August 27, 1962

This question of the poll tax has come up in every session of the Congress since 1939. Five bills . were passed by the House, and a joint resolution was adopted by the Senate in the 86th Con- , gress. Yet nothing resulted. After the issues were joined and the excitement of debate was over, they took a second, sober look at the proposition and acted no further. A constitutional amendment should be resorted to in matters of national importance and should not be used as a means of forcing the will of the majority upon a small minority regardless of the worthiness of the purpose, or the need for such action.

I say “need” because there is really no need for any action in this field on the nat1onallevel. In 1920, 12 States had a poll-tax requirement as a prerequisite for voting. Today only five States still have such laws. · North Carolina repealed her law in 1920, Pennsylvania in 1933, Louisiana in 1934, Florida in 1937, Georgia in 1945, South Carolina in 1951, and Tennessee in 1953. Each of these States repealed the requirement when her people felt that there was no longer any need for it. Since Congress did not find it necessary to amend the Constitution in 1920 to invalidate the laws of 12 States, why is there a need for such action now when only 5 States still have such laws? Let us refrain from taking any action on this resolution, as did our colleagues in the past, and let us leave it to the five States themselves to take the necessary action sought by Senate Joint Resolution 29. I strongly urge this, lest the tide of federalism, once loosed, become so great that we can no longer stem it. Then will our State sovereignty, which we have so zealously striven to preserve, no longer exist.

Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I favor the elimination of the poll-tax requirement as a prerequisite for voting.

Our country is a democracy . and the right to vote is one of the privileges of living in a democracy and is guaranteed to every qualified citizen of the United States. Surely it was not . contemplated by those who wrote our Constitution that only those should vote who could and would pay a poll tax. The claim . that a poll-tax payment requires only a. very small amo:unt is an evasion of the real issue for the principle remains the same whether the amount be small or large; besides, what is a trifle for some may be a formidable sum for others. I am proud to know that as a Representative from my State of Pennsylvania, I represent all the people of my district and not only those who can pay a small sum in order to partake in the political affairs of their State.

This should be so in every State in these United States. America now stands as a tower of strength and a shining example of democracy, and the eyes of the world are upon us. Is it reconcilable that a nation so mighty and so advanced shall still permit a segment of its population to be disfranchised for failure to pay a poll tax? Let us but give our people an opportunity to decide this issue and they will shout their approval of eliminating the poll tax.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is only one of several rights of American citizenship guaranteed by the United States Constitution. But it is a fundamental right, for it is the one ultimate means by which the American people retain control of their government. Any unnecessary limitation or qualification, any form of discrimination, which interferes with the free exercise of this right must be condemned as an affront to the principles of American freedom. Historically, one of the most obnoxious forms of such a limitation has been the poll tax. It has no reasonable relationship to the right to vote and, in fact, has been used in certain circumstances in order to discriminate against and prevent groups in our society from exercising this right. Even though only five States today require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting, it is nevertheless as important as it ever was-and a long overdue moral requirement-that our Government formally and officially remove this unjustified restriction on the right . to vote.

While I intend to vote for this legislation, on the ground that it represents the only opportunity Congress will have this year to vote on any kind of anti-polltax measure, I must in all frankness state my disappointment at the decision of the committee to utilize the procedure of a constitutional amendment to attain this objective. It seems to me that the Attorney General of the United States and other constitutional authorities have established beyond doubt that Congress has the authority to legislate directly in this field. Simple legislation could accomplish what we seek most expeditiously and without risking the incalculable delays involved in requiring the ratification of a proposed amendment by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.

The most tragic aspect of the pending legislation, however, is the fact that it represents, for all practical purposes, the sum total of the civil rights legislation we are likely to get during this entire session of Congress. Both congress and the administration must share responsibility for this unfortunate state of affairs. After years of the most careful study, the Commission on Civil Rights submitted tO the President and the Congress 27 recommendations for legislative action. Yet, the administration has requested that Congress act on only two of them, the abolition of the poll tax as a qualification for voting, and the establishment of a sixth grade education as proof of literacy for voting purposes. And in both cases, the administration proposal was framed in a manner to assure the least timely and least effective results.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the reluctance of Congress and the administration to do what we all know is right _, in this supremely important area of governmental action. In a · Nation which prides itself on the moral basis of its system of government, nothing is more important than the protection and extension of human and · civil rights, the recognition of the dignity of all mankind, the guarantee of freedom and equal opportunity to all, regardless of color, creed, economic status, or national origin.

In view- of the nature of the subject and in face of the unquestioned need of further action, one must conclude that the record of the administration and Congress reveals an unhappy failure of leadership in behalf of civil rights. Let no one imagine for a moment that approval of the pending legislation will contribute anything at all significant to this record. There is much to do in the field of civil rights. We must not content ourselves with token gestures,

Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I support Senate Joint Resolution 29. On January 22, in a speech before this body, I pointed out the pressing need for civil . rights legislation. I said then and I still believe thatcongress has vast unfilled responsibilities in the field of civil rights. These responsibilities must be met immediately, so that all of our citizens can enjoy the benefits of our land and partake fully in our national life.

With enactment of Senate Joint Resolution 29, the Congress will take a step, even if only a small one, in the direction of establishing equality for all citizens. It has long been my opinion that the use of the poll tax to determine voter qualification should be abolished by the Congress. I have introduced H.R. 8893 which eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in Federal, State and local elections.

It is .... apparent that Congress has the power to enact legislation to abolish the poll tax. Both the 15th amendment and article 1, section 8, clause 18, authorize Congress to implement the right to vote without racial distinction. The 15th amendment flatly states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The amendment does not make any exceptions for State and local elections. Section 2 of the 15th amendment states: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Although the · State may establish qualifications for voting, article · 1, section 2F of the Constitution is subject to limitations. For instance, article IV, section 4, of the Constitution provides: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union. a Republican Form of Government.

The basic principle which this section protects is that State governments must govern "with the consent of the gov- · emed." '. Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution gives the power to Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

There is no reason why this legislation should not be applied to State and local elections as well as Federal ele . c­ tions. The poll tax prevents Negroes from participating in the election of Governors, mayors, State legislators, aldermen, sheriffs, and city, county, and State judges, as wen as Federal representatives. In many respects more can be done at the State and local level to alleviate social, economic, and political injustices - to which the Negro is subjected. Although I believe that Congress has the constitutional authority to, and should, pass legislation abolishing the poll tax, I am in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 29. From the past history of poll-tax legislation, it seems that, if the poll tax is to be abolished, a constitutional amendment will be the method.

