March 19, 1962 (2)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J! Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. P.resident, as a Member of the U.S. Sena;te representing the Commonwealth of Virginia, I oppose the proposal for a so-called poll tax amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The State Constitution 'Of Virginia, in establishing the "qualifications of voters," requires the payment of a capitation tax, and I shall discuss this perfectly legitimate requirement in due course.

But first the record should show that adoption of this proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution would deprive public schools in Virginia of more than $1.5 million a year in much needed reveI state this fact with emphasis for the attention of the proponents of the pending resolution, those responsible for bringing it up, those who are agitating for its passage, and those who vote for The Virginia capitation tax is $1.50 per person, per year. Of this tax $1 must be appropriated in support of the public free schools of primary and grammar grades throughout the State.

The remaining 50 cents is returned for local purposes to the counties and cities where it is collected, and this also is used almost exclusively in the support of public schools.

Reports of the State comptroller show that revenue from the Virginia capitation tax has been running at $1,700,000 a year or more. It is conservatively estimated that $1.5 million goes to schools. On my own responsibility as a Mem­ <Mr. ber of the Senate, I do not hesitate to say there is no significant demand in .the State of Virginia for repeal o! the nominal capitation levy.

The agitation for Federal action to outlaw this Virginia "qualification of voters" originates outside of the Statewhether it is by constitutional amendment or by Federal statute.

It has been fundamental in our form of government since its beginning that each of the several States shall determine its own qualifications for voting in both State and National elections.

Virginia has never attempted to dictate voting qualifications in other States, or to agitate for their change. And the people of Virginia do not like for others to meddle in their voting affairs.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will elections. the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not a fact that the Senator and his distinguished colleague have, on occasion, joined me in the offering of this particular amendment?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. That was under conditions which do not exist today.

Mr. HOLLAND. But the Senator did join me?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I am not sure that it was on occasions-there may have been one occasion.

Mr. HOLLAND. And the Senator's colleague did so on several occasions, is that not true?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I cannot say without checking the record.

Mr. HOLLAND. The reason for my asking the question is my understanding of the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, that Virginia had never joined in trying to impose this decision on other States. I do not know what was the purpose of my distinguished · friend and his distinguished colleague in joining with me, but I thought they were supporting the amendment, or would not have asked to join.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I am speaking of Virginia as a State and not of individual Virginians.

From time to time many States have made changes in their voting requirements. They have been permitted to do that when the people of the State wanted change-not by force of the Federal Government.

In further answer tp the question of the Senator from Florida, a proposal was submitted to the people of Virginia to repeal the poll tax, and it was defeated.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I understand that was the case. I have also examined that proposal. I thought it was a very weak one, but it was within the judgment of the appropriate officials of Virginia as to what they should submit, and it was within the judgment of the people of Virginia to determine whether or not to accept it.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. At the recent session of the General Assembly of Virginia, which adjourned only a week ago, a proposal was made to submit again the question of repealing the Virginia poll tax, and I think it received only 1 or 2 votes in the house of delegates, which consists of 100 members.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I understood that the proposal in Virginia was related to the complete elimination of the poll tax, whereas the present proposal, in an undoubted · constitutional form, has to do only with the imposition of the poll tax as a requirement for voting for Federal elective officials and does not relate to or interfere with the affairs of the State of Virginia in connection with its State

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The Senator from Florida well knows that if the voters of Virginia refuse to repeal the State poll tax, and then by Federal enactment in one shape or another the poll · tax as related to election of Federal officers is repealed, two lists of voters would be required, which I believe would be a very difficult thing to administer. In these days of minimum wage laws and inflation it cannot be seriously contended that a capitation tax of $1.50 a year substantially should restrict availability of the voting franchise.

This Virginia tax is the equivalent to little more than the Federal minimum wage rate for an hour's work-the price of a haircut, admission to a ball game, and so forth.

Voting · registration in Virginia has been increasing-right . along with the population. Latest official :figures, as of last October, indicate Virginia registrations now exceed 1 million.

