August 27, 1962

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, :Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of electors.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.

· Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be considered.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker ; may I be heard on the point of order?

The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman may be heard.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power of recognition at his own discretion.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House Manual, which reads as follows; and I respectfully submit it is ~ mandatory rule:

The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only, shall, when claimed by the Committee on the District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business as may be presented by said committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those bills to be considered. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker. I should like to be heard on the point of order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean something or they do not mean anything.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. ABERNETHY], has just called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. Nothing could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error on this proposition: ·

The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only-

And that is · au; that is all that you can consider-disposition of motions to discharge committees— and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker ' s table as requires reference only-

That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider. -

Mr. Speaker, after that is done the shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business as may be pr.esented by said committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they should have been heardand I doubt if very many Members were here when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, . and certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that having gotten · unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration to District of Columbia matters.

Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule. . Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the · consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the rules today is a privileged motion. The matter - is within the discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

The Chair overrules the point of order. The Clerk read the resolution (S.J Res. 29) as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby 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 only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

"SEc. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." :

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the gentleman qualifies. I believe that the opposition has the right to demand a second. ·

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCuLLOCH] opposed to the resolution?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman does not qualify.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I am.

The SPEAKER . Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . Mr. Speaker, our late lamented Speaker, Sam Rayburn, President Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, our present Speaker, John McCormack, all have at one time or another inveighed against the poll tax. Both party platforms have repeatedly pledged abolition of the poll tax. For example in the party platforms, the Republicans had the abolition of the poll tax as a platform plank in 1944, 1948, and 1952, as follows:

In 1944:

The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in Federal elections, and we favor immediate submission of a constitutional amendment for its abolition. In 1948:

We favor the abolition of the poll tax as a requisite to voting.

In 1952:

We will prove our good faith by • • • Federal action toward the · elimination of the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting.

In 1960:

(1) To continue the vigorous enforcement of ' civil rights laws to give the right to vote to all citizens in all areas of the country (from party pledge).

Democrat--no specific reference to the poll tax by name in platforms of 1948 and 1952, but it is obviously referred to in the Democratic platform of 1948 in the following manner:

In 1948:

We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing the basic and fundamental American principles: (1) the right of full and equal political participation. In 1952: We find an approval of the removal of the poll tax:

We favor Federal legislation effectively to secure these rights to everyone: • • • (3) the right to full and equal participation in the Nation's political life, free from arbitrary restraints.

In 1960:

We will support whatever action is necessary to eliminate literacy tests and the pay. ment of poll taxes as requirements for voting. I regret that this constitutional amendment is brought up under suspension of the rules with only 40 minutes of debate. I applied for · a rule. A rule was not forthcoming. A discharge petition was filed but not · processed. Such a petition is rarely used and has its attendant difficulties if not embarrassments. Hence this suspension of the rules.

In espousing this amendment I regret that I must differ with my esteemed colleagues of the Judiciary Committee, Representatives WILLIS, ASHMORE, FORRESTER, DOWDY, and TUCK. Their opposition is as strong as it is sincere. In this we are as different as Hamlet is from Hercules, as a pig's tail is from the tail of a comet. But remember, democracy's strength lies in differences of opinion and the right to utter them.

The House has passed an antipoll tax bill five times, the Senate twice, including the resolution before you.

Antipoll tax legislation, since 1942, passed by the House in 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, and 81st Congresses. Debated in the Senate during each of these Congresses but passed by the Senate only during 86th and 87th.

No bills passed by either House or Senate-82d through the 85th.

In each instance the bill which passed the House contemplated Federal legislation to prevent a poll tax prerequisite to voting in Federal elections. No such bill was passed by the Senate and at least one-H.R. 7, 78th Congress-was prevented from coming to a vote through filibuster.

Only time it passed the Senate was during the 86th Congress, and that took the form of constitutional amendment. Seventy-seventh Congress, H.R. 1024: Passed the House on October 13, 1942, 254 to 84. Reported in Senate and debated in Senate.

Seventy-eighth Congress, H.R. 7: Passed House May 25, 1943, 265 to 110. Senate filibustered and cloture vote defeated 36 to 44.

Seventy-ninth Congress, H.R. 7: Motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration was adopted by 224 to 95; H.R. 7 passed the House June 12, 1945, 251 to 105. Debated in Senate but no action taken.

Eightieth Congress, H.R. 29: Passed House 290 to 112 on July . 21, 1947. Reported and debated in the Senate.

Eighty-first Congress, H.R. 3199: Passed House July 2o, 1949, by 273 to Eighty-sixth Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 39: Passed Senate February 2, 1960, 72 to 16-constitutional amendment. By vote of 50 to 37 Holland motion to table JAVITs' amendment by statute on February 2, 1960. House reported measure after deleting antipoll tax portion on May 31, 1960.

Eighty-seventh Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 29: Passed Senate March 27, 1962-voice vote. JAVITs' amendment defeated March 27, 59 to 34, and resolu· tion itself passed Senate by vote of 77 to 16.

Only five States maintain poll taxesAlabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. Here is how it operates in those States. · Alabama: PoU tax of $1.50 for persons over 21 and under 45. Maximum such requirement, including ar:rears, is a payment of $3--or for 2 years. Must be paid by February 1, next preceding the ments. election, all poll taxes due from him for the last 2 years.

Arkansas: Poll tax of $1. Tax must be paid on or before October 1 preceding the election.

Mississippi : $2 per year, poll tax. Must be paid on or before February 1 of that election year in which he wishes to vote. Must have proof of payment for 2 preceding years.

Texas: $1.50 poll tax fee-$1 goes to support of schools. Must be paid before February 1 of the year in which seeks to vote.

Virginia: $1.50 poll tax fee. Must be paid at least 6 months before election in which seeks to vote. Must have paid taxes-State poll taxes-assessed against him during the 3 years next preceding the year of the election.