Dozens and dozens of bills and joint resolutions have been introduced in both Houses of Congress to abolish the polltax requirement, some by an act of Congress and some by constitutional amendment, but all to no avail. In the 86th Congress one House adopted a joint resolution proposing an anti-poll-tax amendment, but this provision was not even reported out in the other House.

Senate Joint Resolution 29 is by no means a perfect measure. Since it . is proposed that we amend the Constitution with regard to the poll-tax requirement, why should the amendment be limited to Federal elections? Are we not, in fact, by this amendment, saying to a portion of our population, "You may vote for Federal officers free of charge, but you must continue to pay for the privilege of voting for your Governor or mayor"?'

Since Senate Joint Resolution 29, however, has succeeded in reaching the floor of this House after passing the other body, let us seize this opportunity to adopt it and send it on to the States for ratification.

Mr. Speaker, this is a badly needed reform. It is indeed badly needed, for the poll tax is a weapon of discrimination. Right now the Justice Department is involved in a lawsuit-United States against Dogan-in Tallahatchie County, Miss., in order to obtain an injunction against the use · of' the poll tax to discriminate against Negro citizens.

The poll tax by its very nature discriminates. against persons of low economic status. According to the 1960 U.S. Census of Population, the median income for white families in the United States is $5,893, while for nonwhite fami- · ues it is $3,161. In the South the median income for white families is $5,00.9, while for nonwhite families it is $2',322.

The 1961 Civil Rights Commission Report on voting substantiates the fact that in areas · where the Negro voted, he was more prosperous than in areas . where he was disenfranchised. The report. points out that in . 15 nonvoting counties in the South-areas where 97 percent or more of the Negroes wln:o attained voting age were not registered to vote in 1.958-the median income for Negroes "did not even match that of the State's Negro population."' The report goes on to say;

The highest Negro median in aU 15 was only $885, and! this was well below . w: the lowest median income for white families 1n any of the counties." (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Reports, "Voting," 1961, vol. 1, p. 153.) Mr. Speaker, the existence of poD taxes cannot be reconciled with our democratic ideals and must be abolished. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 29.

Mr · . WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker; this is a sad . day :for those who believe in constitutional government. It is a . sadder day for those who believe in representative government and those who have had faith in the House of Representatives and its historical tradition of justice. Under · the current suspension procedure which we are operating today, we are considering a far-reaching amendment to the Constitution in only 40 minutes. ·

The U.S. Constitution will be 175 years old on September 17 ' . During that time, the Congress and the respective States have amended it only 23 times. Nevertheless, the leadership of this body, in the New Frontier tradition of running roughshod over those who disagree, has taken the unusual step of limiting debate on such a historical step to less than an hour. What will future generations think of such behavior?

Mr. Speaker, the puny arguments advanced in support of this amendment center around the supposition that poll taxes prevent citizens from voting. Such an argument is specious and unfounded. The real reason we have this amendment before us today is because organizations devoted to agitation and intoxicated with political power disproportionate to their actual voting strength are being placated.

Members of these minority blocs have no interest in this amendment. But their leaders do because they feel that now they can herd their members and vote them in additional States. like so many cattle. ·

It. is time that Americans take stock of where we are heading. We need voting quality-not voting quantity. We need an intelligent electorate-instead of ignorant puppets at the polling place. Free bread and free circuses brought about the downfall of Rome, and it was a thousand years before there was a flicker of interest in reviving civilization. Is the United States entering a period comparable to the Dark Ages? A quick glance at the legislative recommendations of those presently in power indicates clearly that our . national goals now include the rewarding of indolence and the penalizing of thrift and industry. Tax, . tax, spend, spend, elect, elect, has new zeal.

Mr. Speaker, the downfall of this Republic is assured ' when bloc voting minorities obtain absolute control of the executive branch of the Government. This proposed constitutional amendment takes us a long step toward that goal of au power-hungry politicos, because when people are relieved of the responsibility of citizenship the selfish can lead them like sheep.

The social planners, in their dreamy quest for Utopia, and leaders of bloc voting groups, in their unconscionable quest for power, realize that the erasure of State lines is necessary to the fulfillment of their hope to make intellectual eunuchs of Americans. This amendment will aid them.

Adoption of this constitutional amendment will cause future , generations to weep. In the anguish of their tears, I hope they · are able to rise above the enveloping ashes of: governmental decay and reclaim the mantle of individual responsibility which this House proposes to bury. '

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps the hardest vote of my career. I favor action-effective action-to wipe out poll taxes across · the land ~ I would favor a really effective constitutional amendment. I am not concerned with strategy or technicalities in this vote. If we were presented today with an effective proposal, whatever its form, I would vote for i:t.

But today we are presented with a travesty, a political maneuver which sickens me. This constitutional amendment really does not accomplish much of anything. It fs a hollow shell. It will apparently have no significant effect upon Negro rights anywhere except in Alabama and Mississippi . and its effect in those two States is questionable. The amendment is limited in its purview to Federal elections. It . does not begin to face the real issue of deprivation of voting rights at . the local and State level.

Mr. Speaker. I listened through two rollcalls without voting because I am so torn on this issue .. I believe in strong and effective civil rights legislation. I have consistently voted for such legislation, even at times when such legislation had been, in my judgment. unnecessarily weakened. We are not perfectionists and the legislative process is. far from perfect. In the last . analysis we must often vote for what we believe to be the lesser of two evils or the better of two courses which are both profoundly deficient.

And so, Mr. Speaker, today I find myself favoring some action to , eradicate poll taxes . Everyone admits that Senate Joint Resolution 29 is profoundly deficient, but we are told that it is the best we can have. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY} SO aptly put it, and I commend to you the full reading of his statement today, "We are trying to kill a. gnat with a sledge hammer."

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that Senate Joint Resolution 29- abuses the constitutional pr~ess~ It is a pretty political package that can only disappoint its recipients when its meager content is revealed. It sets a precedent for whimsical, frivolous and almost meaningless amendment to the basic document of our Republic. This Congress · should never engage in such delusive action. I am ashamed · that we are called upon today to do so in the name of protecting minority rights. I defy any of · - my colleagues to exceed in devotion to · civil rights the gentleman from New York who now addresses you. I tell you with all my heart, however , that I cannot be for something that is wrong, simply because it has a right purpose and a right label. It is never easy to explain or justify a vote against wrong when that wrong is wrapped in the bright tinsel of right. Yet I have a deep conviction, Mr. Speaker, that history will judge us not on the tinsel but on the substance of our . legislative endeavors.