- I suspect the registration increase in Virginia, proportionately has kept fairly close pace with the registrations in States which do not require payment of capitation taxes.

This increase in registrations has by no means been confined to the white population. Registrations among the colored people have increased as wellthey now number more than 100,000.

No State in the Union has simpler registration laws than does the State of Virginia. All that is necessary to do is to sign an · application ~or registration. No questions are propounded. Nothing is asked of those who would be voters. One registration lasts for a lifetime. If a voter moves from one precinct to another his registration is transferred.

With more than a million registrations in the State, and the revenue from capitation taxes running at $1.7 million a year, it is obvious that the tax is not restrictive on the qualification of voters. In this connection I quote from a statement by my colleague from Virginia the Honorable A. WILLIS ROBERTSON. When a previous poll tax bill was before the Senate 2 years ago, he said:

So far as I can ascertain, the poll tax requirement in Virginia has had no effect from a racial standpoint. The accuracy of this statement is shown by comparison of the situation in Virginia which requires the payment of a poll tax, with the situation in adjoining North Carolina which does not require payment of a poll tax.

No State has had more experience with the voting franchise than Virginia. The first elected legislature in the new world was established at Jamestown early in the 17th century.

Virginia's experience was called upon in drafting the Federal Constitution. The right of determining qualifications for voters was deliberately reserved to the States.

It was not by accident that this right was clearly and prominently placed in the Federal Constitution. The fact that it is only one paragraph removed from the preamble is significant.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution - of the United States reads as follows:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors of each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislators. ·

The position of this section in the Constitution and the choice of its language were not by accident. The framers of the Nation's basic law knew what they were doing, and it was deliberate.

Charles Warren, an eminent student of constitutional history, and author of "The History of the Supreme Court of the United States," in a Library of Congress Memorandum on Poll Tax, stated: In arriving at this method (art. I, sec. 2-1) of disposing of the question of the right to vote in Federal Convention of 1787, there was a threefold contest.

The contest was between those members who wished a uniform qualification for electors (freehold property or otherwise) to be prescribed in the Constitution itself, and two other groups.

The second group of delegates wished the power to prescribe the qualifications for voting to be vested in Congress; and in addition to these there was st111 a third group. This third group wished the Constitution to prescribe qualifications-not uniform qualifications-but qualifications such as the respective States prescribed for their own people.

It was this last group who prevailed and, according to Warren, after 2 days of active debate they left the constitution in this respect as it now stands.

With this constitutional history clearly in mind Virginia for nearly 100 years has determined that payment of capitation taxes should be a qualification for voting.

This is no relic of Reconstruction days. It was given close study in our constitutional convention of 1902 under the leadership of the late Carter Glass, who was so highly esteemed in Virginia, in the Senate, and throughout the Nation.

Payment of capitation taxes as a prerequisite for voting in Virginia was posed, as I have already said, as a question in a statewide referendum within the past 10 years, and our people voted for its retention in the Constitution.

Article II, section 18, of the Virginia constitution, as it stands today after recent referendum, · is headed "Qualification of Voters," and it reads as follows: Every citizen of the United States, 21 years of age, who has been a resident of the State 1 year , of the county, city or town, 6 months and of the precinct in which he offers to vote, 30 days , next preceding the election in which he offers to vote, has been registered to vote, has registered, and has paid his State poll tax , as hereinafter required, shall be entitle<.. to vote for members of the general as­ 'sembly and all officers elective by the people.

This is the provision-with respect to payment of capitation taxes as a requirement for the privilege of voting in Virginia-which stands now in our State constitution.

As of today, it stands reinforced by overwhelming approval in a statewide referendum taken during the period since the proposal now under debate has been pending before the Congress.

There are no grounds for either the Federal Congress or any other State to question the power or authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia to establish voting qualifications within the State.

Retention of this power and authority by each State is fundamental in the body and the soul of the Federal Constitution which the States devised as a means of uniting themselves for national purposes. Virginia takes pride in the part it played in drafting the Constitution of the United States. Its role was that of the participant with the greatest experience in an elective system of government.

