June 14, 1960

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 554 and ask for its present consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved , That upon the adop t ion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H.J. Res. 757) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the . electoral college to the District of Columbia. After general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution , and continue not to exceed two hours , to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said resolu­ man. tion except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary may be offered to any section of the resolution at the conclusion of the general debate , but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the co n clusion of the considerat i on of the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to final passage Without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] and now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER].

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

THE SCURRILOUS OBERDORFER-PINCUS ARTICLES

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, if the members of the Commit . tee on Un-American Activities took the time necessary to answer the continuous attacks leveled against us by the Communists and Communist sympathizers, we would have no time left to conduct the affairs of the committee which, because of the intensification of Communist activity in the United States, necessitates more and more of our time in investigations, hearings, consultations, preparation of reports, and similar duties.

I have hesitated for quite some time before I decided to discuss the matter of the scurrilous series of articles which appeared under the byline of Don Oberdorfer and Walter Pincus in the Knight newspapers and in the Washington Post, as well as, in excerpts, in Life magazine. Along with many of my colleagues, I regard the Oberdorfer-Pincus series as a concoction of half- truths, untruths, smear, and innuendo adorned with adjectives used in lieu of facts.

I remained silent on that sorry subject until it became clear to me that the Oberdorfer-Pincus series could not be simply dismissed a~ another example of yellow journalism. I was silent until the cat was out of the bag, or ratheruntil the cat was out of the mailbag. By that I mean, until the OberdorferPincus duo devoted their longest article in the series to an investigation of the :flood of Communist propaganda reaching the United States , an investigation conducted by the Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

It then became obvious to me that, at least that part of the Oberdorfer-Pincus series which directly played into the Communist hands by smearing the Committee · on Un-American Activities, must be answered by that committee’s ' s chairman, of the Oberdorfer-Pincus articles was devoted to a " road show" which the Committee on Un-American Activities is charged with having conducted from city to city where, according to the articles, the same testimony and the same mail sacks of Communist propaganda are used-all for the purpose of wasting the taxpayers' money.

What is the truth? Several weeks ago, I was advised by the staff that the reporters were examining the vouchers and expense accounts of the committee and its staff. I immediately announced that we had nothing to keep secret with the exception of our security files and that I was not cognizant of a single item in the financial affairs of the committee which could not stand the closest scrutiny.

Mr. Pincus and Mr. Oberdorfer attacked the Committee on Un-American Activities, consisting of 9 members and a staff of 45 people, because of the hotel bills of 1 or 2 members of the committee , which bills are portrayed as excessive. With reference to my own expenses as chairman of the committee, even the Washington Post in its editorial a few days ago commented as follows:

The chairman, Representative FRANCIS E. WALTER , it should be acknowledged, has been pretty Spartan in his habits.

Let it be noted that of the 45 members of the staff, including the investigators . who do the most traveling, there was not one item or a single voucher against which anything of a derogatory nature . could be found. Regarding the personal expenses of one or two members of the committee the articles referred to "$45- a-day hotel rooms and restaurant bills" as though it is a common practice of all members of the committee and its staff to spend money lavishly and extravagantly while on committee investigations.

The truth is that the Committee on Un-American Activities , like all other committees of Congress, functions largely though subcommittees. The chairman of the subcommittee frequently will use, in addition to his own bedroom, a sitting room which is utilized for conferences with witnesses, the press, and Government officials. In signing for his hotel bill, the subcommittee chairman frequently signs not only for his own personal expenses but will sign the vouchers for those meals which the subcommittee members and the staff ha v e together in the hotel.

It is an invariable policy of the committee that no member of the committee or its staff can charge against the committee accounts any personal expenses such as laundry, cleaning, or any personal entertainment or liquor expenses. If instances have occurred in which these items have been charged against the committee accounts-and I personally know of no such instances-they are obviously either in error or are wrong , and I would not begin to justify them. I cannot believe that any such instances of this kind are more than infrequent breaches which might occur in any operation as extensive as the operations of our committee, which cover the entire Nation. Aside from the personal expense accounts of one or two members used in the articles as a basis for the general indictment of the entire committee and its staff, the articles lay particular emphasis on two other items concerning which I shall now comment.

Mr. Pincus and Mr. Oberdorfer state that the members of the Committee on Un-American Activities and its staff have taken from the Library of Congress a number of books and periodicals which were lost and paid for at taxpayers' expense. The articles list the books and their cost. The only reasonable interpretation of the article is that these books were ta.ken in the recent past or at least during the existence of the Committee on Un-American Activities. The truth is that every one of these books was charged out from the Library of Congress in a period beginning in 1938 and extending until 1945 by the old Dies committee which was the predecessor of the Committee on Un-American Activities. I understand that these books were checked out of the Library of Congress by the old Dies committee from 1938 to 1945 as part of a great number of books which were being examined in connection with a project dealing with Communists who were writers.

Back in 1956 the Library of Congress completed an inventory of all of the books which ha.d been checked out over many years but which ha.d not been accounted for. In order to clear the records, I agreed as chairman of the successor committee that the charge for the books which ha.d been unaccounted for by the Dies committee could be charged against the accounts of the present committee.

Mr. Pincus, the coauthor of the articles, was told prior to the time that he wrote his articles that these books ha.d not been withdrawn or used by any member of the Committee on Un-American Activities or its staff and that the committee and its staff had no knowledge of these books, but, nevertheless, the article lists a number of the books by title and cost and conveys the clear impression that this committee and its staff have been promiscuously checking out books from the Library of Congress for personal use and charging the cost to committee accounts.