In that conviction, I vote a tortured "no " on this constitutional amendment, knowing full well that today friends of human dignity will condemn me, but confident that history will eventually cast its vote in the negative on Senate Joint Resolution 29 and the circum- stances of its passage in the Congress of the United States. '

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, the vote being taken today on this resolution represents the culmination of one important phase of the long :fight against discrimination in America, and in behalf of full implementation of the equal rights of all our citizens under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Over the years the poll tax has been one of many devices that have been used with the intention of denying to Negro citizens, generally in our Southern States, the right to vote which was supposedly guaranteed to them by the 14th amendment. In fact it is a little hard to realize that though we have talked and fought against this kind of vicious discrimination for years, we are only now, in the year 1962, and after the poll ' tax has already been superseded in many States by other more ingenious machines of discrimination, starting the long process of having an effective constitutional amendment outlawing the poll tax ratified by the several States. Nevertheless, this job must certainly be pushed forward with all possible dispatch.

And then, having eliminated this one roadblock in the path of full citizenship for all our citizens, regardless of race, creed, or color, let us move on to tackle as quickly as we can the next device designed to accomplish the same unholy objective. Let us eliminate, for instance, such things as unreasonable and unfair literacy tests which simi-larly are designed to prevent Negro citizens in the South from exercising the fundamental right to vote, as revealed so graphically by the reports of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the JUdiciary, the beloved dean of our New York State delegation, Mr. CELLER, for his long fight in behalf of this legislation, and for the victory which the vote soon to be taken here will represent not only for him personally but for the principles of equality and freedom and effective democracy for which he has so long fought so untiringly,

Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in cials. support of Senate Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax.

Although I believe a serious question involving an amendment to the Constitution should be brought up under the regular order of the House and sufficient time be given for debate and amendment, to fully protect the rights of all voters. It is our responsibility when such process is stopped by the power of one man and a small minority to take this action to protect the right of E.ll qualified to vote, even though under present laws only a few may be denied this right because of a poll tax.

In this day of so much apathy and so many who have the right to vote not using this great privilege, I believe it is our responsibility to at least give to all those qualified to vote the right . to do so without having to pay for that · right and to continue to work for the moral rights of all.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the House - of Representatives is finally considering an amendment to the Constitution of the United States outlawing poll tax as a - requirement for voting.

I was the - first sponsor of such legislation in this Congress and feel that it is an important step toward adequate protection of the rights of all the people of this great land of ours.

This legislation will work together with the voting statutes of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1959 to encourage wide voting participation of all races and classes of people within this country and should do much to raise the level of voter participation in States where poll tax is now used.

States using poll tax had the lowest level of voting in the 1960 presidential elections and indeed rank among the lowest in voting participation of all the States, as shown below: Total a l vote Percent v oting

MississippL - - ------ ------ 298,171 25.6 564.242 30 . 9 ~:=~ Arkan sa s === __ = - = - = - = - === --- = -- = === - ----- = == 428,509 771,449 34.3 41.6 Te xa s _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ - - - - - __ _ _ _ 2,311 , 670 43.3 Voting levels in these States show clearly that the poll-tax question has been unfairly minimized and I said earlier on the floor of Congress in connection with this legislation a constitutional amendment outlawing the poll tax should be enacted for a number of rea· sons:

First. It affects persons of all · races, places, job conditions, and economic levels.

Second. It strikes at this evil in all elections, primary and general.

Third. It prohibits enactment of substitute legislation by Federal and State Governments.

Fourth. It prohibits other taxes being used as a device to evade the legislative purpose of the amendment.

Fifth. It prevents the Federal Government and the States from setting up property qualifications as a prerequisite for voting in elections for Federal om.­ This measure alone will not solve the problems of full voting equality and real citizenship for our people. It is equally true that a number of other measures must be promptly taken to permit our citizens full participation not only the right to vote but in all the benefits of citizenship in our beloved land.

It is indeed regrettable that this is perhaps the best effort of this Congress in protecting the rights of our people, but it is a long stride forward, and if followed by other strides in each coming Congress can make full realization of the belief we Americans express in the basic dignity of man and in the words of the Founding Fathers "that all men are created equal" and the biblical admonition that we are indeed "our brother's keeper."

POLL TAX IS ANTIVOTING REQUIREMENT AND SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 29 and hope that it is approved today by an overwhelming vote. The purpose of this proposed constitutional amendment is to prevent the United States or any State from denying or abridging 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 because of an individual's failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The proposed constitutional amendment further confers upon the Congress of the United States the power to enforce this proposed article of the Constitution by appropriate legislation.

Federal legislation to eliminate poll taxes, either by constitutional amendment or statute, has been introduced in every Congress since 1939 . . Bills to ban the poll tax by statute, rather than by constitutional amendment, had been approved five times between 1942 and 1949 by the House, but · died each time in the Senate. The Senate has adopted constitutional amendments on two occasions, in the last Congress and the present bill.

President Kennedy said in his state of the Union message on January 1, 1962:

The right to vote should no longer be arbitrarily denied through such iniquitous local devices as literacy tests and poll taxes. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the poll tax remains in some areas as a major obstacle to voting participation of minority and low income groups. The poll tax as a prerequisite for voting is now limited to five States: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. However, it has the concrete result of making those States among the seven with the very lowest voter participation in elections.

POLL TAX DISCOURAGES ELECTORAL PROCESS PARTICIPATION BY MINORITIES

The poll tax is an arbitrary and restrictive requirement, contrary to our democratic principle of civil rights, and specifically designed to deny minorities of their. rights and privileges of citizen- . ship. It should be abolished. · While the amount of the poll tax now required is small, there should not be any price tag or any kind of tax on . the right to vote. For some people this financial imposition may be enough .to discourage participation in the electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is the core of our democratic process, and the foundation upon which good citizenship is built. It is the most precious attribute to American citizenship. It is a right denied to tens of millions of enslaved peoples and captives of communism throughout the world. It is a right that we must guarantee to every American if our public image in the world is to remain spotless and if the right to vote is to remain as a fundamental to free democratic government. ·

Mr, YATES. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions during my 14 years in Congress, a bill has been passed to eliminate the poll tax. I have voted for the bill on each . occasion. The right to vote is an inalienable right of every American citizen, regardless of race, color, or . creed. The American democracy envisaged by our Constitution cannot exist so long as each citizen is not given the right to express his choice of those who are to govern the affairs of the Nation.

The imposition of the poll tax is a barrier to the right to vote. It ought fairs. to be eliminated. I personally favor the form of legislation that was passed in earlier Congresses so that reliefs can be afforded through statute law. This would be a much quicker procedure than the method of using a constitutional amendment. ·

Too long have citizens in this country been deprived of their right to vote. Access to a polling booth has slammed shut in the face of many citizens merely because of their race. Various methods have been used to effect a disenfranchisement of Negroes and imposition of the poll tax is one of these.