As I view the Federal Constitution, the .original articles are its body, and the first 10 amendments are its soul. Virginia's experience helped mold the body, and our Bill of Rights is its soul.

The very second paragraph in the body of the Constitution specifically says that each State shall have the power and authority to determine the "qualifications" for voting in their own elections. If this language in section 2 of article 1 is not specific enough, the ninth amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Certainly, there is nothing 1'n the Federal Constitution which can be con• strued as delegating power or authority over voting qualifications to the Federal Government.

But the lOth amendment precludes any Federal usurpation of any power or authority in this respect. It says:

The powers not delegated to the United UnJUS States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As if this were not enough to settle this matter for all time insofar as Federal jurisdiction is concerned, the 17 th amendment, in 1912-some 125 years later-repeated the language of article I, section 2.

Certainly the multiple provisions in the Federal Constitution, deliberately designed to prevent Federal usurpation of power over voting qualifications, cannot be undone except by constitutional amendment.

But frankly, I am at a loss to understand why States which are enjoying freedom with respect to establishing other voting qualifications should wish to open the door for Federal restriction in this area.

Over the years a number of States have exercised this very freedom to repeal the payment of poll taxes as a pre· requisite for voting; and under the same freedom they have established other qualifications.

Are the advocates of this proposal pre 1 pared to broaden the amendment to impose . Federal restrictions against annual registrations, payment of registration fees, or to fix a uniform age limit, and .so forth? .

I find no reason to think that even our neighbors in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland are deeply concerned over whether Virginia has a capitation tax or not.

There is even less reason to think that the rank and file of people in more re­ .moved States wish to impose on Virginia the attitudes of their respective States on voting qualifications.

There is in fact no demand for this amendment among the rank and file of the citizens of this Nation. It is directed at only 10 percent of the States with only 12 percent of the population.

These States are just as responsive to responsible public demand as are any other States. The people of these States are just as capable of achieving their reasonable desires as are people elsewhere.

In this instance their reasonable desires with respect to voting qualifications-and I think they are both reasonable and constitutional-happen to differ from the reasonable and constitutional desires of people elsewhere.

Inflammatory statements by pressure groups and a Federal commission, paid to stir up agitation on anything which can be tarred by the stick of so-called civil rights, do not justify amendment to the Constitution.

I not only question any contention that States wish to open the door to Federal restriction on voting qualifications; I question whether the subject merits the Senate's time and effort on this proposal. I venture the assertion that the price of the capitation tax does not prevent responsible citizens in Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas from voting.

I doubt whether there has ever before been proposed a constitutional amendment which would be applicable in only five States. Certainly, no more useless or

· t'fi 1 bl d t h b a e amen men as ever been proposed.

The Constitution fundamentally must be an instrument of broad principles arid basic law. To start encumbering it with detailed specifics surely will lead to the destruction of our system of government. Under the Constitution, States retained the broad authority to establish voting qualifications. This amendment would begin chipping away at that authority by Federal restriction on what may be called a qualification.

These are some of the reasons why I question whether consideration of this proposed amendment is worthy of the Senate of the United States, and the expenditure of all this time and effort. I cannot take too seriously a statement which was made here on the floor of the Senate on Friday, March 16; but as a Senator from Virginia I cannot allow it to go unchallenged.

The last column on page 4370 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for that date contains the statement that "the poll tax States were th e ones th a t h a d 1 os t population."

If Virginia is regarded as a "poll tax State," this statement requires qualification. Virginia's population 1n 1930 was 2.4 million; it was 2. 7 million in 1940; 3.3 million in 1950; and 3.9 mll- _ lion in 1960.

Statements such as this are frequently -subject to erroneous .connotation. I .know from experience that they are picked up and . used to indicate back­ - wardness, or at least lack of progress. We are proud of our progress in Virginia because it is sound progress. It is progress without the elements of the spectacular. It is the kind of sound and sure progress that this Nation needs. Virginia is one of the few States which is out of debt.