Another charge which the articles leveled against the Committee on UnAmerican Activities is to the effect that the committee spent taxpayers' money for limousine service, the clear impression being that it was done in an air of extravagance. The truth is that once or twice in New York City and again once in San Francisco during the course of the last several years the committee did engage limousines because the circumstances required the presence of several staff people as well as four or five members of the committee to conduct the hearings.

The limousines were used exclusively to transport the subcommittee and the staff from the hotels to the hearing rooms and return and were actually cheaper than taxicabs would have been to transport the same people. The use of limousines, moreover, permitted more careful adherence to a close schedule of committee operations. The implication of the articles, however, is that the members of the subcommittee and the staff, at taxpayers' expense, were joyriding around town in these limousines or using them for personal trips. This, of course, is a vicious distortion.

Now, permit me to comment respecting the article in the series which was devoted to the so-called roadshow in which it is charged that the committee goes from city to city with the same testimony by Mr. Irving Fishman of the CUstoms Service who opens the same mail sacks of Communist propaganda-all for the purpose of wasting the taxpayers' money. The Washington Post in its editorial entitled "Wandering Minstrels" dated June 10, 1960, adds still another tidbit respecting this series of hearings by suggesting that the real reason for the hearings is to give the committee the names of "thousands of persons to whom mail happened to be addressed from Iron Curtain countries" so that the names of these persons can be added "in those bulging catchall files of the HUAC."

It was the same Washington Post which, in an earlier editorial, advocated the release of all impounded Communist propaganda mail and its immediate delivery to the addressees.

What are the facts? What I am now about to recite, Mr. Speaker, are not only facts known to me, but facts which were painstakingly told and explained to the authors of the Oberdorfer-Pincus series on three occasions prior to the time that their articles were written. Both authors were told that Communist propaganda literature is reaching this country in increasing volume through many ports of entry. They were told that the Communist poison is printed in many languages such as Chinese, Spanish, French, Polish and so forth. They were told that Communist propaganda literature is sent to ports of entry on the east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast, and to some ports on the Canadian border. They were told, also, that Communist newspapers, brochures and tracts are mailed to such ports of entry as serve certain areas of the United States where the local population or parts of it understand the language in which the material is printed.

It was for the purpose of tracing a pattern that hearings were held in New York, in San Francisco, in New Orleans, in Buffalo, and in other places where the foreign language mail is strategically divided and destined to what may be called target areas. It must have been perfectly clear to Mr. Oberdorfer and Mr. Pincus that the Committee on UnAmerican Activities did not "travel around with the same mailbag" but that our purpose was to show how the same source supplies different areas of our country with propaganda literature in many different languages, entering the United States through different postal conduits.

Mr. Irving Fishman, deputy collector of the U.S. Customs Service, has for several years specialized in developing information respecting this general area of Communist activity. His work has taken him to the four corners of the world. At the present time, he is in Asia in a cooperative enterprise with the Committee on Un-American Activities for which he is developing factual material respecting the sources of some of this Communist propaganda. I shall not attempt now even to give a broad survey of the tremendous scope of this problem or of the startling facts which we are constantly uncovering in its many r a m­ ifications. From time to time this subject matter is dealt with in our various publications.

In attempting to get at the facts the committee has on several occasions requested the U.S. Customs Service to assign Mr. Fishman to make a study at a particular port of entry in an area where the committee will be conducting a general investigation. We have found that the factual situation both as to source, destination, and volume of Communist propaganda varies over the Nation but that in content there appears to be a uniform pattern. The process by which we are trying to complete the mosaic is tedious and difficult.

The suggestion contained in the Oberdorfer-Pincus article-that this committee goes from place to place to repeat a presentation of the same testimony or to use the same material-is not only untruthful, but its presentation in this vein, after the authors were three times given a full explanation of the facts, is vile. Of course, the suggestion in the Washington Post editorial that our objective is to get the names of the recipients of Communist propaganda to be included in our files is likewise untrue. The facts are that most of the recipients of this Communist propaganda have not solicited it and many of them protested receipt of it. The only names we have of recipients of this Communist propaganda are the names of people who have addressed letters to the committee commending the committee for its efforts to cope with this poison which is being destined now to schools, colleges, and libraries as well as other groups and organizations across the Nation in increasing volume.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on with comments on still other misrepresentations appearing in these articles but I believe I have covered the principal items. I have never yet asserted that the Committee on Un-American Activities is above criticism. I readily assert that as a human institution we do make mistakes. We try to keep those mistakes to a minimum. I honestly feel that the overwhelming majority of the criticism against the committee and its work, however, stems either from those who have an ax to grind or are uninformed. I am convinced, likewise, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Un-American Activities is doing a vital work which has the approval of the House and the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 554, by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH], makes in order, with 2 hours of general debate, the consideration of House Joint Resolution 757, a resolution which would amend the Constitution of the United States. The resolution provides not only for 2 hours of general debate but also for a closed rule under which no amendments, except those offered by the Committee on the Judiciary, may be considered. That was done because this joint resolution deals with an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I think perhaps I also should point out that a two-thirds vote of the House and of the other body is required to approve a joint resolution of this type, submitting to the various States of the Union, for ratification, a constitutional amendment. The House joint resolution, of course, does not require approval or disapproval by the President, but is first the action of the Congress and then later comes the action of ratification by the States. That ratification requires an a:ffirmative vote of three-fourths of all the States, or 38 States. ·

This amendment to the Constitution, as proposed in the House joint resolution is a very simple one. It would give to the people of the District of Columbia who are legal residents---not residents of some other State, but legal residents of the District itself-the right and privilege to vote for President and Vice President, or perhaps I should say, rather, for not more than three electors to represent them in the electoral college which actually selects the President and Vice President, following the general election which is held in November each 4 years. This constitutional amendment would restrict to three the numbers of electors the District of Columbia would be permitted to have, which is the equal in number to that allowed the smallest State, but actually would be about the number the District would be entitled to on a population basis, if it were a State. But this resolution in no way creates the District of Columbia as a State. It simply confers upon the electors, the legal electors, the right to vote for President and Vice President.