But the poll tax does not limit Negro suffrage only. It limits white suffrage, as well. Placing the payment of a fee between the voter and the ballot box is distinctly not in keeping with the ideals of our democracy. Equal justice under law is the cardinal American tenet, and equal justice applies to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, every American should have an opportunity to try for office if he wishes, and to influence the conduct of Government on an equal plane with other American citizens. The poll tax prevents this and it should be eliminated. I am happy to support this legislation.

Mr . VANIK. Mr. Speaker, although a case might be made for the elimination of the poll tax by the enactment of appropriate statutes, it is ' quite apparent in this situation that the ratification of this amendment to the Constitution will bring speedier and more certain elimination of the poll tax. The State legislatures of the several States will be meeting within 3 or 4 months. Ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures should occur by midyear 1963. There is every reason to believe that for the :first time in our Nation's history, the poll tax will not be a factor in the ' presidential and congressional elections of 1964.

Furthermore, the outlawing of the poll tax constitutes an increment to the rights of man deserving stature as a constitutional amendment. · A statutory outlawing of the poll tax would be subject to revision, attack, or judicial procrastination which cannot threaten a constitu­ . tional amendment.

I am pleased to support this bill.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to aline myself with the gentleman from Virginia. the Honorable HowARD SMITH; the gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable · En , WILLIS~ and other Members who have spoken against the pending constitutional amendment. To amend the Constitution with only 14 minutes of debate ce:rtainly is indicative of the great change which has taken place in our Republic.

At the outset qualifications of electors were intended to be left up to the States and they were left there. There are many reason for this, including the fact that each State and its local problems differed from · others. In the early history of this Republic it was recognized that governmental affairs needed to be in the hands of the most responsible and solid of our citizens; and to insure that the Government . was in such hands that behind them we needed an electorate who had a sense of responsibility themselves, who had an interest in public afMr. Speaker, that continues to be the intent of our Constitution. Through the years, however, where voting was a privilege and not a right, with time many special groups have come around to where they even talk about penalizing · people for not voting as though a person who had to be forced to vote, under threat of penalty, could contribute anything to sound government.

The poll tax in my State is $2. Under the constitution of the State it goes to support the schools. Can anyone imagine that any citizen who is unwilling to contribute $2 toward schools could contribute anything toward sound government. Poll taxes are levied on all races, creeds, and colors. It is an obligation whether one votes or not. With reference to voting it is required only that it be · paid on or before a certain date. This has a beneficial effect in preventing taking over of elections by special interests at the last minute. In the absence of a poll tax a cut off date for qualifying is highly essential if honest elections are to be continued.

Mr. Speaker, from my observations here it would appear that this constitutional amendment will likely pass. The leadership of both political parties are apparently lined up in support of it. However, I would like to quote a portion of the minority views as carried on pages 6 and 7 of · House Report No. !821 by the Committee on the Judiciary as perhaps the best reason to vote .this resolution down . . I quote:

The proposed amendment would outl a w the poll . tax in Federal elect f ons only. Its adoption would confront five States with the choice · of either foregoing considerable revenue and abandoning _ a convenient method of registration or of installing dual ballots and voting procedures, . one for. Federal and one for State elections. · Worse than thiS', the adoption of the amendment would provide a dangerous , precedent for future proposals further to eliminate variations among the States with respect to voter · qualifications, · such as age. education, and residence. It · would mark further erosion of the constitutional system · tem and its reservation . to ta tl'le individual sovereign . States of . the right to conduct their l:nt . internal affairs. without interference . .

To sum up, as. we shall show, the resolution should be rejected because it" is inconsistent with the Constitution, because no legitimate need can be served by its adop - ­ tion, because it marks · a. flagrant intrusion into the area of rights reserved to • the States, and be . cause · its adoption would open the door to further regimentation in matters traditionally reserved to State and local supervision.

CONSTlTUTIONALITY OF POLL. TAXES

The Founding Fathers long and vigorously debated the question of. qualification for electors in Federal elections and resolved that these qualifications should be identical with those used by the respective: States for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. It may also be recalled that poll taxes, as originally adopted by States as a qualification for voting, had the purpose and effect of broadening-not narrowing-the class of persons enfranchised. Predominantly, the requirement of the payment of a tax as a prerequisite to voting provided an alternative to a requirement of property ownership which would have disqualified all but freeholders.

Over the decades a long line of judicial decisions has established that the suffrage is not a right, but a privilege; ' that this privilege was conferred not by the Federal Constitution but by the States, and that it becomes a right only insofar as it may be infringed in violation of the 15th or the 19th amendment, by discrimination. on account of race or sex. The right of the States to control their own election machinery and to prescribe their own reasonable qualifications for voting was clearly affirmed, for example, in the 1951 decision of Butler v. Thompson, 341 U.S. 937, where the High Court said:

"The decisions generally hold that a State statute which imposes a re . asonable poll tax as a condition of the ;right , to vote does not abridge the privileges of immunities of the citizens of the United States which are protected by the 14th amendment. The privilege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government. The qualification of voters in an election of Members of Congress is set out in article I section 2, clause 1, of the Federal Constit~tion, which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." · Earlier, in 1937. in the leading case of Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, the Supreme Court summed up the state of the law with respect to constitutional validity of poll taxes in the following passage:

"To make payment of poll taxes a prerequisite to voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the 14th amendment. Privilege of voting is not derived from t . he United States, but is conferred by the State, and, save as restrained by the 15th and 19th amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it may deem appropriate.'' (Citing Minor v. Happe11sett, 21 Wall 162; Ex Parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, and Gui-nn v. United states, 283 · U..S. 347.)

Manifestly, the use of poll taxes is a constitutionally sanctioned method for qualifying voters. ·

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that it will not end in dealing only with Federal elections but will be another step toward the elimination of aU States rights. Next we will see the Federal Government attempting to set up and control residential requirements, age requirements and various other things now clearly within the power of the State-as is set out in the minority report. With that we will see more and more pressure of politics, more and more . appeal to elections by public clamor and more and more deterioration in the domestic and international situation of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as one who believes the Founding Fathers were right in their allowances for differences in the various States and in recognizing that each State was the best judge of how to have responsible management, right in recognizing that the States were the best judges of how to qualify a responsible electorate, I deplore the action of the Congress in taking the step which they do here today. I can only make my protest and point out, as I have on so many occasions in the past, a statement by Lord Benchley, in the 17th century, I believe, that a democracy could not long endure because the elected officials would dissipate the resources of the country in order to keep being elected. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, any step toward adding disinterested and irresponsible voters to the electorate, any step which removes any showing whatever by the voter that he has an interest in government affairs, even so little interest as to refrain from contributing $2 annually to public schools as they do in my State, certainly will do nothing toward holding public affairs in the hands of responsible peoPoll tax legislation is a State matter and one in which the Federal Government should not interfere. It is a further step in the wrong direction.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise i!l support of this proposed amendment to the Constitution, which would abolish the poll tax as a requirement for · voting in Federal elections.