It is the kind of progress which can be documented-chapter and verseand I am pleased to take this occasion to recite some of these chapters and verses: Record oj progress in Virginia since before world war 11

Percent 1. Total population in Virginia increased ----------------------- 48

Total population in the country as r a whole. increased _________ _:___ 36 2 Rural population in Virginia ln.;

Rural creased population ----------------------- throughout the 0 · 2 country decreased_____________ -0. 6 3 Urban population in Virginia increased ________________________ 133

Urban population in the coun-

· try increased _________________ _: 68

4 · Total personal income in Virginia increased-------- ~ ------------- 480

Total personal income in the country increased ______________ 408

5. Per capita personal income in Virginla increased ________________ 297

Per capital personal income in the country increased ______________ 273

6. Number of manufacturing plants in Virginia increased ______ .:.___ 77

Number of manufacturing plants in the country increased_______ 72

7. Value of products manufactured in Virginia increased----------- 466

Value of products manufactured in the country increased __________ 475

8. Employment in manufacturing in

Virginia increased--------~--- 72

Employment in manufacturing in the country increased ______ _ __ _; 68

9. Payroll in manufacturing in Virginia increased ________________ 555

Payroll in manufacturing in the country increased _____________ 515

10. Kilowatts of electric power generated in Virginia increased ____ 689

K~~::~ts ~~ e~~c;rl~ot~~~; g:er~ whole increased-------~------- 431

11 . Electric generation capacity in Virginia increased ____________ :.. 512

Electric generation capacity in the country increased _____________ 321

12. Cash receipts from farm marketing in Virginia increased __________ 284

Cash receipts from farm marketing in "the country increased ____ 306

13. Number of retail establishments in

Virginia increased_____________ 11

Number of retail establishments in the country increased . ..;. 1

14. Retail sales in Virginia increased. 492

Retail sales in the country increased . 375

15. Life insurance purchases in Virginia increased ________________ 746

Life country insurance increased purchases _____________ in the 620 16 . Assets ot .all operating banks in

Virginia increased _____________ 358

Assets of all operating banks in the -country increased __________ 249

Record of progress fn Virginia since before

World War II-Continued

Percent 17. Deposits in all operating banks in

Virginia increased------------- 366

Deposits in all operating banks in the country increased--------- 249

18. Number of telephones in Virginia increased---------------------- 344

Number try increased of telephones __________________ in the coun- 239 19. Number of motor vehicle registrations in Virginia increased----- 180

Number of motor vehicle registrations in the country increased__ 128

20. Value of mineral production in

Virginia increased------------- 344

Value of mineral production in the country increased-------------- 204

21. Value of bituminous coal production in Virginia increased------ 363

Value of bituminous coal production in the country increased __ 124

22. Tonnage of bituminous coal production in Virginia increased ___ 100

Tonnage of bituminous coal production in the country decreased----------------------- -11

23. Nonagricultural employment in

Virginia increased------------- 79

Nonagricultural employment in the country increased---------- 90

Virginia is one of the six States which build and maintain the entire system of roads, including the county roads. Virginia's county road mileage is approximately 41,000. In highway mileage under State control, Virginia is exceeded by only two States-North Carolinawhich also administers its county roadsand Texas.

Although the land area of Virginia is exceeded by that of 35 other States, in 1959 only 19 States had more surfaced highways. Of Virginia's 56,208 miles of highways, 96 percent or 53,920 miles were surfaced. Only three States-Connecticut, Maryland, and Ohio-showed a higher percentage of surfaced mileage.

Only 8 States · in the 50 in 1959 ex­ ard. ceeded Virginia in highway mileage of four lanes or more; and 14 States exceeded Virginia in divided highway mileage of 4 lanes or more.

STATE DEBT AND EXPENDITURES

Virginia's favorable debt position over the years has become well known. Virginia's debt-general obligation, full faith and credit-at the end of the fiscal year 1960 was $8,662,000, with a sinking fund of $4,972,000, leaving a net debt of $3,691,000.