And it is interesting to note that these five States which still require the payment of a poll tax were among the seven States with the lowest voter participation in the 1960 presidential election. The fear that a ' constitutional amendment would take too long is illusory. The first 10 amendments, constituting the Bill of Rights, were ratified in approximately 9 months. The 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th amendments each required only approximately 1 year, while the 21st and 23d amendments took less than a year. And remember, 45 States do not have a poll tax.

Reasonable minds differ as to the method to be adopted to abolish the poll tax. Some would travel the statutory route, others the constitutional route. As the Attorney General stated, "a constitutional amendment is a realistic and commendable" approach.

In testifying before the Senate Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee on June 28, 1961, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach said: While we think from the recent trend in decisions that the courts would ultimately uphold such a statute, the matter is not free from doubt. In any event, as a practical matter and in view of the widespread support offered by the many sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 58, the poll tax may possibly be laid forever to rest faster by constitutional amendment than by attempt to enact and litigate the validity of a statute. All of us know that long delays are inherent in litigation generally, and this is particularly true when important constitutional issues are at stake. Accordingly, the Justice Department supports the proposed amendment as a realistic technique which seeks the early demise of . the poll tax. -

Later, during that hearing, Mr. Katzenbach said:

I am authorized on this to speak for the administration and for the President.

If the statutory method were · pursued there would ensue a long period of liti- gation to test the statute's constitutionality.

Furthermore, a statute would be difficult to enact in both Houses-as difficult as trying to grasp a shadow.

This amendment has passed the Senate, I repeat. I am a pragmatist. I want results, not debate. I want a law, not a filibuster. I crave an end to the poll tax, not unlimited, crippling amend­

I say to you gentlemen and ladies, "Stretch your feet according to your blanket." .

It is wiser to recognize the exigencies under which we operate.

· I do not wish to try for too much and fail. I do not want . to keep rolling a boulder up a high hill like Sisyphus, only to have it fall down constantly upon me. We would have inordinate trouble trying to get a mere statute passed. Hence this constitutional amendment.

I am aware that this resolution only affects voting in Federal elections. States could inflict the tax on ballots in State or local elections. This might mean double or bobtailed ballots. That would be unfortunate.

It is hoped that this constitutional amendment, when ratified, will liberate the minds of the members of the State legislatures of the five poll tax States and cause these men to realize that the fungus growth on their own local body politic could very well strangle progress in many directions.

Excuse is offered that the poll tax re- ceipts are used for educational purposes in some States. This is a specious argument. Poll tax proceeds might be used for many good causes-for bird sanctuaries, homes for inebriates, baseball parks, or what have you. But since the poll tax is inherently obnoxious, the good does not justify the evil. It is like the fruit of a poisoned tree or water from a tainted well.

The constitutional amendment is 1n exactly the form that it passed the Senate. I fought down all amendments before the Judiciary Committee so that we could pass upon the resolution as it had passed the Senate. This will avoid any conference and thus prevent delay. Delay has dangerous ends.

There has been sufficient delay in removing this unfair burden on the right to vote, a burden on the white man's ballot as well as on the colored man's ballot. ' Recent studies of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights revealed on the whole that the imposition of the poll tax has not been administered in a discriminatory manner, but the power to do so is resident therein. Past history is replete with discrimination. Present history still records some unjust brakes on the right to vote.

For too long a time have the rights of minorities b " been trammeled and trampled upon; 100 years have elapsed · since the Emancipation Proclamation. That is a long time. Emancipation has still not been fully achieved. Certainly there should be no longer any procrastination in consigning the poll tax to limbo.

Cervantes said:

By the street of by and by one arrives at the House of Never.

Let us not tarry longer with this obstruction to voting. Let us get rid of it

Mr. FASCELL . . MF. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FASCELL. I want to congratulate the gentleman as chairman of the J'udiciary Committee for his perseverance and his leadership in this matter. I would like the RECORD to show also that the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Florida, the Honorable SPESSARD L . .HOLLAND, in the other body, has for a long time been the sponsor of this resolution. I am very happy to join the gentleman from New York and my senior Senator from Florida in supporting this joint resolution.

We, in the U.S. Congress have witnessed a long and ofttimes bitter struggle to abolish the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting, so that no American must pay for the privilege of exercising his constitutional privilege-the right to vote.

One of the outstanding leaders in the fight for the abolition of this horrendous detriment to democracy is the distinguished and able senior Senator from my State of Florida, the Honorable SPESSARD L. HoLLAND.

As far back as 1937 Senator HoLLAND called the poll tax "an impediment to voting" and participated, as a Florida State senator, in the successful fight to remove the poll tax as a voting requirement in the State of Florida.

· Through his outstanding efforts in this matter, we, in the State of Florida, have realized a great increase in the exercise of voting responsibilities and the advent of clean politics. It was common knowledge throughout the State of Florida that some persons were controlling certain county elections through manipulation in the payment of poll taxes. As Senator HoLLAND phrased it, “This means of undemocratic and corrupt control was terminated by the poll tax repeal."

Now we are discussing the abolition by constitutional amendment of the poll tax in the only five States in this free Nation which require the payment of money as prerequisite for casting a vote-Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. Certain interests have maintained that the poll tax in these States is not a bar to voting on the logic that the tax is so small-ranging from $1 to $2-that it does not present an economic barrier in our state of a1Huency.

Mr. Speaker, the payment of money, whether directly or indirectly, whether in a small amount or in a large amount, should never be permitted to reign as a criterion of democracy. There should not be allowed a scintilla of this in our free society.

There are other local questions involved which, indeed, the people locally should have a right to pass upon, but as Senator HoLLAND has so ably noted over the years: · ·

Those local questions ought not to affect the rights of citizens to vote in Federal elections and to help name their President and their Vice President, their Senators and their Representatives.

