(5) The addition of several hundred desperately needed mental health beds was blocked by senators for 2.8 million people despite the support for them of senators for 3.1 million.

(6) A bill to help small business by letting development credit corporations secure the benefits provided by the Federal Small Business Investment Act was killed by senators for 2.6 million people despite support for the bill from senators for 3.6 million.

(7) A bill to exempt food and medicine from the 4-percent sales tax in order to help retirees and others with fixed incomes was killed by senators representing 3.3 mililon people despite the fact that senators representing 5 million people voted for it.

The record could not be more clear; any failure to apportion both houses of the State legislature substantially on the basis of population is certain to deny to the majority fair consideration of their problems. As the Michigan experience so well demonstrates, it takes only one unrepresentative house to block legislation desired by the majority of the people. I know that witnesses from other States will add to this evidence, Mr. Chairman, so I will not add further examples at this time. Should that point be discussed on the floor, I will introduce additional testimony at that time. But the point is clear: leave one house malapportioned and you leave control of the State government to the overrepresented minority.

THE ALLEGED "FEDERAL ANALOGY" IS COMPLETELY FALSE

While it seems almost absurd to have to do so before this distinguished subcommittee, I think I must deal briefly with one more point. All historical fact to the contrary, the opponents of fair representation in the State legislatures seem compelled to argue that the representation of "other" factors in one house of a State legislature merely follows the alleged "analogy" of the Congress of the United States.

It is true that the Senate of the United States is apportioned by States without regard to population. Testifying before another subcommittee last week, I pointed out the fact that this results in 26 States with 52 Senators having a majority of the Senate but representing only 16 percent of the population and, as a matter of fact, 17 States, with 34 Senators representing only 7 percent of the population, under the present rule 22, can by filibustering prevent a vote.

But it is not in any way true that there is a proper analogy between this constitutional compromise which was necessary to produce the union on the one hand, and the formation of State legislatures in which one house primarily is apportioned on the basis of counties, towns or other geographical districts, on the other.

Senators need only read, and I assume all have done so, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention to understand why the "great compromise" was adopted. The framers were forced into it by the open threat of Delaware, and the veiled threats of Maryland and possibly other small States, to enter into a treaty with a foreign powerone of our enemies poised for the opportunity to destroy our independence unless they and the other small States received equal representation in the Senate.

The threats of Delaware, Maryland, and possibly other small States to enter into a treaty with a foreign power caused a compromise to be entered into with a pistol at the head of the largest States of the Union, which were then Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

But the States were original and independent political units and the small States extracted equal representation as the price of union.

The Articles of Confederation established a confederation in which each State had one vote. The Articles of Confederation were adjudged, by the experience of the time, and notably by Washington and Hamilton, as being far too weak. So a new union was provided in which the national government was given independent powers, and in which all the big States wanted to have representation on the basis of population. But if they had insisted on popular representation alone it would have meant that it would not have had a Federal union, and we might have had foreign flags flying on American soil. The States were originally independent political units. They were not compelled to enter the United States of America. The small States extracted equal representation as the price of union.

Now we who live in the large States cannot change this and we do not propose to try to change it. By Article V of the Constitution this is the one feature which, realistically cannot be amended. No State, according to this article, shall be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent-which, of course, as a practical matter, would never be given.

We would not try to change this. We accept these shackles, as I shall refer to them, with dignity, as the price for union. We regret them. We feel it is not improper to call attention to them but we do not seek to change them.

But, Mr. Chairman, counties and towns are not independent units which must agree to combine in order to form a State. They are not sovereign. They are the creations of the State and not vice-versa. They can be revised, divided, or eliminated by the State.

I know that in the period prior to the Revolution the State of Connecticut was formed by a federation of river towns and that, in a sense, it had to grant representation to the towns.

I know that in the rivalry between New Hampshire and Vermont as to how the towns along the upper Connecticut River would go, whether they were to affiliate with Vermont or with New Hampshire, that each State had to make a promise that each town was to have representation in the State legislature.

