66, 340
Outside central city .
188, 653
124,923
51. 0
Easton
31,955
35,632
Charleston, W. Va
252, 925
239, 629
5. 5
Outside central cities
276, 458
229,096
Charleston
85, 796
73, 501
16. 7
Altonna, Pa
137,270
139,514
Outside central city
167, 129
166, 128
.6
Altoona
69,407
77, 177
Charlotte, N.0
316, 781
239,086
32. 5
Outside central city
67,863
62,337
Charlotte
205,164
134,042
50.4
Amarillo, Tex
149,493
87,140
Outside central city
- 115, 217
105, 044
9. 7
Amarillo
137,969
74,246
Chattanooga, Tenn., and Georgia
283, 169
246,453
14. 9
Outside central city
11,524
12,894
Chattanooga
130,009
131,961
-. 8
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif
703,925
216, 224
Outside central city
153, 160
115, 412
32. 7
In central cities
285,772
60,089
Chicago, Ill
6, 220, 913
5, 177,868
20. 1
Anaheim
104,184
14,556
Chicago
3, 550, 404
3, 620, 962
-1.9
Santa Ana
100, 350
45, 533
Outside central city
2,670, 509
1, 556, 906
71. 5
Garden Grove 1
84,238
Chicopee. (See Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke,
Outside central cities
415, 153
186, 135
Mass.)
Ann Arbor, Mich
172, 440
134,506
Cincinnati, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky
1,268, 479
1, 023, 245
24.0
Ann Arbor
67,340
48,251
Cincinnati
502, 550
503;998
-0.3
Outside central city
105, 100
86,355
Outside central city
765, 929
519,247
47. 5
Asheville, N.0
130,074
124, 403
Cleveland, Ohio
1, 909, 483
1, 532, 574
24. 6
Asheville
60, 192
53, 000
Cleveland
876, 050
914,808
-4.2
Outside central city
69,852
71,403
Outside central city
1, 033, 433
617, 766
67. 3
Ashland. (See Huntington-Ashland, W. Va.-
Clifton. (See Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, NJ.)
Ky.-Ohio).
Colorado Springs, Colo
143, 742
74, 523
92.9
Atlanta, Ga ,
1,017, 188
726, 989
Colorado Springs
70, 194
45, 472
54.4
Atlanta ' .
487,455
331, 314
Outside central city
73, 548
29, 051
153.2
Outside central city
129,733
395, 675
Columbia, S.0
260, 828
186, 844
39.6
Atlantic City, N.J
160,880
132, 399
Columbia
97, 433
86,914
12. 1
Atlantic City
59, 544
61,657
Outside central city
163, 395
99,930
63. 5
Outside central city
101, 336
70, 742
Columbus, Ga.-Ala
217, 985
170, 541
27.8
Auburn. (See Lewiston-Auburn, Maine.)
Columbus
116, 779
79, 611
46.7
Augusta, Ga.-S.0
216, 639
162, 013
Outside central city
101,296
90,930
11.3
Augusta
70, 626
71, 508
Columbus, Ohio
754, 924
563, 040
34. 1
Outside central city
146, 013
90, 505
Columbus
471, 316
375, 901
25.4
Austin, Tex
212, 136
160,980
Outside central city
283, 608
187, 139
51.5
Austin
186, 545
132,459
Corpus Christi, Tex
221, 573
165,471
33. 9
Outside central city
25, 591
28, 621
Corpus Christi
167, 690
108,267
54.9
Bakersfield, Calif
291,984
228,309
Outside central city
53, 883
57,184
-1.8
Bakersfield
56, 848
34,784
Dallas, Tex
1,083, 601
743, 501
45. 7
Outside central city
235,136
193, 526
Dallas
679, 684
434, 462
56.4
Baltimore, Md
1,727, 023
1, 405, 399
Outside central city
403, 917
309, 039
30. 7
Baltimore
939, 024
949,768
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-EL_
319, 375
280, 748
13.8
Outside central city
787,999
455, 691
In central cities
183, 549
160,650
14.2
Baton Rouge, La
230,018
158, 236
Davenport
58,981
74,549
19.4
Baton Rouge
112,419
121,629
Rock Island_
51,853
48, 710
6. 5
Outside central city
77,639
82,607
Moline
42, 705
37,397
14. 2
Bay City, Mich
107,042
85,461
Outside central cities
- 135, 826
120,092
13. 1
Bay City
53,604
52,528
Dayton, Ohio
727, 121
545,723
33.2
Outside central city
53, 438
35, 938
Dayton
262,232
243, 872
7.6
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex
306, 016
235,650
Outside central city
464, 789
301, 851
54.0
In central cities
181,851
151,544
Decatur, Ill
118,257
98, 853
19.6
Beaumont
119, 175
94,014
Decatur
78, 004
66,269
17. 7
Port Arthur
66,676
57, 530
Outside central city
40, 253
32, 584
23. 5
Outside central cities
120, 165
84,104
Denver, Colo
929, 383
612, 128
51.8
Bethlehem. (See Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,
Denver
493,887
415, 786
18. 8
Pa., and New Jersey.)
-
?, Outside central city
435, 496
196, 342
121. 8
Billings, Mont ?
79, 016
55, 875
Des Moines, Iowa
266, 315
226, 010
17. 8
Billings
52, 851
31,834
Des Moines
208, 982
177, 965
17.4
Outside central city
26, 165
24,041
Outside central city
57, 333
48,045
19. 3
Binghamton, N.Y
283,600
246,834
Detroit, Mich
3, 762,350
3,016, 197
24. 7
Binghamton
75, 941
80,674
Detroit
1, 670, 144
1,849, 568
-9. 7
Outside central city
207,619
166, 160
Outside central city
2, 092, 216
1, 166, 629
79:3
Birmingham, Ala
634, 864
558,928
Dubuque, Iowa
85,048
71,237
12.2
Birmingham
---- Outside central city
340,887
293,977
326,037
232,891
Dubuque
Outside central city
56,606
23,442
49,671
21, 666
14.0
8. 2
Boise City, Idaho
93,460
70,649
?
Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wis
276, 596
252, 777
9. 4
Boise City
34,481
84,393
In central cities
146,447
139,836
.4
Outside central c ity
Boston,
68,979
36,256
Duluth
106, 884
104, 511
23
Mass
Boston
2, 595, 481
2, 414, 368
Superior
33,563
35,325
-.5. 0
Outside central city
697,197
1, 898, 284
801,444
1 612 924
,,
Outside central cities
, 136, 149
112, 941
20. 5
Bridgeport, Conn
337 983
275,, 888
Durham, N.0
111,995
101,639
10.2
Bridgeport
156,748
158,709
Durham
78,302
71, 311
9.8
Outside central city 181.215
117.170
nritcida rAntral nit cr
R.2 ,,no
On Ono
11 I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
4
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
18867
TABLE 2.-1960 and 1950 population inside and outside central city or cities of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States
as defined on Oct. 18, /963-Continued
[Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1[
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
East Chicago. (See Gary-Hammond-East Chi-
cago, Ind.)
Easton. (See Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,
Pa.-N.J.)
El Paso, Tex
El Paso
Outside central city
Elyria. (See Lorain-Elyria, Ohio.)