There are cries that abolition of the poll tax through a constitutional amendment is tantamount to an outright invasion of States rights.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that no constitutional amendment can be called an invasion of States rights. The very heart and foundation of our system of democracy and way of free life is a respect for and subservience to the Federal Constitution which is amendable and when amended as prescribed in the Constitution establishes rights for all Americans. We have come a long way in the constitutional history of this great Nation. We have defended the belief that neither race, religion nor creed shall be a bar to the full enjoyment of every man of our constitutional privileges. Certainly, we do not intend to permit money-however insignificant the amount--to remain as a criteria for the freeman to exercise this privilege of participation in his government.

What fairer method is there for removal of this questionable criteria than through a constitutional amendment, as is provided for under our Federal Constitution in our democratic system.

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support . of this important measure which would insure all Americans the right to vote free from the arbitrary discrimination of a poll tax.

This right to vote, Mr. Speaker, is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is the . foundation of our form of government. It is the . one right, in fact, upon which all other constitutional guarantees de­ . pend for their effective protection. It must, therefore, be defended, secured and observed. ·

This right to vote free from discrimination based on race or color, howeverthe promise guaranteed by the 15th amendment to our Constitution--con; tinues to suffer abridgement. The excellent studies conducted by the Commission on Civil Rights reveal that many minority groups, and Negroes in particular, are anxious to exercise their full political rights as free Americans, and that progress has been made · in this regard. Unfortunately, these same studies also reveal that many Negro American citizens not only nnd it extremely difficult, but often impossible to vote; that devices such as the poll tax are still ef fective tools of discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who argue that every State has a constitutional right to impose voting tests. These tests must, however, be reasonable and . consistently applied. They must serve as qualifications for voting, not as barriers, and as the poll tax is currently being used it is neither reasonable nor a valid qualification : It is being used solely and exclusively to withhold the vote from certain groups and it must, therefore, be abolished as a violation of an equally important section of our Constitution-the 15th amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Declaration of Independence states boldly that all men are tion. created equaL I reject the concept that this means only some men and · I urge that we in this Congress, by · approving this legislation, join still further in the cause for racial justice and human equality.

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and rise in opposition to the resolution.

Mr: Speaker, if · I were a resident of one of the five States affected by this legislation, undoubtedly I would vote to change the law of that State, but I would be equally . and more violently opposed to having the long arm of the Federal Government reach in and compel me to make that change.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCuLLocH J. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 29 is a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States to eliminate the poll tax, as a condition precedent to voting in Federal elections. It is a mild proposal, indeed, in view of the limited use of poll tax laws as a deterrent to voting in the United States today.

Only in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia is the payment of · a poll tax a prerequisite for voting. More important, the . Civil Rights Commission in its 1961 report · stated: With the possible exception of a deterrent effect of the poll tax-which does not appear generally to be discriminatory upon the basis of race or color-Negroes now appear to encounter no significant racially motivated impediments to voting in 4 of the 12 Southern States: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

Thus, the Civil Rights Commission itself is unable to attribute more than a nod to the notion that poll' taxes are used today to racially discriminate in voting.

Even if we were to assume, however, that evidence did exist that the poll tax was being so used, it would be necessary to exclude the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia, since the Civil Rights Commission specifically found that voter discrimination for such means does not exist is those States. This leaves only the States of Alabama and Mississippi where the poll tax may be a racial deterrent to voting. Let us turn, then, to the voter situation in those two States to see how materially the final adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 29 will contribute to the cause of civil rights, in the area of voter enfranchisement.

In doing so, I wish to stress that I am not necessarily concluding that the poll tax is being used discriminatorily in these two States. However, in order to determine the maximum effective limits of this proposal, I secured voter registration statistics for 1960 in those counties of Alabama and Mississippi which have less than 10 percent registration among the nonwhite voting-age population. This is a most liberal estimate, since the Civil Rights Commission only labels a county for suspicion if it has less than 3 percent nonwhite registraAnalyzing the figures, I discovered that Alabama has approximately 160,000 nonwhite citizens of voting age within such counties who have not registered. Turning to Mississippi, I found that there are approximately 250,000 nonwhite citizens of voting age within counties of 10 percent or less nonwhite registration, who have not registered. This means that by final approval of the proposed constitutional amendment, we could only assist, at the most, 410,000 citizens.

Now, I well appreciate that to assist even one additional eligible citizen to vote is a good thing. I am for that principle, I have always been for that principle, and I intend to vote for this joint resolution. But, I ask, Will one truly be able to maintain a straight face in the future when we hear talk of the New Frontier's bold new legislative program for civil rights?

· Constitutional lawyers and careful students of government have long contended that the Constitution of the United States has been and should continue to be reserved for fundamental and profound changes in the basic law of the land. To proceed, as we are planning to proceed with today's action, could be harmful in precedent. It could be harmful because it tends to breed disrespect for our Constitution and encourage its change as one might amend an ordinance, or a State, or a Federal law. l hope our action today will never be used as an arguent or justification for amending the Constitution, when legislation would accomplish the same end. ·

Although there is no need to now enter into debate as to the propriety of proceeding by the legislative route on · this matter, I may say that many skilled and intelligent lawyers have argued that such a route is possible. Yet, as strange as it may seem, little or no consideration was given to this fundamental issue in committee. Of even greater importance, I am of the firm opinion that if we are to amend the Constitution, we should make the amendment fully effective.

Do we really believe that abolition of the poll tax will, in fact, enfranchise many additional citizens who today are barred from voting? Of course not, because there are many subtle and clever devices that can be used to prevent a person from voting, if that be the intention of public officials. Nineteen States, for example, presently impose some form of literacy test as a voting requirement, and more than half that number are from so-called Northern States. I am, however, pleased to say, that the State of Ohio has no literacy test for voting. With literacy tests as prevalent as they are, and as subject to abuse as we know some of them to be, those who speak of this proposal as monumental, are deceiving themselves, and those who believe them.