These concessions antedate the American Constitution and the admission of these States to the Union.

But the agreements were not binding, even in the limited degree to which they were made in those States, once the Union had been formed, once the 14th amendment had been adopted.

Now, for the 37 of the 50 States, such as my own which came into the Nation after the Union was set up, it was the States which were admitted, not the counties, towns, precincts, or other subdivisions of the States which are its creatures and which it can change.

Consequently, as the Supreme Court, constitutional scholars, and historians have pointed out time and again, counties and towns have no right to claim equal representation in a State legislature regardless of population. Where they have such representation it is by the acquiescence of the State in the unconstitutional denial of equal citizenship to all its citizens. There is no "Federal analogy."

FAIR REPRESENTATION NOT PARTISAN ADVANTAGE

The restoration of representative governments to our States, Mr. Chairman, is not a matter of partisan advantage. The evidence shows no uniform advantage to Democrats or Republicans, to liberals or conservatives. Quite the contrary.

I will try not to offend my colleagues by speculating about partisan developments in their States, but merely deal with my own State of Illinois. The Illinois lower house, of course, is to be apportioned on the basis of population this year under the order of the Courts of the State and the requirements of the State constitution. The Senate, however, overrepresents the downstate rural areas and severely underrepresents the large and still rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the northern part of the State. It is under Federal Court order to reapportion.

Any reasonable reapportionment of the Illinois Senate will allocate at least four additional seats to the suburbs of Chicago as well as two in Chicago itself. There will be a consequent reduction in the seats allocated to the downstate areas, particularly in the southern and western parts of the State. As most people know, the suburbs near Chicago tend, for the most part, to be strongly Republican in their voting habits-I regret this but it is a matter of fact. So the seats gained there will increase Republican voting strength in the Senateor at least replace Republican seats from downstate. In recent years, however, the Democrats have tended to carry more and more of the Senate seats in the southern part of the State-which will lose senatorial representation.

One of the very able newspaper reporters in Illinois, Mr. Tom Littlewood, published an article in the Chicago Sun-Times in which he stated, as I remember it, that two Chicago Democratic seats would replace two downstate Democratic seats and four Republicans from the suburbs would replace four Republicans from downstate. So he concluded that the party composition of the Senate in his opinion, and I think he has made the best analysis of anyone, would be unchanged. There would be no gain or loss in the party seats.

Therefore, the net result of fair apportionment in Illinois is likely to be either a loss or no gain of Democratic seats and a gain in Republican suburban seats. But the important result is that there will be more Senators who know and will be concerned with metropolitan problems and who will be more concerned to deal with them.

I may be criticized for my position because of the likely practical results of it in my State. But it is a principle of government we are fighting for, a constitutional right, not a temporary partisan advantage. The needs of the people of the suburbs are no less real because a majority there now supports the party which opposes that to which I am proud to belong. They are people and citizens, with equal rights just the same.

Fair apportionment does not mean any party gain for us but it does mean a representation which will be more aware of the emerging problems of the metropolitan areas, to which President Johnson called our attention just a few days ago in his message on the needs of people in the cities.

THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REJECT THESE AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THEIR RIGHT TO EQUAL CITIZENSHIP

It is people who are represented in a republican government, M Chairman. Not cows or chickens or acres of land or mountains or fenceposts or dollars. And the people represented should be equal in that representation. Equality of citizenship is the self-evident truth of our most revered national document. The great popular basis of our revolution for independence was to attain equality: taxation without representation. And in the 14th amendment thi historic principle was firmly imbedded in the Constitution: "No Sta shall *** deny to any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Court properly asked how could people be assured of equal pra tection of the laws in the legislative bodies which make the laws in which they have very unequal representation.

The resolutions before this subcommittee propose that the Congress initiate the formal withdrawal of this basic right of citizenship They seek to bring a halt to the orderly restoration of equal repre sentation in the State legislatures. I ask this committee to thin twice and again before it recommends a constitutional amendment to deprive citizens of their individual rights.