It is high time that this antiquated device is terminated. The five States in which payment of the poll tax is presently a requirement for voting are among the lowest seven States in the union in voter turnout. It is not coincidental that these five States are also among those States with the highest concentration of Negro citizens. - ·

Those who oppose equal rights for Negro citizens always argue that the Southern States should be permitted to solve their own problems. But Negro citizens have been denied the right to vote in many Southern States. This prevents them from attaining their rights of the polls.

I am hopeful that, once the burden of the poll tax is removed, more and more citizens will exercise their prerogatives to vote. If the Negro citizens of the South can successfully exercise their right to vote it is likely that many of the civil rights problems currently existing can be solved at the polls.

Opponents of the poll tax amendment argue that poll taxes are such a small amount of money that nobody is disqualified from voting. But a dollar and a half or two dollars is a lot of money to man who only makes two or three hundred a year. Any charge for voting unjustly discriminates against people of limited means. · And whatever the amount of money, a citizen of the United States should not have to pay for his constitutional right to vote.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote for this proposed amendment.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people can only be amazed when their House of Representatives sets aside but 40 minutes time to deliberate whether or not to amend the Constitution of the United States. _

Indeed, this ridiculous limitation would seem · to support those who argue that the Constitution has come to be regarded lightly in the Nation's Capital. Yet there are those of us who will not be stampeded into drastically altering, in less time than it takes to answer the morning mail, a document which has served the Republic for 170 years.

Senate Joint Resolution 29, the socalled Qualification of Electors Amendment, represents a serious alteration of the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. By usurping State regulation of voting and by placing these powers in the Federal Government, this proposed amendment does violence to the very principles upon which the Constitution was based.

I wonder whether any of the zealous proponents of this amendment realize what centralized authority over voting privileges and procedures can come to mean. They speak at great length about alleged evils brought about by State and local regulation of voting. Yet the inequity and corruption which could arise from centralized authority over the franchise defies the imagination.

The framers of the Constitution understood this danger. By providing for State and local regulation of voting, they sought to insure against the rise of totalitarian authority and they sought to protect the rights of all Americans.

In discussing the alleged evils of State regulation of voting, the amendment's proponents have had a great deal to say concerning my native State of Alabama. It would be far better if they had concentrated their vocal energies on the well-established evils surrounding the ballot boxes of certain States and cities closer to their own homes.

The fact is that · Alabama has long since dispensed with the long-term cummulative poll tax. It can hardly be suggested that the present Alabama law, requiring payment of $1.50 per annum, either discourages or prevents the exercise of the franchise. Certainly the steady increase in both the number of qualified voters and the number of voters casting ballots in recent Alabama elections would belie such a suggestion.

It might also be pointed out that the poll tax in Alabama for the fiscal year 1961 to 1962 amounted to $405,000. This money is applied by law to the Alabama educational system. It is therefore levied and applied toward the education of future voters in the State , a contribution to the strengthening of the country, the State, and the community.

My opposition to the proposed amendment, therefore, fs based on two grounds: first, it represents perhaps one of the most serious usurpations of State au- thority by the Federal Government ever submitted to this Congress; secondly, such a drastic change in our system of government is neither justified nor war .. ranted by the situation existing as to voting privilege and procedures in the several States.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think the House of Representatives does the public a great disservice when we spend even 40 minutes of a busy legislative day to consider a measure as inconsequential to the national interest as is Senate Joint Resolution 29, the so-called antipoll tax measure.

I think no one would disagree that the genius of our Constitution, which is the most significant document of government ever devised by mankind, is its ability to provide for a changing society, decade after decade, century after century. I think no one would disagree that we should not tinker with it, as we might with a zoning ordinance or a traffic law. It should be amended only for the most important reasons of national interest.

Is there a great, overriding, national issue involved here? Of course not. First of all, there is no national issue at all since this proposed amendment will affect only five States: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. This resolution does, however, threaten to destroy a great national principle, which is that our country is a federation of sovereign States which are constitutionally guaranteed the right to be independent in their own unique internal affairs. This means that, just as the individual citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution certain rights and freedoms, so too are the States guaranteed a freedom which I would call "freedom from conformity.”

Nothing in the Constitution dictates that one State must do something just because her sister States do ' it. · The fact that most States raise local revenues by income taxes or property taxes is no reason for those which do not to change their laws and conform. It is for each State to decide for herself in light of the wishes of her own people.

If adopted, this resolution would violate the sovereign right of five States to be free from having to conform. It would permit 45 sovereign States, none of which authorize the collection of a poll tax as one of their many conditions for voting eligibility, to impose by a raw show of numerical power their views and methods upon the citizens of 5 equally sovereign States which, in their own judgment, have determined that such a tax is desirable.

The fact that only five States are involved is not the only reason why this is not a national issue. On three separate occasions our forefathers deliberately expressed right in the Constitution that the question of qualifying voters in Federal elections was a matter for State procedures to control. There has never been an absolute right to vote without such control. The Constitution pro· vides, in article II, that the State legislatures shall provide for the choosing of electors in presidential elections. The Constitution provides, in article . I, that the electors for the election of U.S. Representatives "in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors in the most numerous branch of the State legislature."

This same principle was reaffirmed with the passage; in 1912, of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators rather than election by State legislatures, as was formerly the procedure.

In short, one of the cornerstones of our constitutional government is that, in adopting our Federal system, the Founding Fathers preserved for the States the right to determine the eligibility and qualifications of their respective voters. Under this time-honored principle, each of the 50 States has set various qualifications for voting. Some States require prospective voters to demonstrate that they have a · fundamental ability to read so as to assure a meaningful vote. In the past, voters have had to be landowners, or taxpayers, or property holders. All States have set their own age requirements, ranging from 18 to 21 years of age. No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to justify infringing upon this sovereign right of the States by compelling all States to agree upon one single age requirement. Such a suggestion would be viewed, even by today's proponents, as ludicrous.

The 19th amendment to the Constitution did affect the qualifications of voters by prohibiting discrimination against women. Here is an example of a great national issue which affected the rights of more than one-half of our country's total population. But where is the great issue in today's proposal?

There are some who would seek to gain ballot. political advantage by characterizing this amendment as civil rights legislation. But anyone who knows anything about the poll tax knows that civil rights plays no part whatever in the question. Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that the poll tax has not effectively been used to discriminate against citizens of any race or creed.