It is regrettable that a proposal to amend the Constitution is debated on a motion to suspend the rules, when total time for debate is limited to 40 minutes. There is no time to describe the effective extralegal devices which so completely deter voting in some States. Suffice it to say that this proposal will not solve the real problem. It will only be solved by an energetic and a real will to enforce the basic and statutory law of the land, and perhaps supplemented by appropriate legislation by the Congress. In the waning days of the 2d session of the 87th Congress, I urge the suspension of the rules and the adoption of the resolution. It is neither brave nor bold, in fact it is a shameful retreat of the broad advance on the New Frontier in the fall of 1960, but it is the best that can be had this year.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to · the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I believe it might be well for me to say at this point that the proposition before us is not new or novel. I have voted for antipoll tax legislation, I would guess, at least a · half dozen times. I remember voting for such a bill in 1942. I voted for such a bill in 1943, and I voted for one in 1945. In June of 1947, as majority leader of the 80th Congress, we called up under suspension of the rules an antipoll tax bill. It passed by substantially more than the necessary two-thirds rnajority.

. So, as I said at the outset, this is nothing new or novel; it is something that the House of Representatives has been trying to write into law for a long, long time. This proposal is a constitutional amendment. I think most of the measures we have heretofore dealt with undertook to accomplish this by statute law. Is that correct?

Mr. McCULLOCH. That is correct.

Mr. HALLECK. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I propose to vote for this measure as I have voted for similar measures through the last 20 years.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I thank the gentleman from Indiana, our minority leader, and I am pleased that he has brought the record up to · date.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed regrettable that a constitutional amendment should be brought to the floor of the House with only 40 minutes for debate thereon. I hope it does not happen again.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Can the gentleman tell me whether if this amendment is adopted it will destroy a right that is presently vested in the States?

Mr: McCULLOCH. I am not convinced that that is the case.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The States now have the right to make this determination. If you pass this amendment it destroys the right of the States in that regard, does it not?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I am not convinced that it does. Some of the ablest lawyers in the country are of · the opinion that the intended result can be accomplished either by congressional action or constitutional amendment.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. WILLIS].

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Speaker, Louisiana was one of the first States in the Union to repeal the poll tax. I voted to repeal it. And I would hope that some of these days the three or four remaining States still having the poll tax requirement as a condition to vote will repeal it.

Thus far, therefore, the proponents of the measure before us today and I are together. Beyond that point, however, we part company. Why? I disagree on the basis of two great constitutional concepts. In other words, I part company with my friends who favor this proposal because I believe I have the Constitution on my side.

The first constitutional provision is this. With great humility and out of consideration for all the people, the Founding Fathers put a provision in the Constitution · which says that the qualification of people to vote for Members of Congress and national offices shall be the same as those who vote for members of the State legislature and local offices. The resolution before the House today would reverse t:p.ts principle. It would make a special provision applicable to Members of Congress and national - nal offices only. It would provide that when a person enters a polling booth to vote for a Member of Congress or national office, he could not be required to pay a poll tax, but when voting for a local officer on the · same ballot he could be forced to pay a poll tax. Strangely enough, the proponents of this measure use this very argument to get votes for the pending proposal. On reflection I say to you that this is the greatest argument against a vote for it. ·

Why make a special provision for Members of Congress and national offices only? Where is our humility? Those of you who · vote for this resolution must face the fact that you will not be able to tell the folks back home, "Look what I did for you." You will have to tell the mayor of your hometown, your sheriff, your justice of the peace, and on up to your Governor, "Look what I did for me."

Oh, I · know, you might be able to whisper to these local officials that you could not make such a provision for them and so for the time being you made the provision only for yourself. But they might wen · say to you, "Did you try? Did you make a fight for us? Did you offer an amendment to include And then, too, you might be able to tell your political friends that to match the tactics of those of the opposite party you had to do something special for a special minority group.-a minority group incidentally for whom I have the greatest compassion and a majority of whom I think vote for me. But the truth of the matter is that this great country of ours is made up of conglomerate people of innumerable minority groups. For example, the Catholics as such are not in a majority and in that sense are a minority gr.oup. No one sect of the Protestants constitute a majority and in that sense they, too, are minority groups. Suppose some of the s e days any one of these groups tells you, "Out of political consideration you always seem to justify doing something special for one minority group: when are you going to start doing something for us?" What are you going to say? Of course you might be able to tell them, "Your turn will come next." But this, in my opinion, would violate an· other constitutional provision, which, in plain language, states . that the time, place, and manner of conducting elec­ -tions shall be left up to · the States. The constitutional amendment before us today, if passed, would be . an entering · wedge and a foot in · the door · which through pressure groups, however sincere, would inevitably lead to o · other amendments concentrating the entire election procedure and machinery in the Federal Government-and then goodby States rights.

The proposal before us today is reminiscent of one made by former President Eisenhower. You will remember, I am sure, that he proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would give the . right to vote to all people 18 years of age . . The argument was that if a person was old enough to fight for his country, he . was old enough to vote, and it had great temporary emotional appeal. But then the people were heard from with a great voice saying, "The proposal has great merit, but on reflection we should · heed the admonition of the Founding Fathers to the effect that the qualification of voters and the time, place, and manner of conducting elections should be left up to the States." And the proposal was abandoned.

Passage of the proposed amendment to the Constitution · restricted to so- · called national elections · would lead to a breakdown of the " division of power between the Federal Government and the States.

For example, we provide money to build a so-called Federal highway system. Should we use this as an excuse for Congress to enact speed laws and to create traffic courts? We provide funds for land-grant colleges, which includes . practically every State university. Should we use this as ap excuse to pass legislaticn regulating · our State public educational system? I am very much afraid that the restriction of the present pr o posal to national elections in order to get votes today will be used as an excuse to further amend the Constitution in the field of State and local elections and will inevitably result in the concentration of more and greater power in the Federal Government at the expense of the r- ~ates and the people, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TucK]. · Mr. TUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] for alio . tting me this brief time in which to discuss such an important question. · . Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States relating to the qualifications of electors, with specific reference to the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in Federal elections. I respectfully submit that the House could be utilizing its time more profitably and devoting its attention to far more important matters.