The amendment does not carry any provision for delegates to sit in the House, or in either branch of the Congress. Neither does it have any connection whatsoever with the various home rule questions we have had before us for a long time.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MASON. Let us suppose that I land here in the District of Columbia and make it my home. I have come from Poland or some other place, and am not a citizen of the United States; would I have the right to vote?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No. The gentleman would have to be a citizen of the United States; he would have to meet all citizenship requirements, as I understand it.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution has received perhaps more consideration by the House Committee on the Judiciary than almost any piece of legislation which has come before this House in many, many years. There have been a great many constitutional and other legal questions raised in connection with this matter. I feel, as do most of the members of the Committee on Rules, that the Committee on the Judiciary has not only worked long and arduously, but has brought out a very simple and a very effective resolution which will in HILL] no way take away from the Congress of the United States the right and authority to control the affairs of the District of columbia as the seat of the Federal Government, or give to the people of the District any powers except those which I have designated, to vote for electors for President and Vice President.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MEADER. I should like to refer to the question directed to the gentleman from Ohio by the gentleman from D­ linois [Mr. MAsoN], namely, whether or not residents of the District of Columbia who were not citizens might participate in the selection of electors. I think section 1 of the proposed amendment is very clear and reads as follows:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct. In other words, the answer of · the gentleman from Ohio to the question of the gentleman from Illinois should have been that that entire matter was left to the Congress of the United States and was not specifically either provided for or prohibited in the terms of the amendment itself.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is right. But the Congress of the United States has the power to fix those voting rights, just as the legislature of any State may fix them in any particular State.

As I pointed out a moment ago, this does not take away from the Congress the power to control the public activities within the District of Columbia, whatever they may be, whether it deals with transportation or whether with the right of suffrage. As we have it now, the District elects delegates to the party national conventions.

Mr. MEADER. The gentleman is absolutely correct on that point. I should like to call attention to the language I have just read in section 1. The proposed amendment is the same phraseology as appears in article n, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. The only difference is that we put in the word "Congress" instead of "legislature." This is the language of the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct--

And so forth. We have simply taken the pattern established in the Constitution of the United States and left it completely within the discretion of Congress to set up the qualifications of electors, and how electors for President and Vice President shall be selected.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman making his clarifying statement. I had hoped and thought that I had made the situation clear, but certainly the gentleman's explanation leaves no doubt in the mind of anyone that the Congress retains to itself the powers provided under the Constitution to deal with District of Columbia matters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROY­

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the joint resolution the rule makes in order. I see no earthly reason why we should not grant the same rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia who are American citizens to vote for President and Vice President as all other citizens of the United States have. In fact I would go so far as to say we should grant them the right to have full national representation, full representation in the House and the Senate, the same as all other American citizens enjoy. I have maintained that position for the past three Congresses. I have introduced similar resolutions in each Congress, one to grant the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, and the other to grant Congress the authority to give the people of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House and the Senate. The joint resolution which we will have before us is practically identical to the resolutions I have introduced in previous Congresses. It is, however, somewhat of a compromise, in that it limits the number of votes in the electoral college to no more than those of the least populous State. Of course it is a compromise. All major legislation gets . through as a result of compromise.

It is unfortunate that while we are at it, going through the long, complicated process of a constitutional amendment, we do not do the job right and give them the full vote, the same vote they would have in the electoral college if they were a State of the same population. Yet, as I stated before, sometimes a compromise is necessary and I agree to this compromise.

I should like to address myself for just a moment to the confusion that has existed between this proposal for a constitutional amendment and the proposal for home rule in the District of Columbia. During the hearings the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary admonished the witnesses, and properly so, not to confuse this issue with home rule, but it is confused. Not more than one out of a hundred Americans who are familiar with this problem really understand the difference between this constitutional amendment we are proposing today and the problem of home rule. I venture to say a very small percentage of the advocates of home rule really understand the difference between the two measures. The two measures are similar in only one respect, that is, they give the citizens the right to vote. That is what we want to do, to give the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote. The right to vote for President and Vice President does not infringe on the rights of the other people of this great Nation. If we granted the people of the District of Columbia representation in the House and Senate, it would not infringe on the rights of the other people of this Nation. However, if we attempt to turn over the government of the Nation's Capital to the people who live within its boundaries to rule and control, then we do impinge on the right of the other people of the Nation, because all the people of the States have a stake and a vested right and interest in · measure the government of the Nation's Capital. of

Last week we were talking about a _ who compact for interstate transportation. I_ hope The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Sider CANNON] expressed great concern that we were setting up control over the taxi- scratch cab rates here in the Capital and giving it to some outside agency.