The poll tax, as its historical definition has always indicated, is nothing more than a per capita or capitation tax-the oldest tool there is for raising revenue. There are many who are against the poll tax because it is no longer a modern or efficient method of raising revenues. It is on this judgment that the proponents of this legislation base their case. In the majority report, the opinion is expressed that, "Just as the property requirement proved antiquated, so does the poll tax today." In other words, it is the opinion of the majority that a constitutional amendment is needed to clear from the books local procedures in 5 States which the remaining States consider "antiquated."

This is a judgment, however, which only the people of the State involved are entitled to make. The people of Florida, or New York, or California, have no more right to tell Alabama citizens not to raise revenue by the poll tax than they have · to tell them they should abandon the income tax in favor of, say, statewide lotteries.

The majority report also says that this "antiquated" tax serves no other purpose than to be "an obstacle to the proper exercise of a citizen's franchise." This has never been demonstrated to be true. Citizens by the millions do not vote and this represents a tragic lack of interest in our greatest political safeguard. But the reason for their failure to vote is not because of the poll tax. In 1960, for instance, it has been estimated that approximately half a million registered voters who had paid their poll taxes refrained from voting in Virginia. I am sure such is the case in all of the 5 States.

The poll tax 1 es in these States · are too small to prevent people from voting. They range from $1 to $4 per person. There was a time in Alabama, it is true, when those person~ who had not paid their poll taxes for many years were required to pay the cumulative total for all the years in which they were in arrears before they could vote. Perhaps such a rule deterred a few voters from voting. Several years ago, however, Alabama corrected this hardship, without the aid of a constitutional amendment, and placed a maximum charge of $3 regardless of the number of years the person was in arrears.

There are those who consider this tax a penalty. This could not be further from the fact. Every dollar which Alabama collects from the poll tax, an amount exceeding $400,000 goes toward the education of our schoolchildren. In many ways, I believe it is quite fitting that each voter should pay $1.50 to help educate the next generation of voters who will need all the education they can get to cast an intelligent and responsible Mr. Speaker, I believe it is an exercise in the trivial for responsible lawmakers to concern themselves with how the people of 5 States raise school revenues. I believe it is a disgrace that such an obviously political maneuver should be permited to masquerade as an issue involving the rights of man. I urge the Members of this body to pay heed to the simplest of constitutional principles and reject the poll tax issue immediately so that we can turn to matters of greater national interest.

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against suspending the rules and passing this measure for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the highly questionable procedures followed in bringing this matter to the floor of the House.

I believe it is important that the Constitution of the United States should be amended only after a strong case has been made for both its need and the legal necessity for it.

No case worthy the name has been made for either the need or the necessity. The need does not exist as pointed out by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights quoted by both the majority and the minority of the committee in the report accompanying the measure.

The legal necessity does not exist. As pointed out again by both the majority and the minority of the committee ordinary legislation as opposed to a constitutional amendment would adequately take care of whatever need might exist. Everyone ip the House knows exactly why this measure is before us. In my judgment it is a shabby attempt to avoid the responsibility of coping with some real problems of civil rights which exist in our country today. We have some real problems of extending the right of franchise to all our citizens. The right to vote, part of the right of franchise, is still being denied many of our citizens through a variety of subterfuges, but the poll tax is no longer one of these subterfuges. The equally important right to cast a free ballot and have that ballot counted fairly along with all the other ballots cast is the most neglected aspect of the right of franchise today.

Because of the action of the House leadership last year on the Cramer amendment, the Civil Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction over this second important aspect of the right of franchise, the right to have the vote counted honestly.

A second area in which basic civil rights are involved and are being neglected is the various Federal housing programs. There are many other areas. The point is this: The House and this Congress are not facing up to real issues of civil rights, but by bringing up this unneeded measure it hopes to throw powder in the eyes of those who look upon civil rights in an emotional way.

Emotionally the poll tax is detested, not because of its present remaining use in five States but because of its past abuse. The promoters of this bill today hope to catch ahold of this remaining emotionalism to hide their inaction on important civil rights matters.

Perhaps also they hoped that there · would be enough Congressmen like myself who would decline to go along with this subterfuge so that they could make partisan political capital against us, or against our party.

Certainly it would be easy for me to vote for this measure. It means nothing, and I would have to explain nothing to my constituents. Voting against it requires an explanation that may never get through to my people. From past experience I can predict that my reasons will not get through to my people in time for the November elections because the reporting media will give me little or no assistance in broadcasting these views.

However, it is important that some people vote against this measure because of what it is and what it is not; that is someone other than southern Democrats who likewise make political hay, but out of the converse emotion. Their constituents remember the poll tax of the past and think a vote to retain it will preserve their political control.

Yes, I have listened to my southern friends express concern for the Constitution and for States rights, and I agree with them on this matter in this instance because I have this concern. However, I have noted over a period of years that it is primarily on civil rights issues, almost alone, that they express this concern. When the issue of constitutionality and states rights comes up on many of the measures which extend the broad powers of the Federal Government into the States, local communities, the families and into private lives I find them far from the well of the House and voting for these measures extending Federal powers.

Finally, I would say to the chairman of the committee handling this bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], this bill could have had a rule if your committee sought it with vigor. Furthermore, this bill could have been brought out under Calendar Wednesday promptly. I point out that Calendar Wednesday is remarkably free from other pending legislation. Under Calendar Wednesday the bill would be handled as most of our bills are handled under the 5-minute rule, open to amendment at any point-an open rule as opposed to the gag rule under which we consider suspensions. Calendar Wednesday is not subject to delaying · tactics any more than any other rule under which bills are debated, amended, and passed in the House. It is impossible to filibuster in the House if the majority really are opposed to the filibuster. At any time ~he majority by motion can shut off debate or any other delaying tactics as was proven here when a brief and rather inane filibuster was attempted a few hours ago.

Furthermore, Calendar Wednesday is a legislative day, and like any legislative day can last as long as no motion to adjourn is voted. In other words it can last a week or more if necessary. I am merely rebutting the false arguments that have been advanced from time to time by the self-styled liberals as to why they say they cannot work their will by the utilization of Calendar Wednesday. Calendar Wednesday is not used by the self-styled liberals either because they lack a majority vote on the issue, or they seek to prevent debate and amendment for other ulterior purposes. In this instance before us today the purposes are quite ulterior as to why they choose to debate this sorry measure under a rule which limits debate to 40 minutes and prohibits all amendments.