Eric, Pa
\
?
'
00 CO . 00 , -4 00 p... -4 . 0 00 0, 0 0, 0, . 00 . 0, 0, 0 . Gn -4 vu -0 0, 0 0 . , . -4 0,..00 0 00 . GO 01 0 GoG4 0 . 0 , -0 0, Go 00 en 0 . 0 6 . . 0 o., . 0 . --I 0 G4 0 . 00 0 00 0 00 CO . o.? ,-. o on i.-? go o to -4 ?-?
:..1.............o ,-.
0 . 0 00 0 -4 00 . 0 0 0 . 0 00 0 0, 0 Gn 0 Co 0 00 . CD 1-, -0 00 0, 0 0 0 00 0 1. 0 00 ..0,0 0 ..-0 . 0,0 0 -.0 ,00 0 c00 y .O. 6, 5 to
194, 968
130,485
64, 483
219,388
61.1
112.0
-42.0
14(3
High Point (see Greensboro-High Point, N.C.).
Hollywood (see Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood,
Fla.).
Holyoke (see Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke,
Mass.).
Honolulu, Hawaii
Honolulu
Outside central city
Houston, Tex
500,409
294,194
206,218
1,243, 158
353,020
248,034
104,986
806, 701
41.8
18.6
96.4
54. 1
Erie
130, 803
5.8
Houston
985,219
596, 163
57.4
Outside central city
88, 586
26.7
Outside central city
304,939
210,538
44.8
Eugene, Oreg
125, 776
29.5
Huntington-Ashland, W. Va.-Ky.-Ohio
254, 780
245, 795
3. 7
Eugene
35, 879
42.1
In central cities
114, 910
117, 484
-2.2
Outside central city
89,897
24.5
Huntington
83, 627
86, 353
-3.2
Evansville, Ind .-Ky
212,664
4.8
Ashland
31.283
31,131
0.5
Evansville
128, 636
10.0
Outside central cities
139,870
128,311
9. 0
Outside central city
84,028
-3.2
Huntsville, Ala
353,861
108,669
41. 6
Fall River, Mass.-R.I
137,298
.6
Huntsville
72, 365
16,437
340.3
Fall River
111,963
-10.7
Outside central city
81,496
92, 232
-11.6
Outside central city ?
25, 335
50.8
Indianapolis, Ind
916, 932
703,129
30.4
Fargo-Moorhead, N. Dak.-Minn
89,240
18.8
Indianapolis
476, 258
427,173
11. 5
In central cities
53, 126
31.0
Outside central city
440,674
275, 956
59. 7
Fargo
38,216
22.0
Jackson; Mich
131,994
107,925
22.1
Moorhead
14,870
54.2
Jackson
50,720
51,088
-0.7
Outside central cities
36, 114
.9
Outside central city
81,274
56,837
43. 0
Fitchburg-Leominster, Mass
80,528
12.0
Jackson, Miss
221,367
171,045
29. 4
In central cities
66, 766
6.3
Jackson
144,422
98, 271,
47. 0
Fitchburg
42, 691
.8
Outside central city
76, 945
72, 774
5. 7
Leominster
24, 075
16.0
Jacksonville, Fla
455, 411
304, 029
49.6
Outside central cities
13, 762
39.6
Jacksonville
- 201, 030
204, 517
-1.7
Flint, Mich
306, 767
35.7
Outside central city
254, 381
99, 512
155. 6
Flint
163, 143
20.7
Jersey City, N.J
610, 734
647, 437
-5. 7
Outside central city
143, 614
52.7
Jersey City
276,101
299, 017
-7. 7
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla
83,933
297.9
Outside central city
334,633
348, 420
? -4. 0
In central cities
50, 679
134.6
Johnstown. Pa
280, 733
291, 354
-3. E
Fort Lauderdale
36,328
130.3
Johnstown
53, 949
63,232
-14.7
Hollywood
14,351
145.8
Outside central city
226, 784
228, 122
-0. E
Outside central cities
33,254
546. 7
Kalamazoo, Mich
169, 712
126, 707
33. C
Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla
141,978
-4. 8
Kalamazoo
82, 089
57, 704
42. 3
Fort Smith
47, 942
10. 5
Outside central city
87, 623
69, 003
27. C
Outside centray city
94, 036
-12.7
Kansas City, Mo.-Kans_
1,092, 545
848, 655
28. 7
Fort Wayne, Ind
163,722
26.4
Kansas City
475, 539
456, 622
4. 1
Fort Wayne_
133,607
21. 1
Outside central city
617,006
392,033
57. 4
Outside central city
60, 115
40. 5
Kenosha, Wis
100,615
76, 238
33. 7
Fort Worth, Tex
392, 643
46.0
Kenosha
67, 899
54,368
24. C
Fort Worth
278, 778
27.8
Outside central city
32, 716
20, 870
56. E
Outside central city
113, 866
90. 5
Knoxville; Tenn
368, 080
337, 105
9. 2
Fresno, Calif
276, 515
32.3
Knoxville
111, 827
124, 769
-10. 4
Fresno
91,669
46. 1
Outside central city
256, 253
212, 336
20. 7
Outside central city
184,846
25. 5
Lafayette, La
84,656
57, 743
46. C
Gadsden, Ala
93, 892
3.3
Lafayette
40, 400
33, 541
20.4
Gadsden
55, 725
4. 2
Outside central city 4
44,256
24, 202
82.1
Outside central city
38,167
1. 9
Lake Charles, La
145, 475
89.635
62.3
Galveston-Texas City, Tex
113,066
24. 1
Lake Charles
63, 392
41, 272
53. C
In central cities
83, 188
19.3
Outside central city
82, 083
48, 363
69. 7
Galveston
66, 568,
.9
Lancaster, Pa
278, 359
234, 717
18. C
Texas City
16, 620
92. 9
Lancaster.
61,055
63, 774
-4. 3
Outside central cities
29, 878
37. 6
Outside central city
217, 304
170, 943
27. 1
Garden Grove (see Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden
Lansing, Mich
298, 949
244, 159
22. 4
Grove, Calif.)
Lansing
107, 807
92, 129
17. C
Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind
408,228
40. 5
Outaide central city
191, 142
152, 030
25. 7
In central cities
275,768
26. 1
Laredo, Tex
64, 791
56, 141
15. 4
Gary
133, 911
33. 2
Laredo
60, 678
51, 910
16. 6
Hammond
87, 594
27.5
Outside central city
4,113
4,231
-2.1
? East Chicago
54, 263
6.3
Las Vegas, Nev
127, 016
48, 289
163. C
Outside central cities
132, 460
70. 5
Las Vegas
64, 405
24, 624
161. 1
Grand Rapids, Mich
362, 043
27. 6
Outside central city
62,611
23, 665
164. 6
Grand Rapids
176, 515
. 5
Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass.-N.II
199, 136
190, 428
4. C
Outside central city
185, 528
53. 4
In central cities
117, 279
127, 816
-8. 2
Great Falls, Mont
53, 027
38.5
Lawrence
70,933
80,536
-11.6
Great Falls
39, 214
40.9
Haverhill
46, 346
47, 280
-2. C
Outside central city
13,813
31. 6
Outside central cities
81,857
62, 612
30. 7
Green Bay, Wis
98, 314
27. 2
Lawton, Okla
90, 803
55, 165
64. E
Green Bay
52, 735
19.3
Lawton
61,697
34,757
77.5
Outside central city
45, 579
36. 5
Outside central city
29, 106
20, 408
42. E
Greensboro-High Point, N.0
191, 057
29. 0
Leominster (see Fitchburg-Leominster, Mass.).