He felt his constituents had a stake involved in the setting of taxicab rates Mr. here in the Nation's Capital. Last Mon- man day, the House approved a bill intro- ~r. duced by the gentleman from Michigan Jomt [Mr. RABAUTJ requiring that no more condemnation for urban renewal will As take place until 50 percent of the people ~nal who had been evi-cted as a result of pre- m vious condemnations,' had been replaced. national That was a proper bill and indicates the concern that the gentleman from Mich- I nse igan had in the operation and con- I are duct of the affairs of the Nation's Capi- House tal. I could give hundreds of other ex- But amples of how Members have expressed a very their interest and concern in the man- I will agement of the Nation's Capital. Over and beyond the constitutional question involved I maintain we do not have the on right to' turn over the control of the we District of Columbia to the people living within its boundaries. Over and beyond of that fact, we must recognize that 50 per- dent cent of all the property in the District Mr. of Columbia is owned by the Federal the Government or by foreign governments. and Of the 750,000 people living in the Dis- people trict of Columbia, they are largely tran- rig~t sitory, Members of Congress, members lut10n of foreign governments, Federal execu- The tives, members of committee staffs. A of large portion of the population does not pired. have their grassroots and basic economic interests within the boundaries of the yield Nation's Capital. In the recent primary the election here last month, only 21,000 LOCH], people out of 750,000 population went mittee to the polls to vote. So that indicates Mr. a very small percentage of those 750,000 the really have any interest in the affairs of Civil the Nation's Capital. So, if we granted land home rule to the citizens of the District of Columbia, we would be turning over those the Federal interest and the Federal of rights to a very small percentage of the elective population. There is a precedent for not granting home rule or control of the cerned. local government here to the people who The live within the boundaries of the Nation's will Capital. On all military reservations ting throughout the country, we recognize the Federal interests are dominant. People the living on military reservations have trict rights as other American citizens have. They can vote for President and Vice tors. President, but they do not have any I trust control or say-so as to how the affairs the on that military reservation will be con- the ducted. Regardless of what we do re- proval garding home rule, we will still be responsible as to how the affairs of the have Nation's Capital are conducted. In view yield of the fact that the right to vote is the Mr. predominant issue that we have here, I yield I trust that the Congress will over- Mr. whelmingly approve this proposed constitutional amendment, giving the people the right to vote for President and Vice the President and exercise some restraint shall on demanding that the House act on a and that will turn over the control the Nation's Capital to a few people live within its boundaries. In fact some other Members Will ~econt~en· previous actiOn, ~d II?- th~ mannensm of VIctor Borge, 'Yhisht, their names off the discharge petition. .

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker , Will gentleman yield? . BROYHILL. I yield to the g entlefrom Maryland. .

FOLEY .. I riSe m support of House

Resolution 757 and. support gentleman s positiOn on this. resolution.

the gentleman has stated m his ongrem~rks, some confusion may exist the minds of the Members as to representation effort that we supporting, you and I and many others. merely to point out that you and supporting this particular measure, Joint ResolutiOn 757, 100 percent.

you and I differ on home rule. I am strong supporter of home rule, not take the time to debate question at this point, but will merely highlight the fact that you and I differ the question of home rule, but are 100 percent for this resolution providing to the citizens of the District Columbia the right to vote for President Vice President.

BROYHILL. The main thing

American people are concerned about in a sympathetic way is to give of the District of Columbia to vote. That is what this resodoes.

SPEAKER pro tempore. The time the gentleman from Virginia has Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, such time as he may consume gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCuLLocH], ranking member of the Comon the Judiciary.

McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, with

Civil Rights Act of 1957 and

Rights Act of 1960, the law of now, in full force and effect, every qualified citizen of this country, except legally domiciled in the District Colwnbia , has the right to exercise franchise so far as electors

President and Vice President are conrule which is under discussion now make in order a resolution submitting the States for ratification a constitutional amendment which will people legally domiciled in the Disof Columbia the right to vote presidential and vice-presidential electors. indeed , is a historic occasion.

the rule will be adopted and resolution submitting the question State s will have the unanimous of the House of Representatives. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, no further requests for time and back the balance of my time.

SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker myself such time as I may require.

Speaker, this resolution has been thoroughly explained by those who have preceded me. It simply provide s citizens of the District of Columbia be entitled to vote for the President Vice President of the United S tates and to elect electors for the purpose of electing the President.

I hope the House will not confuse it with many of the confusing things concerning the District of Columbia, because it deals solely with the one problem of the right of these people who are citizens of the United States to vote for their the President. It is an entirely different question, as has been mentioned before, from the present agitation about home rule in the District, because there you run into a constitutional prohibition _the which has not only constitutional but also historic reasons why the Congress should exercise, as the Constitution requires, exclusive legislation over the Disthis trict of Columbia. I will not go into that, are because it has no relationship whatsoever to the bill before us. I hope this resolution may be adopted and that the constitutional resolution also may be adopted by the House, because I can see no valid reason why any citizen of the but United States should be denied the right that to vote for President and Vice President. The joint resolution requires a twothirds vote. After studious considerathat tion by the Committee on the Judiciary, it has been stripped down to the one, as I regard it, noncontroversial question; and in this late day of the session it is . my hope that this may be gotten through that and go to the States for ratification. It is the one chance, because if it is comthe plicated further with other matters that the do not directly relate to the question of the right to vote for President, the whole thing is going to fail in this late day of the session. I hope very much it can be ex- enacted by the Congress. If it is enacted, then the question of I who can vote in these elections in the to District of Columbia is a matter to be determined by the Congress; in other words, the qualifications of the voters and all the details with respect to voting will have to be dealt with in an addithe tional act of Congress. I hope the joint the resolution may be passed by the House without objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE ]· for Mr. INOUYE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Hawaii?