This resolution is a political gesture addressed to powerful minority groups who neither live nor vote in the five poll tax States.

The power of the Congress to pass a resolution of this nature is not ques- tioned; however, to do so will be to . subvert hallowed constitutional principles. The principle involved here is the right of the States to control their own election machinery and to · set forth qualifications of voters. That l'ight is upheld in the decision of Butler v. Thompson, cvnr--1112

341 u.s. 937, wherein the Supreme Court held that "the decisions generally hold that a State statute which imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition of the right · to vote does not abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United st · States which are protected . cted by the 14th amendment. The - privilege of voting is derived from the State, and not from the National Government."

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, held that "the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage on anyone". Suffrage is basically a privilege and becomes a right only if denied under the guarantees of the 15th and 19th amendments. A person may vote only if he meets the qualifications prescribed by his State.

The operation of the poll tax does not create a problem which requires solution by a constitutional amendment. The unbroken precedents of upholding the poll tax against constitutional attack should not be ignored by this House. This body will not be justified in the passage of the proposed resolution.

It is claimed by the proponents of this joint resolution that it is necessary as a civil rights measure. If such were true, the Supreme Court would have long since outlawed the poll tax as violative of the 15th amendment instead of upholding it as a legitimate exercise of a State's power.

The Civil Rights Commission in its 1961 report did not make a single reference to an instance in which the poll tax requirement had been administered in such manner as to discriminate against any voter or class of voters.

In my own State, the · effect of the amendment's provisions upon State election machinery would be disastrous. Whereas now only one list of voters must be kept, under the proposed amendment two sets of records w . would have to be maintained inasmuch as the constitu!. tion of Virginia requires the payment of a poll tax. · One set - would list those who had complied with State law and could, therefore, vote in State elections; the other set would list those persons who, though they had not complied with the law in State elections could vote in elections for Federal officers. This would be wholly unworkable. Our system has . worked well. we · are not discriminating against anyone, and the record so bears this out. . In closing, I would like to reemphasize the following general objections to the proposed amendment:

First. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the principles of a Federal system of government as outlined in the Constitution.

Second. The existence of a poll tax does not cr.eate a problem which demands solution by constitutional amendment.

Third. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would deprive five States of a · source of substantial revenue. · Fourth. If adopted, the proposed amendment would abolish a tested and proven method of maintaining proper voters rolls.

Fifth. Adoption of the proposed amendment would establish a precedent for future amendments, which properly may be referred to as "national referendums," on any item in a State's laws : that fail to meet the approval of the other States.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY].

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to poll taxes, and therefore I will vote for this bill, but I do so with a heavy heart.

This is probably the greatest piece of legislative gamesmanship that has come to the floor of the House in the 87th Con- · gress. This is a great day also for the anticivil rights proponents. It may sound strange to some of you, but I am going to agree pretty much with my good ­ friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. WILLIS]; First of all, this is a fantastic procedure under which to amend the Constitution-an up or down vote, no amendments permitted, no motion torecommit possible, a total of 40 minutes of debate. Secondly, the result sought to be achieved can and should be achieved by a simple spot vote.

The leadership on the majority side, who are running this show, Mr. Speaker, ought to be proud of themselves for handing us this dish of tea. Under this kind of gag procedure they casually and cynically tinker with the U.S. Constitution, for political reasons, to get off the hook on civil rights. They would amend the Constitution to abolish the poll tax in Federal elections only. Why only Federal elections? That was the point made by my friend from Louisiana [Mr. WILLISJ-in Federal elections only. The impact is on two States. Only five States still have a poll tax of any kind and only two of these continue to use the poll tax in order to disfranchise voters. The Civil Rights Commission, in its 1961 report, said as follows:

The absence of complaints to the Commission, actions by the Department of Justice, private litigation, or other indications of discrimination, have led the Commission to con- elude that, with the possible exception of a deterrent effect of the poll tax-which does not appear generally to be discriminatory upon the basis of race or color-Negroes now appear to encounter no significant racially motivated impediments to voting in 4 of the 12 Southern States.

Mr. Speaker, it is dangerous to alter the U.S. Constitution when the same result can be reached by statute. Some of the Members on the majority side who think of themselves as great liberals ought to worry about this a little bit. There are any number of proposals, for example, to amend the U.S. Constitution on the school prayer issue, and if you can do it as easily as we do here today, to correct a relatively minor matter that can be corrected by simple statute, just think of what can occur in the future in the event the extreme right should be in the ascendancy. This is using a sledge hammer, a giant cannon, in order to kill a gnat.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, what we really · have here is the last act and the last scene of this bad charade that we have been forced to watch for almost 2 years in which the administration and the majority side of the aisle step by step have delivered on the deal not to give the country significant or meaningful civil rights legislation. I think it is a pretty sorry show. This is known as an "off the hook" bill-a show device that will get the administration off the hook for ment. breaking its pledges with the American people on civil rights.

The present Attorney General of the ALGER]. United States came to the Judiciary Committee and testified that the poll-tax requirement in Federal elections can and should be eliminated by simple statute. And do you know when he changed? He changed when the President of the United States got caught in a press conference and came out for a constitutional amendment on the subject of the poll tax in Federal elections. This was part of the administration's original deal with southern committee chairmen. And then the Attorney General, of course, fell in line.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to amend the Constitution, the amendment ought to be meaningful. It ought to be d . debated at length. Such an amendment should abolish impediments to voting in local elections as well as State elections. It should not be confined to Members of Congress. The real difficulty lies at the local level, in school boards and in those other areas where the anti-civil-libertarian forces go to work to the d . detriment of all citizens of this country and to the detriment of the free democratic process. Such an amendment, further, should do away with all obstructions to the right to vote.