In central cities
114, 362
58. 8
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine
70, 295
68, 426
2. 7
Greensboro
74,389
60. 7
In central cities
65, 253
64, 108
1.9
High Point
39, 973
55. 3
Lewiston
40,804
40, 974
-0. 4
Outside central cities
76, 695
-15.4
Auburn
24,449
23, 134
5. 7
Greenville, S. C
208, 210
22.9
Outside central cities
5,042
4,318
16.0
Greenville
68, 161
13.8
Lexington, Ky
, 131, 906
100, 746
30. C
Outside central city
150, 049
29.4
Lexington
62, 810
55, 534
13. 1
Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio
147, 203
35. 2
Outside central city
69, 096
45, 212
52. 1
In central cities
91, 646
24.9
Lima, Ohio -
103, 691
88-183
17. (
Hamilton
57, 951
24.9
Lima
51, 037
50, 246
1. C
Middletown
33, 695
25.0
Outside central city
52, 654
37, 937
38. 1
Outside central c ties
55, 557
52.3
Lincoln, Nebr
155, 272
119, 742
29. 7
Hammond (see Gary-Hammond-East Chicago,
Lincoln
128, 521
98, 884
30. 6
Ind.).
Outside central city
26, 751
20,858
28.3
Hampton (see Newport News-Hampton, Va.).
Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark
242, 980
196, 685
. 23.1
Harlingen (see Brownsville-Harlingen-San Ben-
In central cities
165, 845
146, 310
13. 4
ito, Tex.).
Little Rock
107, 813
102,213
1.1
Harrisburg, Pa
317. 023
17.2
North Little Rock
58,032
44, 097
31. C
Harrisburg
89,544
-11.0
Outside central cities
77, 135
50,375
13.1
Outside central city
227, 479
28.1
Long Beach (see Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif.).
Hartford, Conn
420,009
30.8
Lorain-Elyria, Ohio
217, 500
148, 162
46. 9
Hartford
177, 397
-8.6
In central cities
- 112,714
81,509
38.7
Outside central city
242, 612
59.5
Lorain
68, 932
51, 202
34. 6
Haverhill (see Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass.-N.H.).
Elyria
41,782
30, 307
44. 1
Hazleton (see Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa.).
Outside central cities
104, 786
66, 653
57. 2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
TABLE 2.-1960 and 1950 population inside and outside central city or cities of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States
as defined on Oct. 18, 1963-Continued
Minns sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1[
'August 13
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif
6, 038, 771.
4, 151, 687
45.5
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va
578, 507
446, 200
29.7
In central cities
2, 823, 183
2, 221, 125
27.1
In central cities
419, 642
293, 552
43.0
Los Angeles
2, 479, 015
1,970, 358
25.8
Norfolk
34, 869
213, 513
42. 8
Long Beach
344,168
250, 767
37.2
Portsmouth
114, 773
80,039
43.4
Outside central cities
3, 215, 588
1, 930, 562
66.6
Outside central cities
158, 865
152, 648
4. 1
Louisville, Ky.-Ind
725,139
576, 900
25. 7
North Little Rock (see Little Rock-North Little
Louisville
390,639
369,120
5.8
Rock, Ark.).
Outside central city
334, 50C)
207,771
61.0
Norwalk, Conn
96,756
65,685
47.3
Lowell, Mass
164,243
140,249
17.1
Norwalk
67,775
49,460
37.6
Lowell
92,107
97,249
-5.3
Outside central city
25,981
. 16,225
78: 6
Outside central city
72,136
43,000
67.8
Norwich (see New London-Groton-Norwich,
Lubbock, Tex
156,271
101,048
54.7
Conn.).
Lubbock
125,691
71, 747
79.4
Oakland (see San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.).
Outside central city
27,580
29,301
-5.9
Odessa, Tex
90,995
42,102
116.1
Lynchburg, Va
110,701
96,936
14.2
Odessa
80,338
29,495
172.4
Lynchburg
54, 790
47, 727
14.8
Outside central city
10,657
12,607
-15. 5
Outside central city
55,911
49,209
13. 6
Ogden, Utah
110,744
83,319
32.5
Macon, Ga
180,403
135, 043
33. 6
Ogden
70, 197
57,112
22. 9
Macon
69,764
70,252
-0. 7
Outside central city
40,547
26,207
54. 7
Outside central city
110,639
64, 791
70.8.
Oklahoma City, Okla
511,833
392,439
30.4
Madison, Wis
222,095
169, 357
31. 1
Oklahoma City
324,251
243,504
33.2
Madison
126,706
90,056
31.9
Outside central city
187, 580
148,935
25.5
Outside central city
95,389
73, 301
30. 1
Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa
457, 873
566,395
25.6
Manchester, N.H
102,861
93,338
10.2
Omaha
301,558
251,117
20.1
Manchester
88,282
82,732
6.7
Outside central city
156,275
115,278
35.1
Outside central city
14,579
10,606
37.5
Ontario (see San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,
Memphis, Tenn.-Ark
674,583
529, 577
27.4
Calif.).
Memphis
497,524
390,000
25.6
Orem (see Provo-Orem, Utah). -
Outside central city
177, 059
133,577
32.6
Orlando, Fla
318, 487
141?833
124. 6
Meriden, Conn
51,850
44,088
17.6
Orlando
88, 135
62, 367
68.3
Meriden
51,850
44,088
17.6
Outside central city
230,352
89, 466
157. 5
Miami, Fla
935, 047
495, 084
88.9
Passaic (see Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J.).
Miami
291,688
249, 276
17.0
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J
1, 186, 873
876, 232
35. 5
Outside central city
643,319
245, 808
161.7
In central cities
279, 710
261, 549
6. 9
Middletown (see Harailton-Middletown, Ohio).
Paterson
143, 663
139, 336
3.1
Midland, Tex
67, 717
25, 785
162.6
Clifton
82,084
64, 511
27. 2
Midland
62,625
21,713
188.4
Passaic
53, 963
57, 702
-6. 5
Outside central city
5,092
4,072
25.0
Outside central cities
907, 163
614, 683
47. 6
Milwaukee, Wis
1, 232, 731
580,809
25.7
Pawtucket (see Providence-Pawtucket, R.I.-
Milwaukee
741,324
637,392
16.3
mass.).
Outside central city
491,407
342, 917
43.3
Pensacola, Fla
203,376
131, 260
54. 9
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn
1, 482, 030
1, 151,053
28.8
Pensacola
56, 752
43,479
30. 5
In central cities
796, 283
833, 067
-4.4
Outside central city
146, 624
87, 781
67. 0
Minneapolis
482,872
521,718
-7.4
Peoria, Ill
313,412
271,847
15.1
St. Paul
315,411
311,349
.7
Peoria
103,162
111,856
-7.8
Outside central cities
684,747
317,986
115.7
Outside central city
210,250
159,991
31.4
Mobile, Ala
363,389
272,102
33.5
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J
4,342,897
3, 671, 048
18. a
Mobile
194,856
129,009
51.0
Philadelphia
2, 002, 512
2, 071, 605
-3.3
Outside central city
168,533
143, 093
17.8
Outside central city
2, 340, 385
1, 599, 443
46. 3
Moline (see Davenport-Rock Island-Moline,
Phoenix, Ariz
663, 510
331,770
100.6
Iowa-111.).