There was no objection. give Mr. INOUYE. Mr. Speaker, several days ago, articles appeared in certain for Washington dailies strongly implying that certain distinguished Members of Congress had improperly expended pubthat lie funds while performing special conto gressional assignments. I refer particuap- larly to the expenditures for meals in the Surf Bar of the Royal Hawaiian Ho­

I tel in the State of Hawaii. These articles stron g ly inferred that the Surf Bar was only a cocktail lounge, or a place where only alcoholic beverages were served, and thereby by inference and implication accused these distinguished Members of falsifying their meal vouchthat ers.

Knowing from my personal experiences that food is served in the Surf Bar re J ul arly, I made certain inquiries in

Honolulu and have received the following information:

The Surf Bar during the year 1957, th,e specific year the articles referred to, did serve alcoholic beverages to their patrons, but at the same time served meals every day of the week .

My colleagues may be interested to know that in the year 1957, 76,871 meals were served to patrons of the Surf Bar. In the year 1958, 62,200 meals were served to patrons of the Surf Bar. In the year 1959, 77,448 meals . were served to patrons of the Surf Bar. This year, as of May 31, 29 , 947 meals were served to patrons of the Surf Bar.

I have cited these statistics because these newspaper articles strongly inferred that only liquor was being served in the Surf Bar. This inference is understandable because the name, "Surf Bar," would naturally imply that as a place designated as a bar, only liquor would be served. I am hoping that by citing these statistics I am able to indicate to my colleagues that meals are served in the Surf Bar, and by meals I do not mean hors d'oeuvre. I mean full meals. It may also be of some interest to my colleagues to note that across the courtyard from the Surf Bar is the main dining room of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. This dining room is called the Monarch Room and, naturally, the Monarch Room serves meals, but in a more lavish manner. I feel that I need not tell you that the meals in the Monarch Room are much more expensive than the meals in the Surf Bar.

I purposely cited the existence of the main dining room, the Monarch Room, to point out the · strong possibility that our colleagues in having their meals served in the Surf Bar were actually saving taxpayers money. I am certain that my colleagues at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel could have very legitimately had their meals in the Monarch Room at much more expensive rates, but it seems from the printed vouchers that our colleagues decided to have their meals in the Sw·f Bar at coffee-shop rates.

Mr. Speaker , I hope that this short presentation has brought some light to the Surf Bar incident.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. RABAUT]. •

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? ·

There was no objection .

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, it is most fitting that we, the representative body of the Congress, pause this day to pay tribute to our flag. What we do and say here today, I pray, will make itself felt not only to our own citizenry, but to the rest of the world as well-for today we express our love for country, our dedication to the principles of human decency, our devotion to the basic concepts of freedom, our national dependence upon Almighty God by pledging, as a nation, our allegiance to the Stars and Stripes.

The story of our flag is the story of our Nation. Shining forth from that field of blue is a star for each of the 50 United States. That field of blue had a proud and courageous beginning, and each addition since then has written a glorious chapter to the story of America. Wherever this banner is unfurled there is hope in the hearts of men who believe that God created man and destined him to be free. Freed to fashion his life, alongside his neighbor, but not at the expense of his neighbor-to join freely in community with other communities of similar ambition in the creation of the state that will govern judiciously the acts with. of its citizens-free to choose its leaders and administrators who exercise their mandate to govern. All these basic principles of democratic government are contained in a symbol-a symbol that shall forever be the inspiration of a free people who daily pledge, as did their forefathers-their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor-to the maintenance of their chosen way of life.

Six years ago today , the President signed Public Law 396, which inserted the words "under God" in our pledge of allegiance to the flag. As author of the bill, I should like to reflect a moment, on this anniversary occasion, upon the significance of this amendment.

In the last 184 years this Nation has gradually increased its role among the free sister nations of the earth to the position of undisputed leadership. This leadership is not only material, but spiritual as well. For today we have been catapulted into the unique position where influence has shifted from the material world to the world of ideas. It has been quoted by many commentators of our contemporary scene that the big battle now is for men's minds.

The means of ultimate material destruction are at hand-the need now is for the deterrent force of Christian ideas to neutralize the preponderance of material know-how.

In many circles not a few informed people are saying that this country is losing this most important battle for free minds. We cannot afford to capitulate to the atheistic philosophies of godless men-we must strive to ever rem i nd the world that this great Nation has been endowed by a creator, and that this concept finds expre ss ion in our declared way of life.

The revision inserting the words "under God" in ow· pledge of allegiance to the flag goes far toward fulfilling this obligation. As legislators of this Nation's laws, I feel that this task falls primarily upon us-let us be ever alert to the necessity of this duty.

Mr . SMITH of Virginia. Mr . Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 554, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 757) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the electoral college to the District of Columbia.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 757, with Mr. TRDIBLE in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

By unanimous consent, the first reading of the joint resolution was dispensed

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr . Chairman, I deem it a great privilege, in fact I look upon it as a most notable milestone in my service as a Congressman, to sponsor this constitutional amendment which will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote in Federal elections. It seems incongruous that citizens as far away as Hawaii and Alaska have the right to vote while the residents of the seat of Government do not, especially when it is remembered that the men and women of the District of Columbia have all the obligations of citizenship, including the payment of Federal taxes, local taxes, and service in our Armed Forces. The District of Columbia with more than 748,000 residents has a greater number of persons than 15 of our States, and a greater number of its sons and daughters served in our Armed Forces in World War II than served from onethird of our states. The District's population, in fact, exceeds the combined population of Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. As against 748,000 of the District , Vermont has 372,000, Delaware 454 , 000 , Wyoming 319,000, Nevada 280,000, and Alaska only 191,000 inhabitants.