I therefore urge this committee to totally reject all the proposed

constitutional amendments before it.

Senator BAYH. We thank the Senator from Illinois for his detailed explanation of this problem. I would like to ask a question or two, if he would care to submit himself to them.

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes, of course.

Senator BAYH. As I stated yesterday, I feel the committee has very real responsibility, not only to explore the four proposals which are before it, but before we consider the possibility of enacting an additional appendix to our Constitution, we should explore the who

area.

The Senator from Illinois raised the question where these other factors come into play. Will not the provisions of the 14th amend ment still be in effect insofar as this has been decided in the court? Would this necessarily be removed by the enacting of the amendment Senator DOUGLAS. I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I would not try to set myself up as a final authority as to which section or article of the Constitution would take precedence over another section of the Constitution when there is conflict. The proposed amendments seem to give a hunting license to take anything other than population. Since it comes after the 14th amendment I am sure it could be argued that it was intended to modify the 14th amendment. Indeed, if it had not been for the decisions of the court under the 14th amendment, we would not have had any of these proposals. These proposals are cer tainly intended to modify the interpretations given to the 14th amendment by the Court.

Senator BAYH. The Senator knows I share his concern, and I would think that, if we ever get to the point that we are discussing a constitutional amendment such as this on the floor, that this part coul be taken care of by a legislative record which would reinforce our position once again.

Senator DOUGLAS. You know, a book on which I was brought up as a child—and I suppose the modern generation hasn't heard of it-was about the Peterkin family. They were always getting into difficulties, they were very inept in handling things. One morning, by mistake, instead of putting sugar in their coffee, they put in salt. In order to counteract the salt they put in more sugar, and this made it too sweet, and so to reduce the sweetness they put in more salt. They kept going back and forth, and were in a frightful stew.

Well, there was a lady from Philadelphia across the way who had the reputed wisdom of a Philadelphia lawyer, and since they were in trouble, they asked the advice of this lady. She looked the situation over and said, "Throw it all out and make a new batch."

My advice is to throw all these amendments out; let the decisions of the Supreme Court stand.

Senator BAYH. In other words, drink milk.

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes; that would be all right.

Senator BAYH. I know the Senator wants to throw out the entire batch, but I would like to ask him to share with this subcommittee his thoughts on this. Could we not incorporate in an amendment a provision for the periodic reviews to which he referred? That was the intent, as I read it.

Senator DOUGLAS. That is the intent, as I understand it, and one of the purposes of the Javits resolution. I will merely say in connection with this that the good is frequently the worst enemy of the best. Senator BAYH. May I say that I appreciate the Senator's remarks about article V.

Senator DOUGLAS. Excuse me. I think I said article VI. It is article V. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Yes. I concur. It is difficult to see any way in which the Supreme Court could remove that provision by judicial interpretation. However, there are some who feel that the Court is going to get out of hand and put the Senate on a population basis. I suppose there would be nothing to prevent us from amending the Constitution, if it was thought wise to do so, but I don't think the Court could misinterpret that specific language.

Senator DOUGLAS. No. And, furthermore, can you imagine the 26 States which now control the United States Senate, with only 16 percent of the population, can you imagine them giving up that stranglehold-which they exercise so strongly?

It is hard enough to get 17 States to give up their control on vital matters under rule 22, although they can represent only 7 percent of the population.

Senator BAYI. Of course, the Senator knows the fact is they wouldn't have the opportunity to give it up. The Court would, by judicial interpretation, jerk the rug out from under them. I think this is a rather unrealistic thought.

Senator DOUGLAS. That provision is perfectly explicit.

Senator BAYн. Oh, yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. And would be a direct prohibition upon the Court.

Senator BAYH. The Senator quoted it correctly in his testimony. Senator DoUGLAS. Yes: but I said it was article VI. It should be article V. It is the concluding clause-No State without its consent