EDUCATION

Virginia · ranks 16th among the States in total expenditures for education · purposes, with expenditures of $157 million in 1960. In capital outlay for education purposes, Virginia's 1960 expenditure of $16 million ranked 17th among the States.

TOURIST BUSINESS

It is estimated that between 35 and 40 million people visited Virginia in 1960, and during the course of their visit they spent approximately $775 million. Virginia has long led the list of States having the largest number of visitors, and · the last estimate of the American Automobile Association indicated that Virginia placed second to Florida in this respect.

I doubt very seriously whether repeal of the capitation tax in Virginia would result in greater increase in population than we have had or that it would stimulate our progress.

If it would do either, or both, I suspect the characteristics of the increments traceable to this source would be undesirable-and more of a burden than a blessing.

Under literal reading, the amendment purports to limit its application to elections of Federal o:ffi.cers. This, of course, is impractical in elections which involve more than Federal o:ffi.ces.

In Virginia, and I suspect in most other States, it is not uncommon for candidates to be running for Federal, State, and local o:ffi.ces in the same election; and there may be voting on issues as well as candidates.

To conform with the proposed amendment for the election of Federal o:ffi.cers, and State qualifications for all other candidates and issues would require a double set of election standards.

The people of Virginia have honored me by election to Federal o:ffi.ce over a period of nearly 30 years, and to State and local o:ffi.ces for 20 years before that. I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me by the Virginia electorate, . and I consider myself doubly honored becau s e I have the greatest respect for the caliber of the Virginia electorate; it is second to none.

Excluding myself, I submit that the caliber of the Virginia delegation in Congress has always been outstanding. I make that statement without reservation and without fear of successful contradiction.

For all practical purposes it must be assumed that the pending amendment would have to be applied to State and local elections. I doubt that the people of Virginia would tolerate a dual standOn that assumption, I am certain that the caliber of the State government of Virginia would not be improved by the elimination of a capitation tax as a qualification for voting.

Virginia is proud of its State government-an three branches of it. Election to service in the State government is regarded everywhere in Virginia as a signal honor.

The faith and credit of Virginia is unencumbered and unimpaired by · State debt. Its State budget is balanced.­ Service of the State government to the people is e:ffi.cient and economical by comparison.

The good name of Virginia is unsullied by scandal in its State government since the horrendous days of Reconstruction outrages under the aegis of the Federal Government.

I find it most di:ffi.cult to believe that the wisdom and judgment of the Virginia electorate, the Virginia government, or the Virginia delegation in Congress would be improved by this amendment.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield.

Mr. · HOLLAND. The Senator could rect. not say anything more complimentary of his great State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, than the Senator from Florida feels and recognizes. He also knows that the Senator from Virginia has every reason to be proud of that great record, because he has had so much to do with it during the past 40 years.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I wished to make that clear for the RECORD. What I feel is of doubtful wisdom is a system which permits, in a highly contested Presidential race, such as in 1960, his great State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, to be among the lowest five in the Nation in percentage of votes cast by those who are of voting age. Virginia's 34-plus percent is a little less than half of the national average, which is 70 percent. It is only of that fact that the Senator from Florida complains. He has every bit of admiration for the State of Virginia and its great Senators that it is possible to have. As a matter of fact, his mother's family lived in Virginia, and he never found a member of that family who was not a strong supporter of the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. So he wishes to make it very plain that the only thing which · he believes is subject to question in this · whole record, on the part of any person, that could be improved is the question of participation in voting. That is the question which disturbs the Senator from Florida.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The Senator from Florida should get the figures with respect to the persons who are qualified to vote-those who pay the poll tax and are registered. He will find an entirely different story. If the people of Virginia do not go to the polls, that is something that they determine for themselves. Official records as of October 1961 show ' considerably more than a million voters in Virginia are qualified to vote, and the . number paying poll taxes ran in the same order.