In 1948, the last time the District ' s tax contributions were reported separately, the District paid over $363 million in Federal taxes, more than the contributions of 25 States.

One may ask why have the residents of the District of Columbia been denied the right to vote for President and Vice President? A study of the constitutional debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and also the contemporary writings of our leading statesmen of that day discloses that it was not the intention of the Founding Fathers to deny the District such rights. The denial stems, apparently, from an ove r ­ sight or omission on their part, for nowhere in our fundamental instrument is there an express prohibition against voting by residents of the District. It is just that the Constitution simply does not provide for the right.

At the time the Constitution was being considered in Philadelphia in 1787 James Madison wrote in the Federalist, No. 43, that the inhabitants of the new Federal City should "of course have their voice in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them."

At that time it was not known where the seat of Government would be or what would be the size of the area ceded to the Federal Government for that purpose. It might have been, for all the Founding Fathers knew, a very small area indeed, just enough to encompass the Federal buildings needed to carry out the business of government, with the residents around it retaining their State citizenship. In any event, no provision for suffrage was included. As the remarks of Madison suggest, the failure to do so was due to an oversight rather than to an intention by the framers to deny residents of the District the right to vote.

Technically, voting rights are denied District residents because the Constitution is said to provide the machinery only through the States for the election of Senators and Representatives to Congress and for the selection of the President and Vice President-see article I, section a,, Since the District is not a State or part of a State, there is no ma- · chinery through which its citizens may participate in such matters.

The correction of this omission is the sole purpose of my resolution, House Joint Resolution 757, which calls for a simple amendment to the Constitution which would authorize Congress to pass laws permitting District citizens to vote in national elections.

I wish to emphasize that my resolution does not conflict with or have any bearing on the question of home rule for not? the District of Columbia. This is not an "either-or" proposition. My amendment only provides for a vote in Federal elections. This resolution is not "home rule" nor is it a substitute for "home rule." It is a matter of public record that the residents of the District of Columbia have been campaigning for the right to vote almost since the time the land which became known as the District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Virginia and Maryland.

Their early campaigns for the franchise were supported by several Presidents. President James Monroe in 1818, Andrew Jackson in 1831, William Henry Harrison in 1841, and Andrew Johnson in 1866 urged national representation for the District in various forms.

In addition, there have been numerous resolutions over the years, some '75 in number. Of these, three were favorably reported bY the Judiciary Committees of the Congress, in the Senate in 1922 and 1925 and by the House Committee on the Judiciary in 1940. I may mention that I supported and voted for the bill in 1940, which was favorably reported by this committee.

In this Congress for the first time a resolution has passed one of the Houses of Congress. The Senate on February 2, 19 ' 60, favorably acted on Senate Joint Resolution 39. This circumstance and the recent granting of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii lead me to be optimistic about succeeding in getting my amendment adopted by the House during this Congress.

The long struggle to get a vote to the District of Columbia has slowly but surely educated the American public to the point where there is little resistance to giving the vote to the citizens of the District, at least in Federal elections. This legislation will in no way lessen the control o! Congress over the seat of government. Further, the number of electors provided for shall in no event exceed the number allotted to the least populous State. That means the District would have three electors, the equivalent number of two Senators and one Representative.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­ Columbia. man from Arizona.

Mr. UDALL. I think the chairman should be commended for making a very concise and clear presentation of what the legislation does. I wanted to ask two or three questions, if I might, to establish in our minds what it does not do. The bill and constitutional amendment passed by the Senate in February, as I recall, did provide in addition to voting rights for President and Vice President, that the residents of the District could elect two Congressmen. The amendment before us today does not do that. Am I correct?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. UDALL. The constitutional amendment passed by the Senate last February also had no limitation with regard to the electoral vote in the electoral college of the District. However, there is such limitation in this bill, is there

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. UDALL. I might say to my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that I find this limitation an invidious one. I think all of the citizens of our country should stand on equal footing. For my own part, I will favor and will vote for this amendment, but I think this limitation does not do justice to the people of the District, nor does it square with my idea of the Constitution as an equalitarian document.

Mr. CELLER. I will say to the gentleman, he, apparently, is interested in an issue. I am interested in a causethe cause of the ballot. I am what one would call a practical politician. I could not get through my Committee on the Judiciary nor could I get through this House all that the gentleman wants. Therefore, to use the words that often reflect compromise-half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

Mr. UDALL. I have no argument summit. with my colleague on this point. May I ask one other question of the chairman, if he will yield further? The citizen of the ordinary American city has a bundle of voting rights consisting of the right to vote for his municipal officials, State officials, the right to elect a Congressman-and also to vote for President and Vice President. It is that bundle of rights that we normally speak of when we talk of voting rights. There is only one of those four rights conferred here today, am I correct in that?

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. UDALL. I think the chairman made it quite plain that this amendment does not confer the right of local selfgovernment that the citizens of every capital in the Western World-except I think Washington and Baghdad-have to govern their local affairs-to determine how to dispose of sewage, how to run the police force, and other matters of local concern.