And what has happened to all of the civil rights legislation that was promised in the Democratic platform and over and SMITH]. over again in the 1960 campaign? I will tell you what has happened. It has gone down the drain in the trade that was made by this administration not to come up with a civil rights program. Then, to get off the hook, they come up with this sugar-coated proposition that is meaningless except for its possible politi- . cal value to those who want to get off the hook. This is a sad day on Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker, and I am only sorry there are not more protests. I suspect that the liberals on the Democratic side of the aisle are discreetly remaining quiet at this moment because they know perfectly well this is the wrong way to achieve a result and they are embarrassed. How they can go out on the hustings now and defend the administration on this one is beyond me.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] has expired.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 29. This constitutional amendment is long overdue. I hope it will be passed by an overwhelming vote. No person should have to pay for the privilege of voting.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one-half minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] says . that the committee had to yield. I simply say that that is a lot of “malarkey.” I would say this generally with reference to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] said.

He reminds me of a bull that charges into an express train. He shows commendable courage but deficient judg­

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, I have only 1 minute, but I want to tell my colleagues I have always been against the poll tax as a voting qualification in the State of Texas, b:ut the end does not justify the means. If we want to change this State prerogative in Texas, Texans will do it in good time at Austin, Tex. This resolution today is the wrong way to do it. We do not have discrimination in Texas because of the poll tax, but whether we do or not, it is not the business of the other States to tell us our voting qualifications. I wish my colleagues who take the lead on States rights and the Constitution during civil rights debates would join us conservatives when we need them so badly on other issues on grounds of States rights. I am trying to be consistent. I am against the poll tax. But this is the wrong way to do it, and you will live to rue the day you do it.

I want to commend the gentlemen who wrote the minority views. I would like to read the court decision of Butler versus Thompson, time prevents, so I commend it to your consideration. This resolution is wrong, and I hope it is voted down.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 4 minutes; 4 minutes. I have been here a long time. I hope that the walls of this Hall will never ring again with the kind of a farce that has been put on here today, with . the Constitution of the United States to be amended, when no one can offer an objection or an amendment to it, when no one can raise his voice in extended debate, but 20 minutes for and 20 minutes supposedly against it. It is unprecedented in the annals of this Government for an amendment to the Constitution, no matter how insignificant it may be, to be considered here under this procedure.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I decline to yield. I have only 4 minutes, and Iregret very much, much more than the gentleman does, I am sure, that we do not have additional time.

I heard one of the speakers-and by the way, the best arguments I have heard for the defeat of this resolution have come from the Republican side. This should not be done in this way. It shows the utmost disrespect and disrepute to which the great Constitution of the United States has fallen. Think on the origin of this resolution in the other body. There was a little bill to honor the great Alexander Hamilton, one of the great Republicans of this country, and it was displaced so that they might get onto the floor this disgraceful exhibition of disrespect and disrepute of the great Constitution of the United States.

Gentlemen, how many of you are going to be proud of the vote you are about to cast, about to cast under the pressure of both parties, because the Republican leadership is just as much responsible for this as the Democrats. They do not put bills of this controversy on the “Suspense” Calendar unless they have the consent and approval of the minority leadership. So do not lay it on the Democratic side, and I am not excusing the Democratic leadership because they could have brought this up in the regular way. Mr. HAnLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? .

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I decline to yield. If you had cooperated with us in fixing this thing so that we would have some time to debate a proposed amendment to the Constitution we would have been glad to discuss it and discuss it fully and on its merits. But this resolution could have been brought up here in the regular way. Some of you will remember that just 18 months ago the leadership of this House packed the Committee on Rules so that they · would have a majority vote on it. They could have gotten it out of the Committee on Rules with a majority vote, if they had wanted to do it in the democratic way and permit the House to vote on it. Yet, this House is going to vote for this in this extraordinary situation, and they are going to do it under political pressure to please a minority group. We all know that, everybody knows that, the country knows that. What is this country going to come to when we, supposedly responsible and dignified Members of the Congress, "crook the pregnant hinges of the knee" at every call and at every demand of any minority group in this country in order that some votes may be ~ controlled? Is that the kind of government that we are going to run from now on? Think it over. Vote for it, as you will. Vote for it, as I know you will; and knowing so, vote for it under pressureunder political pressure from a minority group-and then regret it as long as yoti live.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield onehalf minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. FORRESTER].

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Speaker, Georgia levies no poll tax. Only 5 of our 50 States do. Nevertheless, the levying of poll taxes has always been a matter for decision by the respective States, and I hope it will continue to be. The 5 States still collecting a poll tax have as good morals, as much respect for law, and as efficient government as the other 45 States. This statement · cannot be challenged. To say that a $1 or $2 poll tax prevents anyone from exercising the privilege to vote is laughable. Maybe a poll tax serves no good purpose but, conversely, it serves no evil purpose. It is a right that the States have exercised from the beginning and a right that can be destroyed only by a constitutional amendment prohibiting such tax.

The committee is to be congratulated on recognizing the fact that only a constitutional amendment can deprive the States of the power to levy such tax, and proceeding by way of constitutional HOUSE amendment rather than by statute which would undoubtedly have been illegal. I cannot believe any good will be accomplished by striking down the rights of the States to levy a poll tax for the purpose of trying to cure an imaginary ill nurtured by minority groups.

Appeas i ng of m i nority groups' unreasonable demands is making us ridiculous in the eyes of the people of the world.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks on the pending resolution before the vote thereon.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time remaining to the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALPERN].

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALPERN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into any controversy with any of my colleagues, but I just want it clearly stated for the record and understood that today is the regular day for considering legislation under suspension of the rules under the arrangement made last Monday; and so far as the suspensions are concerned, it was within the province of the Speaker and the majority leadership to schedule them, and that is what has been done.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of any step taken in the direction of outlawing this undemocratic, feudal practice of placing a price tag on the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer that the poll tax be outlawed by statute rather than by an amendment to the Constitution, as this House has authorized five times previously. There is a big question as to the effectiveness of going the amendment route-obtaining approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures is a long, difficult, and tedious process, to say the least.