'
Phoenix
439,170
106,818
311.1
Monroe, La
101,663
74, 713
36.1
Outside central city
224,380
224, 952
-0.3
Monroe
52,219
58,572
35.4
Pittsburgh, Pa
2, 405, 435
2, 213, 236
8. 7
Outside central city
49,444
36,141
36.8
Pittsburgh
604,332
676,800
-10. 7
Montgomery, Ala
109,784
170,614
17. 1
Outside central city
1,801,103
1, 536, 430
17.2
Montgomery
134,393
106,525
26.2
Pittsfield, Mass
76,772
68,636
11.8
Outside central city
65,341
64, 089
2.0
Pittsfield
57,879
53,348
8. 5
Moorhead (see Fargo-Moorhead, N. Dak.-
-
Outside central city
18,893
15,288
23. 6
Minn.).
Port Arthur (see Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex.).
Muncie, Ind
110,938
90,252
22.9
Portland, Maine .,139,122
133,983
3.8
Muncie
68,603
58,479
17.3
Portland
72,166
77,634
-6.5
Outside central city
42,335
31,773
33.2
Outside central city
66, 556
56,389
18. 1
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mich
249,083
121,545
23.4
Portland, Oreg.-Wash
821,897
704,829
16.6
In central cities
66,087
67,217
-1.8
Portland
372,676
373,628
-0.3
Muskegon
46,481
48,429
-4.0
Outside central city
449,221
331,201
35.6
Muskegon Heights
19, 552
58,828
3.8
Portsmouth (see Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va.).
Outside central cities
83,906
54,288
54.6
Providence-Pawtucket, R.I.-Mass
821,101
763, 902 -
7. 5
Muskegon Heights (see Muskegon-Muskegon
In central cities
288, 499
330, 110
-12.6
Heights, Mich.). .
Providence
207,498
248,674
-16.6
Napa (see Vallejo-Napa, Calif.).
Pawtucket
81,001
81, 436
-.5
Nashville, Tenn
463,628
381,609
21. 5
Outside central cities
532, 602
433, 792
22.8
Nashville
170,874
174,307
-2. 0
Provo-Orem, Utah
106, 991
81, 912
30.6
Outside central city
292, 754
207,302
41.2
In central cities
54, 441
37, 288
46.0
New Bedford, Mass
143, 176
141,984
0.8
Provo
36,047
28,937
24.6
New Bedford
102,477
109, 189
-6. 1
Orem
18, 394
8,351
520.3
Outside central city
40,699
32,795
24. 1
Outside central cities
52, 550
44,654
17.8
New Britain, Coon
129,397
104,211
24.1
Pueblo, Colo
118,707
90,188
11.6
New Britain
82, 201
73, 726
11. 5
Pueblo
91, 181
63, 685
43.2
Outside central city
47, 196
30, 525
54.6
Outside central city
27, 526
26, 503
3.9
New Haven, Conn
320,836
273,049
17.5
Racine, Wis
141, 781
109,581
29.4
New Haven
152,068
164, 443
-7.1
Racine
89, 144
71, 193
21.2
Outside central city
168, 788
108,696
15.4
Outside central city
52, 637
38,392
37. 1
New London-Groton-Norwich, Conn
170, 981
134, 612
27.0
Raleigh, N.0
169, 082
136, 450
23.9
In central cities
72, 688
68, 184
6.6
Raleigh
93, 931
65, 679
43.0
New London
34, 182
30,551
11.9
Outside central city
75, 151
70, 771
6.2
Norwich
38, 506
2 37, 633
2.3
Reading, Pa
275, 414
255, 740
7. 7
- Outside central cities
98,293
66, 428
48.0
Reading
Outside central city
96,177
177, 237
109, 320
146,420
-10.2
21.0
New Orleans, La
New Orleans
907,123
627, 525
712, 393
570, 445
27.3
10. 0
Reno, Nov
Reno
84, 743
51, 470
50-205
32, 497
68.8
58. 4
Outside central city
279, 598
141, 948
97.0
Outside central city
33,273
17, 708
87.9
New York, N.Y_
10, 694, 633
9, 555, 943
11, 9
Richmond, Va
436,044
350, 035
24. 6
New York
7, 781, 984
7, 891, 957
-1.4
Richmond
219,918
230,310
-4.5
Outside central city
2,912, 649
1,663, 956
71.0
Outside central city
216, 086
119, 725
80. 5
Newark, N.J
1, 089,420
1,468, 458
15. 0
Riverside (see San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,
Newark
405, 220
438, 776
-7.6
Calif.).
Outside central city
1, 284, 200
1, 029, 682
24.7
Roanoke, Va
158,803
133,407
19.0
Newport News-Hampton, Va.
224,503
154,577
44.9
Roanoke
97,110
91,921
5.6
In central cities
202, 920
143, 227
41.7
Outside central city
61,693
41,488
48. 7
Newport News
113,662
2 82, 233
38.2
Rochester, N.Y
732,588
615, 044
19.1
Hampton
89, 258
2 60, 994
46.3
Rochester
318,611
332,488
-4.2
Outside central cities 21.283 11. 750 83.7
Outside central city
413.977
282. 5.56
46. a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
18869
TABLE 2.-1960 and 1950 population inside and outside central city or cities of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States
as defined on Oct. 18, /963-Continued
[Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1[
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Rock Island (see Davenport-Rock Island-
Moline, Iowa-111.).
Rockford, 111
230, 091
169, 455
35. 8
Rockford
126, 706
92, 927
36.4
Outside central city
103, 385
76, 528
35. 1
Rome (see Utica-Rome, N.Y.).
Sacramento, Calif
625, 503
359, 429
74.0
Sacramento
191,667
137, 572
39.3
Outside central city
433,836
221, 857
95. 5
Saginaw, Mich
190,732
153, 515
24.3
Saginaw
98,265
92,918
5:8
Outside central city
92,487
60, 597
52. 6
St. Joseph, Mo
-' 90,081
96, 826
-6. 4
St. Joseph
79, 673
78,588
1.4
Outside central city
10, 908
18, 238
-40. 2
St. Louis, Mo., and Illinois
2, 104, 669
1, 755, 334
19. 9
St. Louis
750,026
856, 796
-12. 5
Outside central city
1, 354, 643
898, 538
50. 8
St. Paul. (See Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.),
St. Petersburg. (See Tampa-St. Petersburg,
Fla.). -
Salt Lake City, Utah
447,795
305, 762
46. 5
.
Salt Lake City
189, 454
182, 121
4. 0
Outside central city
258, 341
123, 641
108, 9
San Angelo, Tex
64,630
28,929
9.7
San Angelo
88,815
52, 093
12.9
Outside central city
5,805
6,836
-14.9
San Antonio, Tex -,
716, 168
525, 852
36.2
San Antonio
587, 718
408,442
43.9
Outside central city
123, 450
117, 410
9.4
San Benito. (See Brownsville-Harlingen-San
Benito, Tex.)