Mr. CELLER. I think Brasilia, the new capital of Brazil, is very much like our present District of Columbia. I think laws have been set up there by President Kubichek of Brazil and his colleagues, along the lines of the laws that appertain to our own District of

Mr. UDALL. The only other question I would like to ask of my colleague, and I know he has fought long in his committee for a poll tax amendment, is this question: Is it not true that the other body in the series of constitutional amendments which it sent over contained an amendment sponsored by a Senator from the State of Florida to eliminate the poll tax by constitutio na l amendment?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct. I might add that the resolution which was passed by the Senate was three-pronged. It provided for a vote in the District of Columbia in Federal elections and for the election of a delegate or delegates. Secondly, it provided for the abolition of the poll tax. Thirdly, it provided for the selection by various governors of Representatives in Congress in the event of some holocaust or common catastrophe where a great many Representatives of the Congress might be exterminated. Again, being practical, I knew it would be very, very difficult to get such a three-pronged constitutional amendment through the House, much less through my Committee on the Judiciary, and I reasoned that it would be better not to have such a broad target at which opponents could aim their shafts of opposition, and, therefore, I tried to have this amendment as simple as possible and limit it to the joint resolution which you now have before you. I had a predilection to widen it a little bit, but I had to bow down to the wishes of my committee who are very astute and learned men and practical men. They offered amendments and we fashioned the proposed legislation that you now have before you. I think it is a good bill. On the way to the summit, we may have to visit a number of plateaus. This is one of the plateaus on the way to the Mr. UDAlL. I might say to my colleague, I shall support his amendment. I just want to observe, however, that it seems to me the base of the amendment sent to us by the other body has been almost whittled away. I do not regard it as a generous proposal. I regard it as a minimum proposal, and I shall support it as such. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CELLER. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 39, which passed the Senate particularly contained the provision for the abolition of the poll tax. The distinguished and dedicated senior Senator from Florida, Senator HoLLAND, was the faithful and courageous sponsor of the poll tax repeal. He has assured me that in the interest of getting at least the vote for the District in national elections he would yield on his amendment. If he does not make this sacrifice there might not be any bill passing the House. The Senator graciously yielded on his amendment. I hope that he will press for the poll tax repeal in the next session. I pledge every possible help to him in that repeal. I shall do all and sundry to support such repeal on the House side as he will on the Senate side.

The right, the privilege, the duty to vote-whatever characteristization you may ascribe to it-is the foundation upon which rests what is the essence of a democracy, namely, government by discussion. Therefore, unjustifiable segregation from political life is a cruel exercise in isolation.

Under Anglo Saxon concepts, since the · year 1215 when the Magna Carta declared that exceptional feudal aids were not to be levied without the common counsel of the realm, the extension of the body of the electorate has been the universal goal. At first, the counsel demanded by the Magna Carta was given by an assembly consisting of great lords, ecclesiastical prelates and tenants in chief, but there were in essence local assemblies or town meetings. They met twice a year to determine questions of law, inflict criminal punishment and to transact other kinds of business. This was the skeleton of the true representative system.

In 1265 the leaders of the barons embattled with the king and called for a parliament of two knights out of each shire, two burgesses from the towns, and from five sports each, four men. Thirty years later, there was summoned what is known as the "model parliament" by King Edward I which consisted of 2 archbishops, all of the bishops, the more important abbots, 7 earls, 41 barons, and in addition to these, each sheriff "shall cause to be elected 2 knights from each shire, 2 burgesses each from 115 cities and boroughs." At first the clergy, the barons, and the commoners met separately. This, of course, could not work and gradually there evolved the House of Lords which was comprised of lords temporal and lords spiritual and a House of Commons representing all of the classes.

I have gone back to English history because our own institutions derived therefrom. In my review I am again struck with the thought that the extension of the franchise was the most civilizing element in the development of national entities.

The French Revolution and the American Revolution gave radical impetus to . this extension of the franchise. · Basic to our understanding is the historical statement in the Declaration of Independence "all governments derived their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It has been said another way, "Either no individual member of the human race has any real rights or else all have the same." Widening the electorate has been no easy victory. At the outbreak of the American Revolution there was not a colony which did not require the ownership of property for the privilege of voting. Eight colonies imposed religious or moral tests upon · either omcers or electors. New Hampshire excluded Roman catholics; and South Carolina deemed unsafe all citizens who did not believe in God and a future life. Several required that assemblymen should be Protestants, while others demanded that they should believe in God and the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

By 1830 it may be said that a broad, though not universal, suffrage had been acquired in practically all the Original Thirteen States. There were exceptions like North Carolina, or Rhode Island, where Dorr and his followers acquired the vote only by rebellion. Where a property qualification occurred in the State west of the Alleghenies, it was of little consequence, so long as an abundant supply of cheap land made it easy for all to obtain property. By the end of the Civil war, practically universal, manhood suffrage had been established for all whites.

It took until the second decade of the 20th century to remove the disqualification of sex. The paramount question therefore before us is-shall the citizens of the District of Columbia be classed with idiots, insane people, and persons convicted of serious crimes which today constitute the major classes of people who are disenfranchised? Great efforts have been made by this Congress to assure the right to vote to all inhabitants under the 15th amendment of the Constitution, although this amendment speaks of abridgements of the vote on racial groups. Our Civil Rights Act of 1957 through 1960 are based upon that amendment. There can be, therefore, no logic, no justification, no indifference to the disenfranchisement of the residents of the District of Columbia. Under this bill, the enfranchisement is a limited one.