Mr. HOLLAND. The figures which the Senator from Florida has relied upon are the figures of the Federal Census of 1960, which show that 2,244,000 people in Virginia are of voting age, if they care to qualify, and showing that only 34 percent of them, or 777,000, saw fit to participate in the election.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. But I think the Senator from Florida should be fair enough to state that more than a million personS are qualified to vote; they have paid their poll tax and they have registered, and they are qualified to vote. If some of them do not choose to exercise their right to vote, I do not think that is any reflection on the Virginia laws--the Senator from Florida has said they are prevented by the poll tax from voting. But that is not correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. The figures show that only 777,000 of them voted. The Senator from Virginia states that 1,200,­ ooo of them, or thereabouts, were qualified. -

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. That is cor­

Mr. HOLLAND. Assuming that to be true, it is also true that more t~an a million of the people of qualifying age who live in Virginia failed to pay the poll tax.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. But there is no reason to say the poll tax keeps them from voting. That tax in Virginia is only $1.50, and very few people in Virginia or elsewhere cannot pay $1.50, all of which goes to the public schools. . Every dollar of this tax goes to the public schools in Virginia. So when those figures in regard to the situation in Virginia are examined, one must consider how many of those people chose not to vote.

In terms of percentage, I think the number in Virginia who vote is about as great as the number in other States who vote. But certainly the poll tax does not keep Virginians from voting; and I challenge any State in the Union to show a registration procedure simpler than that in Virginia. In Virginia, all one has to do is sign his name, and he is registered for life. Very few States have such a simple procedure.

Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator from Virginia mean to say that if a Virginian signs his name to the registration papers, he is registered for life?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. That is correct ; a Virginian has only to sign his name to the registration papers; he does not even have to write out his application.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield further tome?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. The same is true in many counties of Florida. In only the newer or the fastest growing counties there is biennial or annual registration required. Furthermore, in our State it is not required that one pass a test based on ability to read or write. . But in the same election, 1,540,000 residents of Florida voted, as compared to less than half that number within the great Commonwealth of Virginia. I simply state that I feel that the influence of the State of Virginia should be more heavily felt in the Nation, in connection with casting votes representative of its great people, than is actually happening -under the present system.

I thank the Senator from Virginia for yielding to me.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator from Florida. However, all he has said is a matter of opinion. Some persons may have an opinion that the Virginia electorate will be greatly improved by repeal of the poll tax, and that over the years the representation in Virginia would have been better if the poll tax had been repealed. But all that is a matter of opinion.

However, I submit that the poll tax in Virginia, which is only $1.50 a year, has not kept Virginians from voting.

Furthermore, one who registers to vote in Virginia has only to sign his name; he does not even have to write out his application.

Mr. President, what is the pending resolution designed to accomplish which makes it necessary to bypass the rules and orthodox procedure of. the Senate? I ask that question in all sincerity.

In one stage or another, this proposal has been before the Senate and the House for some 13 years or more since 1949. As introduced, it is properly before the Senate Judiciary Committee at this moment. But here on the floor we are faced with the most unorthodox procedure for consideration of a resolution proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States. It is proposed that the Senate consider the resolution under the enacting clause of another resolution, which is on the calendar, to establish the home of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

The atmosphere in which this resolution is now projected raises the suspicion that the noisy pressure groups which exploit so-called civil rights are influencing the procedure. To misuse a bill for a memorial to Alexander Hamilton for this purpose is reminiscent of the misdirected fate of the Stella school bill in this body in the not-too-distant past.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield again tome?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think the Senator from Virginia probably does not have the following information: The organizations which have testified every time, except the last time, against this proposed constitutional amendment--include the Americans for Democratic Action and the NAACP. Since receipt of the news that this bill was to come before the Senate, the ADA has issued a blast, in pamphlet form, to the effect that this procedure is not proper, that the measure should be broader, and that the proposed action should be taken by statute.