San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif
809,782
451, 688
79.3
In central cities
222,871
132, 694
68.0
San Bernardino
91,922
63, 058
46.8
Riverside
54,332
46, 764
80.3
Ontario
46,617
22,872
103.8
Outside central cities
136,911
318,954
84.0
San Diego, Calif
1,093, 011
556,828
?85. 5
San Diego
573,224
334,387
71.4
Outside central city
459, 787
252,421
106. 7
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif
2, 648, 762
2, 135,034
24. 0
In central cities
1, 107, 864
1, 159, 932
-4. 5
San Francisco
'Oakland
740, 316
775,357
-4. 5
367,648
384,575
-4.4
Outside central cities
1, 640,898
976, 002
57.9
San Jose, Calif
642,315
290, 547
121. 1
San Jose
204, 196
95, 280
114.3
Outside central city
438, 119
195, 267
124.4
Santa Ana. (See Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden
Grove, Calif.)
Santa Barbara, Calif
188,962
98, 220
72. 0
Santa Barbara
58, 768
44,913
30.8
Outside central city
110, 194
53, 307
106.7
Savannah, Ga
133,209
151, 481
24.3
Savannah
149,245
119,658
24.7
Outside central city
39, 054
31,843
22.6
Schenectady. (See Albany-Schenectady-Troy,
-N.Y.)
Scranton, Pa
234,531
257,300
-8. 9
Scranton
111, 443
125, 536
-11.2
Outside central city
123, 088
131,860
-6. 7
Seattle, Wash
1, 107, 213
844, 572
31.1
Seattle
557, 087
467,591
19. 1
Outside central city
130,126
376,981
46.9
Shreveport, La
281,481
216,686
29. 9
Shreveport
164, 372
127,206
29. 2
Outside central city
117, 109
89,480
30.9
Sioux City, Iowa-Nebr
120,017
114,318
5.0
Sioux City
' 89, 159
83, 991
6. 2
Outside central city
30,828
30, 327
1. 8
Sioux Falls, S. Dak
86, 575
70, 910
22. 1
Sioux Falls
65, 466
52, 696
24. 2
Outside central city
21, 109
18, 214
15. 9
South Bend, Ind
271, 057
234, 526
15. 6
South Bend
132,445
115,911
14. 3
.Outside central City
138,612
118, 615
16. 9
Spokane, Wash
278,333
221, 561
2&6
Spokane
181,608
161, 721
12. 3
Outside central City
96, 725
59,540
61. 6
Springfield, Ill
146,539
131,484
11. 5
Springfield
83, 271
81,628
2. 0
Outside central City
63, 268
49, 856
26.9
Springfield, Mo
126,276
104,823
20. 5
Springfield
95,865
66,731
43. 7
Outside central City
30,411
38,092
-20. 2
Springfield, Ohio
135,440
111,601
17. 7
Springfield
82, 723
78,508
5.4
Outside central City
46,717
33, 153
46. 9
Springfield-ChIcopee-Holyoke, Mass., and Con-
necticut
493, 999
422, 163
17. 0
In central cities
288.705
266,271
8.4
Springfield
174, 463
162, 399
7.4
Chicopee
61, 553
49, 211
25. 1
Holyoke
52,689
54,661
-3.6
Outside central cities
205.294
153.892
31.7
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Stamford, Conn
178, 409
134,896
lw I I
.00w ... Z5.1 lw.lw. go:+tpti
.107,tot-'P!PS.PPc. e'PPPPP.PPPP:-'Plz
,Dvwcocnig..-1wwowt.,c cor-,m-ammoco-4 ..1.,nb2=OpP.NaJo2).P. 0:00..00=,00 00=1-+...0M.mWOcbm.ba 00ocn...4>WJACOW
Stamford
92, 713
74, 293
Outside central city
83,696
60, 603
Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio, and West Virginia_ .
167, 756
157, 787
In central cities
60, 696
59, 877
Steubenville
32, 495
35, 872
Weirton
28, 201
24,095
Outside central cities
107, 060
97, 910
Stockton, Calif
249, 989
200, 750
Stockton
86, 321
70, 853
Outside central city
163, 668
129, 897
Superior. (See Duluth-Superior, Minn., and
Wisconsin).
Syracuse, N.Y
563, 781
465, 114
Syracuse
216,038
220, 583
Outside central city
547,743
244, 531
Tacoma, Wash
321, 590
275, 876
Tacoma
,. 147, 979
143, 673
Outside central city
173, 611
132, 203
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla
772, 453
409, 143
In central cities
456, 268
221, 419
Tampa
274, 970
124, 681
St. Petersburg
181, 298
96, 738
Outside central cities
316, 185
187, 724
Terre Haute, Ind
172, 069
172,468
Terre Haute
72, 500
64, 214
Outside central city
99, 569
108, 254
Texarkana, Tex.-Ark
01,657
94, 580
In central cities
50,006
40, 628
Texarkana, Tex
30, 218
24, 753
Texarkana, Ark
19, 788
15, 875
Outside central cities
41, 651
53, 952
Texas City. (See Galveston-Texas City, Tex.)
Toledo, Ohio and Michigan_
630, 647
530, 822
Toledo
318, 003
303, 616
Outside central city
312, 644
227, 206
Topeka, Hans
141,066
105, 418
Topeka
119, 484
78, 791
Outside central city
21,802
26, 627
Trenton, N.J
266,392
229, 781
Trenton
114, 167
128,009
Outside central city
152, 225
101, 772
Troy. (See Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y.)
Tucson, Ariz
265, 660
141, 216
Tucson
212,892
45, 454
Outside central city
62,768
95,762
Tulsa, Okla
418,974
327, 900
Tulsa
261, 685
182, 740
Outside central city
? 157, 289
145, 160
Tuscaloosa, Ala
109, 047
94, 092
Tuscaloosa "
63,370
46, 396
Outside central city
45, 677
47, 696
Tyler, Tex
86, 350
74,701
Tyler
51, 230
38,968
Outside central city
35, 120
35, 733
Urbana. (See Champaign-Urbana, Ill.)
Utica-Rome, N.Y
550,771
284, 262
In central cities
152, 056
143, 213
Utica
100, 410
101,531
? Rome
51,646
41, 682
Outside central cities
178, 715
141,049
Vallejo-Napa, Calif -
200, 487
151, 436
In central cities
83,047
39, 617
Vallejo
60, 877
26, 038
Napa
22,170
13,579
Outside central cities
117, 440
111,819
Waco, Tex
150,091
130, 194
Waco
97,806
84,760
- Outside central city
52,283
45,488
Warren. (See Youngstown-Warren, Ohio.)
Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia
2, 001, 897
1, 464, 089
Washington, D.0
763, 956
802, 178
Outside central city
1, 237,941
661, 911
Waterbury, Conn
185, 548
157,220
Waterbury
107, 130
104,477
Outside central city
78,418
52, 743
Waterloo, Iowa
122,462
100, 448
Waterloo
71, 755
65,168
Outside central city
50. 727
35, 250
Weirton. (See Steubenville-Weirton,. Ohio
West Virginia.)