We are now, however, faced with no other alternative under the rule and the circumstances here today but to support this constitutional amendment. Despite the question of the effectiveness of this method, I definitely shall support this Senate joint resolution.

It is vital that the Congress go on record before our people that the poll tax be repealed. Mr. Speaker, I urge a massive vote for passage.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the 1 minute remaining on this side to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ROGERS].

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from Virginia should say that we were placed under a gag rule, that we could not present the matter to the House so that this constitutional proposal could be amended. I want to direct attention to and read a letter from the gentleman from Virginia, addressed to the chairman of our committee, which reads as follows:

OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

COMMITTEE ON RULES,

Washington, D.C., June 15, 1962.

Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of June 14 requesting that the Committee on Rules schedule a hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the qu a lifications of electors.

I shall endeavor to schedule a hearing on this measure at the earliest possible time and shall be glad to advise you when a date has been set.

Sincerely,

HOWARD W. SMITH,

Chairman.

If the gentleman from Virginia and others are interested and do not want the Constitution amended, or us to have an opportunity to say how it should be amended, why did he not, upon the request of the chairman of this committee, grant a rule so that we could come in here and discuss it in every particular?

Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, when we are faced with one of the most serious and important steps in the operation of our Government; when we are revising the very document that is the foundation of the great Republic; when the Constitution of the United States is to be altered in any manner whatsoever, it well behooves this Congress to follow orderly, calm, and comprehensive procedures to assure full and complete debate and discussion.

Here today, under a procedure to suspend the rules and pass a bill designed to amend the Constitution of the United States we are gagged, full debate and discussion are prohibited, and only 20 minutes is allowed for each side.

As the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] so ably stated, here we are "tinkering" with the Constitution ' and only a relatively few minutes are permitted to talk about the merits of the legislation. And the gentleman from New York has a sound record in favor of civil rights legislation.

It is quite apparent this bill will pass, and the easy and politically expedient vote would be "aye." However, it is a travesty to manhandle the Constitution by this deplorable procedure, and I will not be a party to such practice.

My district has nearly 16 percent nonwhite population , and they properly have equal voting rights without restrictions such as the poll tax. Thus this bill will neither give nor deprive my people of _ anything. I feel, however, that the constituents in my district would not approve of the offhand manner in which this House is toying wit , h . the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, in my first campaign for Congress 10 years ago, I registered my opposition to the poll tax as a price tag on the voting privilege. I prefer to see the States repeal the poll tax.

I am opposed to a Federal statute on the subject. ·

I am opposed to a constitutional amendment if that amendment reaches into State and local elections.

However, a constitutional amendment which is confined to Federal elections and which is ratified by the States as the Constitution provides is not an unconstitutional invasion of States rights, and such an amendment I feel obliged to support.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, the great Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever assembled by freemen. It is renowned and acclaimed throughout the world. It was assembled only after the loss of life and shedding of blood by men who made the sacrifice to establish and preserve the dignity of man.

It is to be regretted, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest assaults made upon our Federal Constitution in this day and age have been made by our highest Court, the personnel of which seem to feel that they have the right to twist and turn its provisions to their own thinking, and by this Congress itself.

An assault is being made on this great document today by Members of . this House who, I regret to say, have their eyes on the forthcoming election much more than they do on the Constitution. Under tremendous pressure-political pressures, if you please-there is a bending to political expediency: The objective is not to please or improve standards in the so-called poll tax States. It is to please special minority groups in other States, primarily in the northeastern region of the country. The action is being taken with the hope, the design, and the ambition to curry favor, and to secure the political endorsement of these minorities, on the next election day.

This horrible assault will be made, Mr. Speaker, under a procedure which gags Members of this body, which denies them the right to debate the issue freely and fully, which denies the offering of the slightest amendment, and without the Members possibly understanding the consequences of such a far-reaching resolution.

There are resolutions and bills which may be properly and satisfactorily considered under a time limitation of 40 minutes as the rule under which we are now operating provides. There are resolutions and bills of such simple character that amendments thereto would be unworthy. But, Mr. Speaker, indeed a resolution which has the effect of changing, altering, amending, defacing, or whatever you may call it, the Constitution of our great country should never be submitted to and swept through this House in such a ruthless and tornado-like . fashion. What a terrible precedent.

Fu r Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the adoption of this resolution will provide a most dangerous precedent for future proposals to further eliminate variations among the various States with respect to voter qualifications. These qualifications deal with age, with education, with residence and so on. Without any doubt, the action which appears inevitable here today will lead to other assualts, from the Federal level, on the sovereignty and dignity of each of the great States of our Union.

While there may be differences of opinion as to the appropriateness of a poll tax as a condition to voting, the courts have on several occasions sanctioned the constitutionality of such and held that the imposition of the tax was a matter of decision and determination for each State.

This resolution is another move toward conformity, to make all States and all peoples similar and alike. The strength of our country lives in the individualism our citizens, of groups of citizens, of our great cities, and our States. But apparently the pressure minority groups are not satisfied with the individual characteristics, traits, customs and practices among our people. So, through organization and organized political pressures they are forcing House Members today to take another step toward conformity.

Finally and simply, Mr. Speaker, is it not absurd to suggest in this day when per capita income is high that a $2 per year poll tax restricts the right of any individual to vote? Even the Civil Rights Commission, whose interest, affection and, I might say, bias in favor of minority groups is well known, has dared not make such a contention. In . fact, it has intimated and almost firmly stated quite the contrary.