So I do not want the Senator from Virginia to think that the radical groups are pressing for the enactment of such legislation, when the facts are quite otherwise.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Are they now opposing this measure?

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, and they have testified against it. As a matter of fact, the only witnesses who ever have testified against this proposed constitutional amendment include a few Senators from the States which have a poll tax, plus representatives of the NAACP and the ADA-and that is all.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. So far as the NAACP is concerned, its opinion has no influence with me.

Mr. HOLLAND. I understand that.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. And if that is all the testimony the Senator from Florida can offer in favor of the pending proposal, I do not believe he has made much of a case.

Mr. HOLLAND. Well, a number of witnesses testified in favor of such a constitutional amendment; but I wished to point out to my estimable friend that, instead of being supported by those radical groups-which I have opposed as much as has the Senator from Virginia-the fact is that they have opposed it, because they want to go a good deal further than this proposal would go.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Well, Mr. President, the views of neither the NAACP nor the ADA have any influence on me.

Mr. HOLLAND. The NAACP and the ADA have been fighting for years; and since this proposal was made, the ADA has issued quite vocal opposition to it.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Well, I hope the day never will come when the ADA will influence the action taken by Congress, whether in the affirmative or in the negative.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Virginia; but I point out that instead of these radical organizations being on the opposite side from that of the Senator, in this instance they are on the same side.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Of course, they have a right to take whatever side they wish to take. But I have no regard for the opinion of the ADA on this issue or on any other issue.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, legislation susceptible to the socalled civil rights brand seems invariably to come before the Senate under the most questionable and unorthodox procedure.

Nothing about this proposal, urgent or otherwise, justifies the disorderly situation which has been precipitated. I suspect that acceptable explanation of the move would be difficult.

I shall not ask for an explanation of what has been done in the way of procedure, but I should like to know whether Senate Joint Resolution 29- if amended as proposed, and passedwill require Presidential signature.

Senate Joint Resolution 29, for a Hamilton memorial, as introduced, considered in committee, and reported to the calendar, unquestionably I think would require the President's signature for enactment.

But the move confronting the Senate is to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Hamilton Monument bill, and insert a resolution submitting a constitutional amendment for ratification. A resolution submitting a constitutional amendment to the 50 States for ratification does not require signature of the President, and it should not be subjected to his approval.

I should like to know whether Senate Joint Resolution 29 as it is proposed to be amended can be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting in the Senate and the House.

The Constitution provides: The Congress whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.

Mr . . President, I have been honored with membership in the Senate 29 years. If I have learned one lesson better than others, it is that we are in trouble whenever we kick over orderly procedure without urgent reason.

If there is any reason for the pending proposal-and I reject the contention that there is-it is certainly not urgent. There is no justification for the course which has been undertaken.

In fact, this proposal would be ridiculous if it did not uproot fundamental rights which were established and settled in the Constitution as a prerequisite to the founding of this Government.

Numerous States impose poll taxes, head taxes, capitation taxes-or whatever they may be called-for various purposes which would - not be outlawed by this amendment. The result would be absurd.

For instance, under the proposal, Virginia could not levy a capitation tax for the high privilege of voting, but a man in Maine could not drive his car to the polls unless he paid a poll tax.

Under the proposed amendment the Federal Government would hold that it is wrong for Virginia to levy a tax for the privilege of voting for officers in domestic governments.

But in the United Nations the same Federal Government would uphold the provision that nations which do not meet their regular assessments should not be allowed to vote.

Certainly the Constitution of the United States provides for its own amendment. The procedure for amendment is spelled out. It requires painstaking care and responsible deliberation. The procedure is designed to discourage capricious action and useless amendments. The pending proposal would have the Senate indulge in capricious action on a useless amendment.

I shall not be a party to either. I shall oppose both. I hope the move to substitute the poll tax resolution for the Hamilton Monument bill will be killed one way or another.

I trust that the Congress will not submit this poll tax amendment to the States for ratification; but if it does, I have faith that the States in their better judgment will reject it overwhelmingly.