West Palm Beach, Fla
228,106
114,688
West Palm Beach
56, 208
43, 162
Outside central city
171, 898
71,626
Wheeling, W. Va. and Ohio
190,542
196, 305
Wheeling
55,400
58, 891
Outside central city
136,942
137, 414
Wichita, Hans
381, 626
213,291
Wichita
254, 698
168,279
Outside central city
126,928
85, 012
Wichita Falls, Tex
129, 638
105,399
Wichita Falls
101, 724
68,042
Outside central city
27, 914
37,267
Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa
346, 972
392, 241
In central cities
95,607
112,317
Wilkes-Barre
68,551
76, 826
Hazleton_
32,056
001 RCA
35, 491
970 09d
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
August 13
TABLE 2.-1960 and 1950 population inside and outside central city or cities of standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States
as defined on Oct. 18, 1963-Continued
[Minus sign (-) denotes decrease. Percent not shown where less than 0.1]
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Standard metropolitan statistical area
1960
1950
Percent
increase
Wilmington, Del., Maryland, and New Jersey....
414, 565
301,143
37. 4
York, Pa
290,242
246,934
17. 5
Wilmington
95, 827
110,356
-13.2
York
54, 504
59,953
-9.1
Outside central city
318, 738
191, 387
66. 5
Outside central city
235, 738
186, 981
26. 1
Winston-Salem, N.0
189, 428
146, 135
29.6
Youngstown-Warren, Ohio
509, 006
416, 544
22. 2
Winston-Salem
111, 135
87, 811
26.6
In central cities
226, 337
218, 186
3. 7
Outside central city
78, 293
58, 324
34.2
Youngstown
166, 689
168,330
-1.0
Worcester, Mass
328, 898
306, 269
7.4
Warren
59, 648
49.856
59.6
Worcester
186, 587
203, 486
-8.3
Outside central cities
282, 669
198,358
42. 5
Outside central city
142, 311
102,753
38.5
1 Incorporated between 1950 and 1960.
2 Includes population (14,204) of part of Norwich town annexed by Norwich city
between 1950 and 1960.
TABLE 3.-Standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1968, ranked in accordance with 1960
population
Rank
Standard metropolitan statistical area
Population
Rank
Standard metropolitan statistical area _
Population
1
New York, N.Y
10, 694, 633
81
Orlando, Fla
.........
v?pt ?Ps0 W WC? ....OW 00 --I CO (0.00 eo 00:00 N oo cn 1?, to v. co co cnCoco mob oo Oo co
ww.wWbo.WO W WoonaWmemax,Imemco me.wmennomowenwonoma...mm0.,
2
Chicago, Ill
6, 220, 913
82
Charlotte, N.0
3
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif
6,038, 771
83
El Paso Tex
4
Philadelphia, Pa. and New Jersey "
4, 342, 897
84
_
Peoria, Ill
5
Detroit, Mich
3, 762, 360
85
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex
6
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif
2,548, 762
86
Lansing, Mich
7
Boston, Mass
2, 595, 481
87
Bakersfield, Calif
8
Pittsburgh, Pa ? -
2, 405, 435
88
York, Pa
9
St. Louis, Mo. and Illinois
2, 104, 669
89
Binghamton, N.Y. and Pennsylvania
10
Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia
2, 001, 897
90
Chattanooga, Tenn. and Georgia
11
Cleveland, Ohio
1, 909, 483
91
Shreveport, La -
12
Baltimore, Md
1, 727, 023
92
Johnstown, Pa
13
Newark, N.J
1,689, 420
93
Lancaster, Pa
14
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn
5,482, 030
94
Spokane, Wash
15
Buffalo, N.Y
1, 306, 957
95
Duluth, Minn.-Superior, Wis
16
Cincinnati, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky
1,268, 479
96
Reading, Pa
17
Houston, Tex
1, 243,158
97
South Bend, Ind. and Michigan
18
Milwaukee, Wis
1,232, 731
98
Trenton, N.J
19
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J
1, 186, 873
' 99
Des Moines, Iowa
20
Seattle, Wash ?
1, 107, 213
100
Tucson, Ariz
21
Kansas City, Mo.-Kans
1, 092, 545
101
Albuquerque, N. Mex
22
Dallas, Tex
1, 083, 601
102
Columbia, S.0
23
San Diego, Calif
1, 033, 011
103
Greenville, S.0
24
Atlanta, Ga
1,017, 188
104
Huntington, W. Va.-Ashland, Ky. and Ohio
25
Miami, Fla
935, 047
105
Charleston, S.C_
26
Denver, Colo
929,383
106
Charleston, W. Va r..
27
Indianapolis, Ind
916, 932
107
Erie, Pa
28
New Orleans, La
907, 123
108
Stockton, Calif
29
Portland, Oreg., and Washington -
821,697
109
Greensboro-High Point, N.C.
30
Providence-Pawtucket, R.I., and Massachusetts
821, 101
110
Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark
31
San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif
809. 782
111
Scranton, Pa
32
33
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla .
Columbus, Ohio
772, 453
754,924
112
113
Fort Wayne, Ind
Rockford, Ill
34
Rochester, N.Y
732, 588
114
Baton Rouge, La
35
Dayton, Ohio
727, 121
115
West Palm Beach, Fla
36
Lousiville, Ky., and Indiana
725,119
116
Newport News-Hampton, Va
37
San Antonio, Tex
716, 168
117
Evansville, Ind. and Kentucky
38
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif
703, 925
118
Madison, Wis
39
Memphis, Tenn., and Arkansas
674, 583
119
Corpus Christi, Tex
40
Phoenix, Ariz
043,510
120
Jackson, Miss
41
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y
657, 503
121
Columbus, Ga., and Alabama '
42
San Jose, Calif
642, 315
122
Lorain-Elyria, Ohio '
43
Birmingham, Ala
634,854
123
Augusta, Ga., and South Carolina
44
Toledo, Ohio, and Michigan
830,647
124
Austin, Tex
45
Sacramento, Calif
625, 503
-125
Pensacola, Fla
46
Jersey City, N.J
610, 734
126
Vallejo-Napa, Calif
47
Akron, Ohio
605, 367
127
Montgomery, Ala
48
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va
578, 507
128
Lawrence; Mass. and Haverhill, N.11
49
Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind
573, 548
129
Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio
50
Fort Worth, Tex
573, 215
130
Saginaw, Mich
Si
Syracuse, N Y
563, 781
131
Wheeling, W.Va., and Ohio
52
Hartford, Conn
149,249
132
Winston-Salem, N.0
53
,
Oklahoma City, Okla
511,833
133
Savannah, Ga
54
Youngstown-Warren, Ohio
509, 006
134
Waterbury, Conn
55
Honolulu, Hawaii
500. 409
135
Macon, Ga
56
Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke, Mass., and Connecticut
493, 999
136
Stamford, Conn
57
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa, and New jersey
492, 168
137
Ann Arbor, Mich
58
Nashville, Tenn
463,628
138
Terre Haute, Ind
59
Grand Rapids, Mich
461,906
139
New London-Groton-Norwich; Conn
60
Omaha, Nebr, and Iowa
457, 873
140
Kalamazoo, Mich
61
Jacksonville, Fla
455, 411
141
Raleigh, N.0
62
Salt Lake City, Utah
447, 795
142
Santa Barbara, Calif
63
Richmond, Va
436,044
143
Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio, and West Virginia
64
Tulsa, Okla
418, 974
144
Lowell, Mass
65
Flint, Mich
416,239
145
Eugene, Oreg
66
Wilmington, Del., Maryland, and New Jersey
414,565
146
Atlantic City, N.J
67
Wichita, Kans
381,626
147
Roanoke, Va
68
Harrisburg, Pa
371, 653
148
Lubbock, Tex
69
Knoxville, Tenn
368, 080
149
Lincoln, Nebr
70
Fresno, Calif
365, 945
150
Huntsville, Ala
71
Mobile, Ala
363, 389
151
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Tex
72
Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa
345,072
152
Waco, Tex
73
Canton, Ohio
340,345
153
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mich
74
Bridgeport, Coon
337, 983
154
Amarillo, Tex
75
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla..