I have some hope, slight though it may be since the skids are well greased, that you will not take this dangerous and unprecedented step. I know that many, lf not most, of you are concerned. I know you do not like this procedure. And I know you would rather this issue not be here. Pause a moment, if you please. If your conscience tells you to go slow, then do it.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are sound reasons to abolish the poll tax requirement for voting in Federal elections. One is that it is a step forward in democracy. There is another which I would particularly call attention to. Experience has shown that the existence of such a tax is a temptation toward its payment by others than the person designed to be taxed. This in turn has been a temptation toward the payment of money in an effort to control the vote of the person whose tax is paid by another. This is reason enough for me to support this measure. In conclusion, I would like to pay particular tribute to the primary exponent of this measure, the senior Senator from Florida; Senator HoLLAND. His able leadership in this is the chief factor in its passage.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, every step forward, even a small one, is important in securing full voting rights for citizens of the United States. The vote of this House takes nothing away from the States for the States must vote by a majority of 75 percent to make this constitutional amendment effective. The strength, and not the weakness, of our form of government comes from our abili\,y thus to change our Constitution. Better late than never, but this is a vote for which every American can be proud.

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my complete support of this measure designed to eliminate the poll tax. It is my opinion that the poll tax system is a denial of the basic elements of democracy.

It is unthinkable that in the United States, there are still areas in which American citizens are required to pay for the right to vote. Such a system tends to discourage our poorer citizens from the exercise of their precious right of choosing their officials.

There is no doubt that in certain sections of our country, our poorer citizens among the Negroes have been prevented from voting by the poll tax as well as by other less subtle forms of persuasion.

Mr. Speaker, the poll tax is undemocratic and un-American. It is a blight that must be eliminated from our Nation.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 29, which seeks to prohibit the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting.

It is indeed unfortunate that the tax is known as a poll tax, for a great percentage of the public at large is under the impression that this is a tax on the polls or places where voters come on election day to cast their votes; and this tax is therefore regarded by them as a fee to be paid for the privilege of voting. It is plain to see that this point of view would incense those who hold it. However, this is not the case at all. The word "poll" is an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning "head," and the poll tax is merely a head tax. The law dictionaries define a poll tax as a capitation tax; a tax assessed on every head, that is, on every male of a certain age, and so forth, according to statute.

In my State a head • tax of $2 is levied annually on each person with certain exemptions, and the revenue thus produced is used to support our schools. Every person must pay this tax, regardless of sex, race, color, and whether or not he votes. There is no discrimination. All are treated alike. All must pay it except those who come within the exemptions, and only those come within the exemptions who we think cannot afford to pay it, namely, the deaf, the dumb, the blind, the maimed, and the aged. A person who chooses not to vote still owes the tax, and although in my State no criminal proceedings are allowed to enforce its collection, such tax is made a lien upon taxable property. What is its connection with voting? We think that a person who fails to meet this small tax obligation to his State is not qualified to participate in the political affairs of the State. His disinterest and disregard for obligations have disqualified him. Is our interpretation of a tax evader's disqualification so erroneous that 45 States are willing to unite and invade the domestic affairs of the 5 other sovereign States to compel them to invalidate this interpretation? It is true that it is proposed that this be accomplished by constitutional amendment. The method is correct but the purpose - is wrong. I ask that we pause and take a sober look at what is transpiring in this Chamber today. The issue appears to have simmered down to a choice between legislation and a constitutional amendment. I know that some of my colleagues feel that they are making a great concession to the cause of our national unity for forgoing an attempt to repeal the poll tax by statute and voting instead for the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 29. This is truly a noble gesture and I deeply respect them for it. They are men of honor and intellect; and some of them may possibly be sincere in their efforts to accomplish what they think is right; but they are mistaken in their judgment of the real issue. In their desire to choose a method which is legal, they have overlooked the illegality of the goal.

Since no reputable evidence has been offered by the proponents of this legislation to show that the poll tax requirement in any of the so-called five poll-tax States has ever disqualified or disfranchised any person from voting, one is prompted to question the reason why this legislation is being considered at this time. The answer is obvious to every Member of this body. It is strictly an administration election-year vote-getting gimmick calculated to attract votes from so-called civil rights reform groups and their fellow travelers.

Thirteen sovereign States met through their representatives in convention and drafted an agreement to form a union. They signed a contract, our Constitution, under which the powers were divided between the Central Government and the States. Qualifications for voting were left to be determined by the States. This was not done in carelessness or without forethought. The question was thoroughly debated by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. These were men of great wisdom, capable statesmen, distinguished lawyers and grave students of government. Gouverneur Morris was against making the qualifications of the electors of the National Legislature depend upon the will of the States. Colonel Mason argued that--

A power to alter the qualifications would be dangerous in the hands of the Federal Legislature.

Mr. Ellsworth claimed that--

The qualifications were on a most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the State constitutions. (See 5 Elliott's Debates on the Federal Constitution, p. 385 et seq.) And so the power to determine qualifications for voting was rightly left · with the States. What was true of 13 States in 1787 is just as true of 50 States today. Each State is confronted by different problems, has a different school of thought, and is composed of people of different temperaments. It cannot possibly be expected that their suffrage qualifications would be uniform.

Should we attempt to impose uniform requirements on each State, there will be an invasion of the rights of the States and a fracture of one of the fundamental · principles of American government. And this invasion of States rights will be but the beginning; for once the Federal Government has succeeded in making uniform one qualification for voting, others will follow. · no not . be blinded by the fact that this is done by constitutional amendment. Do not overlook the fact that if 45 States can unite to repeal the poll tax laws of · 5 States, 41 States can unite and make illegal the laws of the 9 States which disqualify paupers from voting, 47 States can unite and render null and void the law~ of 3 States which disqualify inmates of charitable institutions from voting, and 46 States may compel the other 4 States to raise their minimum age for voting to 21 to conform to their own minimum. I could go on and on, but I hope by now I have aroused your interest sufficiently so that you will note the dangers existing to your own State. Once we embark upon such a path, there will be no authority left in the States over their own voters and the inevitable result will be the Federal preemption of the entire field of voting.