Someday I hope that true liberals will start showing the courage to vote. down phony civil rights measures. Until they do, and check the playing of partisan politics with matters involving civil rights, ou.r progress toward better civil liberties m this country will remain slow.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, in principle, how can any freedom-loving American oppose Senate Joint Resolution 29? Its ultimate enactment will be a monumental step in the progress of our Nation. I have long advocated the abolishment of the payment of a poll tax as a requirement for voting in Federal elections, but I strongly advocate that this be done by statute. On July 1, 1960, - I introduced H.R. 12925, and on January 6, 1961, I introduced H.R. 2021. These bills make unlawful the requirement of a poll tax payment as a prerequisite to voting for national officers. I have long advocated and I will still advocate the principle that the poll tax requirement is not a qualification of voters within the meaning of the Constitution for it does not affect the capacity or the fitness of a citizen to vote. The poll tax requirement is and must be deemed as an interference with the manner of holding elections and is a tax upon the right or privilege of voting for said national officers. As such, these poll tax laws may be altered by Congress under the power given to Congress by section 4 of article I of the Constitution to make or alter the manner of Federal elections.

Further, the imposition of a tax on the right of voting is clearly an abridgement of the rights and privileges of citizens. Congress may therefore abolish it by statute under the power granted to Congress by the 14th amendment which provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. We also have ample proof that the average per capita income of nonwhite citizens in the Nation is extremely low as compared with the average income of a white person. It is quite simple to deduce from this that the poll tax requirement serves as a discrimination against Negroes in the exercise of their voting rights. Congress can therefore abolish this poll tax requirement by statute under the power it derives from the 15th amendment which provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

For these reasons I believe that Congress has the constitutional authority to abolish the poll-tax requirement by statute. I also believe that the statutory method would be the quickest and would succeed in eliminating the payment of a poll tax in this coming election, whereas a constitutional amendment would have a long tedious road to travel before becoming effective.

However, we must be realistic. The House has five times passed a bill to abolish the poll-tax requirement-H.R. 1024, 77th Congress; H.R. 7, 78th Congress, H.R. 7, 79th Congress, H.R. 29, 80th Congress; and H.R. 3199, 81st Congress--but not one of these bills succeeded in passing the Senate. On the other hand, in the 86th Congress, the Senate adopted Senate Joint Resolution 39 proposing to accomplish this by constitutional amendment but this received no action in the House. It is thus quite clear that both Houses agree in principle to the abolishment of the poll-tax requirement but cannot agree upon the method to be pursued in effecting this abolishment.

In our disagreement as to the method, let us not lose sight of our goal, which is to abolish the poll-tax requirement. With this in mind I introduced House Joint Resolution 663 on March 13 of this year, which proposes a constitutional amendment similar to that proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 29. In principle, I therefore urge that we support Senate Joint Resolution 29. Let us vote on the merits of the issue and not upon the form in which it is offered. This amendment will prevent the imposition not only of a poll tax but of any other tax as prerequisite to voting and will apply not only to a State but to the United States as well, and it is broad enough to prevent the defeat of its objectives by some ruse or manipulation of terms:

The adoption of this amendment will secure throughout our Nation a more active participation in Federal elections by persons qualified under the laws of their respective States and will assure that their ability to vote will not be dependent on their economic status. I wish to direct your attention to the statement made by Senator HoLLAND in the Senate On Januray 28, 1960-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 106, part 2, page 1518- one of the Senators sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 29, and a Senator whose State abolished the poll tax requirement in 1937. He cites statistics to prove that although the population of Florida increased only 18 percent in the period between 1935 and 1940, the number of persons voting in the Democratic primary in 1940 showed an increase of 46 percent over the number of persons who voted in such prim:ary in 1936 before the poll tax requirement was repealed. This is first hand information from a qualified person concerning his own State. There can be no doubt that the poll tax requirement as a prerequisite to voting is an evil which must be stamped out as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, may this House by its resounding vote of approval let the American people know how it feels about this antiquated, feudalistic form of voting.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, the States in substance existed before the Central Government. Our Federal Government is a creature of the States. The power, insuring the effective operation of each within its respective sphere, is vested in the Constitution. In the Constitution, powers are delegated to each in order to maintain a division and proper balance, with the States enjoying as inherent those powers not specifically delegated. The States, thus ultimately the people, must be allowed to preserve their constitutional rights and powers, both granted and residual.

Since the States have been guaranteed by the Constitution the privilege of deciding upon the manner and method of conducting their elections, there is no need for this amendment. It would be an imposition for the Federal Government to presume to dictate to the States how they must operate their elections. This coercion of the States by its own creation is a direct invasion of States rights.

There is no justification for this amendment as only five States now retain the poll tax as a requirement for vote. My own State of South Carolina long ago did away with the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting. In the States that do require poll tax, the token remittance ranges from $1 to $2, the receipts in most cases being used for education and other citizen benefits. Upon the basis of this evidence, a claim of the use of poll tax as an implement of discrimination is invalid and not worth consideration. The adoption of this amendment would, in truth, be a manifestation of the power highly organized and well-financed pressure groups can bring to bear upon the people of the United States. I believe each State should be free to make ' this decision with regard to the criteria for voting, being governed by the desires of its citizens. Dwyer The adoption of this amendment . would have far-reaching effects, setting a dangerous precedent. It is a step toward complete Federal control of elections on the State and local levels. This is just another among the long list of incidents of the continuing centralization of the Federal Government at the expense of the State and local governments and ultimately the citizen.

This amendment would be another weight upon one side of the already unequal balance which controls the con­ Ga v in stitutional division of power. This easy amendment of our Constitution would lead to further encroachment of this one Gonz a l e z division, the Federal Government, upon the rights included in the realm of the other, the State governments. The final burden of these limitations will be borne by the people.

The powerful pressure groups and Gub s er minorities forcing this unnecessary amendment through the Congress will, with its adoption, grow more bold, · ar­ H a lpern rogant, and demanding. They cannot and will not cease their agitation until they establish a dictatorship . over the majority or until representative government is destroyed and elections become a Federal fraud.

The States and the people at the local level have been doing a magnificent job in this field-they need to be complimented and encouraged. This amendment is not needed. It is a reflection on the fine job done by the States. It is desperately sought by the pressure Hull groups so as to claim for themselves and the Federal Government credit for something that has already been done by the States and the people. This amendment is a fraud and a waste of the time of the Congress.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentlemen from Colorado has expired; all time has expired.