The people of the District of Columbia want to participate in national elections, even if it were to be as abortive as such participation was back in 1924 when the Alabama Democratic delegation in Madison Square Garden said "24 for Underwood" through 103 ballots. Without any kind of vote, the people of the District of Columbia are mere wards of Congress. They are declassed. That reflects upon their dignity; it wounds their pride; they are disqualified, though qualified. They are written off like excess baggage.

What useful purpose would be served to deny them the right to vote at least in the presidential election? There is no skin off anyone's back in granting that right. None is hurt but many will be helped. We boast of our conception of fair play. It is not fair to have a whole Nation possessed of the ballot, but not the people of the District of Columbia. Why place a hex on them? Denial of any vote is not like cutting out a useless appendix; it goes to the heart and pride of the citizen , and pride is one of our most precious human emotions.

On an average, 40 percent of our people qualified to vote do not vote either through apathy or ignorance. I assure you the people of the District will not be guilty of either indifference or unwillingness or ignorance. They will vote to a man. Their hunger for the vote is too great--they would literally devour it.

For the reasons stated above, I hope the necessary two-thirds majority will be available to pass this resolution.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to do our part in conferring a fundamental American right-the right to vote for presidential and vice presidential electors-upon the citizens who reside in and have their legal domicile in the District of Columbia. It is indeed difficult to understand why , more than 180 years after the birth of our Nation, our Constitution has not been amended to provide such fundamental privilege. No one has explained why our fellow American citizens who choose to make their homes in the Capital City of the Nation should be denied the elective franchise in a representative republic. Therefore, we are presented not only with a rare historic opportunity but also with a basic historic challenge.

House Joint Resolution 757 proposes to amend the Constitution in only one particular-to permit the residents of the District of Columbia, who are legally domiciled therein, to vote for President and Vice President, or, more technically speaking, for presidential and vice presidential electors.

House Joint Resolution 757 does not include any of the other measures proposed by the other body in Senate Joint Resolution 39 and it does not contain any provision for the election of Delegates to the House of Representatives. · In addition, the rule adopted by the House does not provide for any amendments except amendments offered by the Judiciary Committee.

No amendments will be offered. I am happy to make this statement in order to allay any fear of any Member who desires to support this measure but who could not support it in conjunction with unrelated measures which might be objectionable to any of my colleagues.

I might add that I am of the definite opinion that with anything as fundamental and lasting as a constitutional amendment I much prefer to confine consideration to one topic at a time.

The proposed amendment is necessary because the Constitution makes no provision for the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors by any political subdivision of the Federal Union other than States. Since the District of Columbia is not a State, there is no method short of a constitutional amendment which will permit the residents, legally domiciled in the District, to exercise the elective franchise.

The proposed amendment will simply authorize the District to select presidential and vice presidential electors in a manner similar to the method provided for the States in article II, section 1 of the Constitution. In fact, the language adopted is patterned after the language in article II. In addition, it contains the proviso that in no event shall the District be entitled to more electors than the least populous State. This proviso was adopted because it was thought that under no circumstances should the District, which is not a State, have a greater voice in selecting the President and Vice President than the least populous State.

Upon ratification of the amendment, the Congress will be empowered to enact enabling legislation setting forth the qualifications of the electors; the qualifications for District voters, and the manner in which elections are to be held. With respect to the States, these matters, under article II, section 1, are left to the respective State legislatures.

The proposed amendment next provides that the District electors "meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment." This is the present provision of the Constitution which prescribes the manner in which the electors cast their ballots for President and Vice President. In the event the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, the District would not participate. In that contingency, the delegation from each State is entitled to one vote; and, since the District is not a State there is no method by which it could participate in such event. The committee considered this problem but thought it would be unwise to try to adopt language into this simple resolution which would give the District a vote in the House of Representatives, if such condition ever arose. It is important to remember that the power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over the District under article I , section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution will not be affected. In other words, amending the Constitution to grant the right of franchise in presidential elections will in no way diminish the legislative power of Congress over the District.

There is strong argument that the Founding Fathers did not intend to deprive the citizens of the future District of the right to vote even though they did intend to create a separate seat for the Federal Government under the exclusive domain and control of Congress. To this extent adoption of the proposed amendment will not alter the character of the District as the permanent seat of the Federal Government.

Today the District has a population of about 750,000 people, which is more than the population of each of 13 of our States. The citizens of the District have fought and died in every U.S. war since the District was founded. Yet they cannot now vote in national elections because the Constitution has restricted that privilege to citizens who have a voting residence in one of the States.

The Founding Fathers did contemplate the creation of a Federal district but they neglected to make provision for the residents of the future District to vote for presidential and vice-presidential electors. In 1788 and 1789, Maryland and Virginia ceded the original territory to the Federal Government. In 1846, the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia was retroceded to Virginia. To my comprehension, it is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers, if they had contemplated the growth of the District as a permanent home for so many of our citizens, would not have made provision for them to vote. I believe, therefore, by adopting the proposed amendment we will be conforming the Constitution to present day reality, but in keeping with the spirit of our forebears who founded the Nation.

Finally, I should like to stress that this measure was given very careful consideration by the Judiciary Committee. It presents for your consideration a most important proposal. With its adoption by the Congress and its ratification by 38 States the legally domiciled residents of the District of Columbia shall at long last come of age. This is, indeed, a historic occasion.