333, 946
155
Brockton, Mass
76
Utica-Rome, N.Y
330, 771
156
Springfield, Ill
77
Worcester, Mass
328,898
157
Lake Charles, La
78
Tacoma, Wash
321, 590
158
Colorado Springs, Colo
79
80
New Haven, Conn .
Davennort_ Tnwa and Reek Island-Moline. 111
320,836
319. 375
159
160
New Bedford, Mass
Racine, Wis
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
? or
1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -,SENATE
18871
TABLE S.-Standard metropolitan statistical areas in the United States as defined on Oct. 18, 1963, ranked in accordance with 1960
population-Continued
Rank
Standar,d metropolitan statistical area
Population
Rank
Standard metropolitan statistical area
Population
?
161
Topeka, Kens
141,286
189
Provo-Orem, Utah
106.991
162
Galveston-Texas City, Tex
140, 364
190
Fargo, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn
106, 027
163
Portland, Maine
139, 122
191
Lima, Ohio
103, 691
164
Fall River, Mass.-R.I
138,156
192
Manchester, Nil
'
102,861
165
Altoona, Pa
137, 270
193
Monroe, La
101, 663
166
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
136, 899
194
Kenosha, Wis
, 100, 615
167
Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla
136, 110
195
Gadsden, Ala
96, 980
168
Champaign-Urbana, Ill
132, 436
196
Norwalk, Conn
96, 756
169
Jackson, Mich
?
131,994
197
Boise City, Idaho
93,460
170
Lexington, Ky
131, 906
198
Texarkana, Tex. and Ark
91, 657
171
Springfield, Ohio
131, 440
199
Odessa, Tex
90,995
172
Asheville, N.0
130,074
200
Lawton, Okla
90,803
173
Wichita Falls, Tex ,
129, 638
201
? St. Joseph, Mo
90,581
174
New Britain, Conn
129, 397
202
Fitchburg-Leominster, Mass
90, 158
175
Las Vegas, Nev
127, 016
203
Sioux Falls, S. Dak
86,575
176
Springfield, Mo
126, 276
204
Tyler, Tex
86, 350
177
Green Bay, Wis
125, 082
205
Reno, Nev
84, 743
178
Waterloo, Iowa
'
122, 482
206
Lafayette, La
84,656
179
Abilene, Tex
120, 377
207
Dubuque, Iowa
80, 048
180
Sioux City, Iowa, and Nebr..120,
017
208
Billings, Mont '
79,016
181
182
Pueblo, Colo
Deeatur, Ill
118, 707
118, 257
209
210
Pittsfield, Mass
Albany, a -
76, 772
75,580
183
Durham, N.0
111,990
211
Great Falls, Mont
73,418
184
Muncie, Ind -
110, 938
' 212
Lewiston-Auburn, Maine
70,295
185
Ogden, Utah
110, 744
213
Midland, Tex
67, 717
186
Lynchburg, Va
110, 701
214
Laredo, Tex
68,791
187
Tuscaloosa, Ala
109,047
215
San Angelo, Tex
64,630
188
Bay City, Mich
107,042
216
Meriden, Conn
51,850
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
listened with great interest, as I always
do, to the remarks of the distinguished
minority leader today, regarding the
pending amendment. He said, at one
point, that the purpose of the amend-
ment was to buy, time, and that the pur-
pose of the additional time was to en-
able the Congress and the States to enact
a constitutional amendment to overturn
the decision of the Court in Reynolds
against Sims.
I wish to say that I agree with the dis-
tinguished minority leader when he says
that this amendment is to provide time,
because there have arisen in several
States situations which require addi-
tional time to be properly worked out in
an orderly manner. However, I do not
agree that the purpose of the additional
time is to allow the passage of a con-
stitutional 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 proc-
esses required for the adoption of a new
constitutional amendment.
Second, although I thoroughly agree
that the States should have the oppor-
tunity to vote on a constitutional amend-
ment allowing them to apportion their
own legislatures as they see fit, I do not
believe this chance to vote must come
while the State legislatures are still ap-
portioned as they are today. -That
would give an alleged malapportioned
State legislature the power, to validate
itself, the right to pass upon its own
validity, and the ability to perpetuate
itself indefinitely. That does not seem
just to me. I am certainly in favor of
giving the people the opportunity to vote
as they wish on such a proposed con-
stitutional amendment. But when that
vote comes, it should be on the basis of
one man, one vote, as required by the
Reynolds decision.
May I say also that, in my opinion,
this amendment does not make the
No. 158-26
granting of the stay mandatory_ along
the percentage stated by the distin-
guished minority leader-the figure, I
believe, was 992/3 percent-but consid-
erably, very considerably less-perhaps
75 to 25 especially in those States well
on the way to a successful and consti-
tutional apportionment.
? Mr. President, in the amendment be-
fore us, everything I am sorry to say-
is not as we would like it to be. It is not
all black, nor is it all white. There are
shades of gray. Men of good will and
men who believe in the Constitution can
find a meeting of the minds if they will
set themselves to it, and if they will not
make up their minds before they have a
chance to look up the facts and to eval-
uate the picture.
Last June the Supreme Court of the
United States handed down its decision
in the historic case of Reynolds against
Sims. The decision held that equal pro-
tection of the laws, which is guaranteed
by our Constitution, required, in the elec-
tion of a State legislature, that each per-
son in a State have the same value as-
signed to his vote as every other person.
This was stated in the now famous
phrase, "one person, one vote."
Since that time the district courts of
the United States and the State govern-
ments have endeavored to carry out this
requirement of the Constitution as speed-
ily and with as little confusion as pos-
sible. Generally these efforts have been
successful. In several cases, however, be-
cause of the demands of time and the
nearness of the fall election, the-actions
taken have been disruptive upon these
particular States governing and elec-
toral procedures. It is clear this result
was not intended by the Supreme Court
which warned against hasty actions of
reapportionment where the State elec-
tion machinery was already in process.
We are met, therefore, with a situation
not totally intended or 'expected and it
is a situation which, I believe, the Con-
gress can and should make some attempt
to ease, within the bounds of its consti-
tutional power to do so.