The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 29?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 294, nays 86, answered "present" 1, not voting 54, as follows:

[Roll No. 202]

YEAS-294

Ad d abbo Bo g gs Chenoweth A l bert Bola n d Chipe r field And e rson, Ill. Bow Church Anfuso Brademas Cl a ncy A s hbrook Bray C l ark Ashley Breeding Cohelan Asp i nall Brewster Con t e A u c hinclo s s Brooks, Tex. Cook A v ery Broomfield Co r bett Ayres Brown Corman Bailey Broyhill Curtin Baker Bruce Daddario Baldwin Buckley Dague Barrett Burke, Ky. Daniels ;Barry Burke, Ma s s. D a vis, Tenn. Bass , Tenn. Byrne , Pa. Delaney Ba t es Byrnes, Wis. Dent Becker Cahill Denton Belcher Carey Derounian Bell Cederberg Derwin s ki Bennett, Fla. Celler Diggs Bennett , Mich. Chamberlain Dingell Betts Chelf Dole

Doyle Kluczynski Randall Dulski Knox Reuss Durno Kornegay Rhodes, Ariz. Kowalski Rhodes,Pa. Edmondson Kunkel Riehlma.n Fallon Kyl Rivers. Alaska Farbstein Laird Robison Fascell Lane Rodino Feighan Langen Rogers, Colo. Fenton Lankford Rogers, Fla. Finnegan Latta Rooney Fino Lesin s ki Roosevelt Flood Libonati Rosenthal Fogarty Lindsay Rostenkowski Ford Lipscomb Roudebush Frelinghuysen Lo s er Roush Fr i edel McCulloch Rutherford Fulton McDonough Ryan, Mich. Gallagher McFall Ryan, N.Y. G a rm atz Mcintire St . George McVey St. Germain G i aimo MacGregor Santangelo Gilb e rt M a ck S ay lor Glenn Madden Schade berg

Magnuson Schenck

- Goodling Mailliard Schnee bell Gray M a rshall Schweiker Green, Oreg. Martin, Mass. Schwengel Green, Pa. Martin, Nebr. Scranton Griffin Mathias Shelley Griffiths May Sheppard Gross Meader Shipley

Michel Shriver

Hagen, Calif. Miller, Clem S i bal Haley Miller, Siler Halleck GeorgeP. Slack Miller, N.Y. Smith , Calif. Hansen Milliken Smith, Iowa Harding Minshall Spence Hardy Moeller Springer Harri s on , Wyo. Monagan Stafford Harsha Montoya Staggers Harvey , Ind. Moore Steed H a rvey , Mich. Moorhead, Pa. Stubblefi e ld Hays Morgan Sullivan Healey Morse Taber H e chler Mosher Taylor Hoeven Moss Teague, Calif. H o ffman , Ill. Moulder Thomas Holifield Multer Thompson, N.J. Holland Murphy Thomson, Wis. Horan Natcher Thornberry Hosmer Nedzi Toll Nel s en Tollefson !chord, Mo. N i x Tupper Inouye - Norblad Udall, Morris K. Jarman Nygaard Ullman Jennings O'Brien, N.Y. Vanik Jensen O'Hara, Ill. VanZandt Joel s on O'Hara, Mich. Wallhauser JohnS<>n, C a lif. O ' Konski Walter Johnson, Md. Olsen Watts Johnson, Wis. O ' Neill Weaver Jonas O s mers Weis Judd O s tertag Westland Karst e n Pelly Whalley Karth Perkins Wharton K a ste n me i er Pfost Whitener Kee Philbin Wickersham Keith Pike Widnall Kelly Pillion Yates Keogh Pirnie Young King, Calif. Poff Younger King, N.Y. Price Zablocki King , Utah Pucinski Zelenko Kirwan Quie

NfiYS-86

Abbitt Fisher Mills Ab e r n ethy Flynt Murray Alex an der Forrester Norrell Alford Fountain Passman Alger Frazier Patman Andrews Gary Poage A -s hmore Gathings Purcell B a ttin Goodell R a ins Beckworth Grant Ray B ee rmann Hagan, Ga. Reifel Berry H a rris Riley Bonner Harrison, Va. Rivers, S.C. Boykin Hemphill Roberts, Ala. Bromwell Hender s on Roberts, Tex . Burleson Herlong Rogers, Tex. Casey Hiestand Rousselot Col m er Huddleston Scott C o oley Johansen Sal den Curt i s , Mo. Jone s , Ala. Short Davis, John W. Jones, Mo. S i kes Devine Kilgore Smith, Va. Dorn L a ndrum S tephens Dowdy L e nnon Teague , Tex . Down i ng McSween Thomp s on, Tex. Elliott Mahon Trimble Everett Matthews Tuck

Van Pelt Whitten Winstead Vinson Williams Wright Waggonner Willis

ANSWERED "PRESENT''-1

Reece

NO'!: VOTING-54

Adair Dominick Moorehead, Andersen , Donohue Ohio

Minn. Dooley Morris Arends Ellsworth Morrison B a r i ng Evins O'Brien, Ill. Bass , N . H . Findley Peterson B l atnik Garland Pilcher Blitch G r anahan Powell Bolling H a ll Saund Bolton H e bert Scherer Cannon Hoffman, Mich. Seely-Brown Co ad K e arns S i sk Collier Kilburn Smith, Miss. C r a m er Kitchin Stratton Cunningh a m McDowell Thompson, La. Cu r t i s, Ma s s. McMillan Utt D av is, Macdonald Wilson , Calif. J am e s C . Mason Wilson, Ind. • D aws o n Merrow

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was passed.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. Blatnik and Mr. Macdonald for, with Mr . Hebert against.

Mr. McDowell and Mr. Pilcher for, with Mr . McMillan against.

Mr. Baring and Mr. Hall for, with Mr. James C. Davis against.

Mr. Powell and Mr. Kilburn for, with Mr. Thompson of Louisiana against.

Mr. Dawson and Mr. O'Brien of Illinois for, with Mrs. Blitch p , gainst.

Mrs. Bolton and Mr. Cramer for, with Mrs. Reece against.

Until further notice: Mr. Evins with Mr. Wilson . of C a lifornia. Mr. Kitchin with Mr. Arends. Mr. Morrison with Mr. Collier. Mr. C a nnon with Mr. Utt . Mr. Saund with Mr. Findley. Mr. Morris with Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Donohue with Mr. Dooley. · Mr. Sisk with Mr. Moorehead of Ohio. Mr. Peterson with Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. Smith of Mississippi with Mr. Adair. Mr. Stratton with Mr. Andersen of Minnesota.

Mrs. Granahan with Mr. Scherer.

Mr. Bolling with Mr. S~ely-Brown.

Mr. Coad with Mr. Dominick.

Mrs. REECE. Mr. Speaker, I have a. live pair with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BOLTON]. If they were present, they would have voted "yea." I voted "nay." I withdraw my vote and vote "present."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, while the rollcall vote was being taken a moment ago on the so-called poll-tax amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 29, I was called momentarily outside the Chamber on urgent business affecting the people of my district. Although I was well aware that the amendment, which I have long supported, would carry by a sizable margin, I nevertheless desired that my position in favor of it should be formally recorded. Had I been present I would have voted an emphatic "aye."