The design of the original Dirksen
amendment was to put off for two meet-
ings of the State legislatures in any State
involved in the apportionment problem,
the implementation of the Court rule.
In the meantime, supporters of that
amendment hoped that a constitutional
amendment could be achieved. But, of
course, that is a far cry from the pro-
posal which is before the Senate today.
It is as different as day is from night.
In my opinion, the first amendment was
clearly unconstitutional. This one, I be-
lieve, is constitutional. As a result of
the efforts put forth by the joint leader-
ship, the attorneys attached to the Sen-
ate, and the Deputy Attorney General,
Mr. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, we think
we have come up with something which
is within the requirement of the law,
which recognizes the decision of the
Court, which does not try to overturn
that decision. It does seek through the
use of a brief stay where it is necessary
to bring about a settling of a situation
which has developed to serious propor-
tions in various States.
There is a need for flexibility. No
Member of this body will gainsay that
fact in view of what is happening in
such States as Oklahoma, New York, and
Colorado.
The amendment which Senator DIRK-
SEN has introduced, and of which I am a
cosponsor, in my judgment is a great im-
provement over those proposals which
would have, in effect, suspended the con-
stitutional right of equal protection for
an extended period of time. The amend-
ment is, under section 5 of the 14th
amendment, an exercise of the congres-
sional power to enforce and implement
by appropriate legislation the require-
ments of that 14th amendment. The
amendment offered by the -Senator from
Illinois and myself merely attempts to
establish an orderly procedure in the
carrying out of the constitutional re-
quirement of the Reynolds against Sims
decision in a situation where some con-
gressional guidance may be helpful.
This amendment is not in anyway an
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5
18872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ,
attempt to overturn or subvert that de-
cision. The basic purpose of this amend-
ment is to allow the States one election
and one session of the legislature which
could be before or after that election,
so that the States might be given a
chance to solve their own apportionment
problem. If at the end of that limited
period the State has :not by its own
governing processes met the constitu-
tional requirement, then section (d) of
the amendment requires the district
courts to do it for them. Furthermore,
the stay of action suggested by this
amendment is to be measured in terms
of the public interest. In the opinion
of many, the public interest and the re-
quirements of orderly Government ne-
cessitate the States having this oppor-
tunity. But the amendment provides
that even this chance need not be given
where highly unusual circumstances
would indicate that it should not be.
There are many who will not be satis-
fied with this amendment, and I can only
say to them that there are also many
who were not to be satisfied by any-
thing else.
In my opinion we have not by this
amendment interfered with the decision
of the court but have instead helped to
implement it in a way which will in the
long run add strength to its meaning.
It would seem to me that the malappor-
tiorunefit, or misbalance, which existed
in some States until this time has been
indefensible. In one State, for example,
I am informed that every voter in one
county had the equivalent power in State
elections of 100 voters in another.
In other States, the State legislatures
had failed to redistrict and reapportion
themselves for many decades despite the
plain requirement of their own constitu-
tions to do so.
To those who say that governing ini-
tiative in this country has passed from
the States to the central government, I
point out that perhaps this is one of the
reasons why. A free people will not long
respect nor patiently submit to an un-
responsive government. Insofar as some
State governments have been grossly
malapportioned, it is likely also that they
have been unresponsive. It may be that
in the end the requirement for fair ap-
portionment in the State governments
Will bring about a resurgence of strong
influence by State governments upon our
Nation's affairs.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator has
made a very constructive and helpful
statement. It begins to give the kind of
meaningful judicial discretion which is
mighty important if we are to have an
amendment that is not unconstitutional
and is workable. I deeply appreciate-the
fine statement which the Senator has
made.
I should like to add one further point.
It seems to those of us who believe in
one man-one vote that we should not de-
lay apportionment. We should proceed.
There are situations such as that in
Oklahoma that from a practical stand-
point are very difficult. That is why I
offered the pending amendment, the
Proxmire amendment to the Mansfield-
Dirksen amendment. This would pro-
vide that the stay, in Court action for the
period necessary, shall not?I repeat,
not?be deemed to be in the public inter-
est in the absence of highly unusual cir-
cumstances. But under such circum-
stances, a court might find in Oklahoma
that the highly unusual circumstances
would make a stay wise and necessary.
There may be difficulties which would
ca(,use enormous inconvenience and great
difficulty for those running.
It seems that the amendment I have
just called up would turn the proposal
around and make it in fact as different
as night and day from the other pro-
posal. It would still rely on the one
man-one vote principle. It -would say to
the court that the court should not stay
reapportionment except under unusual
circumstances that would cause great
difficulty to those involved. I commend
the Senator from Montana, our majority
leader, for his very helpful statement,
which is a characteristic of his whole
attitude. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I am deeply grate-
ful to the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin for his remarks.
I point out that when we try to reach
an agreement which will be satisfactory
to a majority of the Members of this
body, it is not an easy task. We spent
Many days since last Thursday?in ef-
fect, until yesterday afternoon?trying
to draft an amendment which would up-
hold the powers of the Court and at the
same time bring relief to those States
which are in distress because of the
Court decision which had been handed
down.
I did not get all that I wished in the
amendment. The distinguished minor-
ity leader did not get all that he wanted.
But we arrived at a consensus in the
gray area which we though would face
the situation, which would recognize that
the courts had powers which should be
adhered to, but which also recognized
a situation which affected several of the
States of the Union, and in which the
need for some alleviation seemed to be
very apparent.
We have done our best. We hope that
the Senate will understand the spirit in
which we carried on these bipartisan
negotiations.
In response to a statement made by a
Senator earlier today, I wish to say that
the negotiations were not carried on in
secret. I am sure that every Senator
knew about what the leadership was do-
ing. The press reported our doings quite
carefully. We did not rush out and give
them bulletins every hour on the hour,
because we were trying to do a construc-
tive and workmanlike job. We think
we have accomplished that. It was not
easy, but we have laid our proposal be-
fore the Senate and now it. is for the
Senate to decide.
AMENDMENT TO DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA POLICE AND FIREMEN'S
SALARY ACT OF 1958
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
August 13
reconsider the vote by which Calendar
No. 1306, Senate bill 2981, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
2981) to amend the District of Columbia
Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958,
as amended, to increase salaries, to ad-
just pay alinement, and for other pur-
poses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to reconsider the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of the bill, H.R.
12196.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERIC. A bill (H.R.
12196) to amend the District of Columbia
Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958,
as amended, to increase salaries, to adjust
pay alinement, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which was
read twice by its title.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that all after the
enacting clause be stricken, and that the
text of the bill S. 2981, be substituted
therefor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask that the bill H.R. 12196 be passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment. If there be
no amendment to be proposed, the ques-
tion is oh the engrossment of the amend-
ment and the third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a third
time; the bill was read the third time
and passed.
The title was amended, so as to read:
"An act to amend the District of Colum-
bia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of
1958, as amended, the District of Co-
lumbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955, and
for other purposes."
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that Senate bill
2981 be indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF TIME
WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN CON-
STRUCTION By THE STATE OF
MISSOURI
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 1313, Senate bill 2460.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
2460) to amend the act of July 13, 1959,
so as to extend the period of time within
which certain construction may be un-
dertaken by the State of Missouri on
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080052-5