March 27, 1962

Mr. President, I hold in my hand a very fine editorial published in the Tallahassee Democrat, a newspaper published in the very place where there were major disturbances a year or more ago. The standards of this newspaper are those of the old-time conservatism; and I respect this newspaper very highly because of the soundness of the positions it takes, as I have observed them throughout the years. The editorial is entitled "The Way To Outlaw Poll Taxes."

At this time I should like to read the part of the editorial which I think most pertinent in this regard. After stating that Florida got rid of the poll tax 25 years ago and that the results of getting rid of it have been salutary, and then after reciting the troubles in Congress, where we have been endeavoring by one means or another to have the poll tax repealed, it is stated in the editorial:

At the same time, Senator SPESSARD HoLLAND from the time he has been in Washington has been the author and principal sponsor of an amendment which would put prohibition of State poll taxes in the U.S. Constitution, thereby removing the doubts of constitutional validity and propriety from the proposed bills to have Congress tell the St a tes how to run their election machinery. It is the Holland plan which President K e nn e dy now is trying to get through Con- · gress. It is in line with the fundamental principle that the · way · to change the constitutional practices is to change the Constitution by the prescribed method of · submitting amendments to the States for rat i fication.

With no more than a handful of States s t ill levying the poll tax, and none needing it either for revenue or regulation, there is little doubt that such an amendment would be ratified quickly if Congress lets it go to the States.

It's a good way to put behind us a tremendously exaggerated issue that consumes too much legislative time, and too much public attention with its propaganda . .

Mr. President, the editorial speaks for itself; and all of the editorial is well worth reading. At no point in the editorial is there any departure from the part I have read to the Senate.

I now ask unanimous consent to have the entire editorial printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE WAY To OUTLAW POLL TAXES

It would be a good thing for the South if au its Members of Congress would join President Kennedy in support of the Holland constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting.

It's not that the poll tax is such a terrible thing in itself. It once was a respectable form of levy by which the man who exercises his right to vote contributed to the cost of elections by paying a tax or, in early Florida, contributing a day's work on the public roads in lieu of a cash payment. It might even, someday, have been called on as a. logical method of helping defray the tremendous costs of campaigning on the theory that citizens, who receive the prime benefit of officials unhampered by financial commitments to backers, have an obligation to replace special privilege contributions with tax funds.

All that is beside the point, though.

The poll tax has come into disrepute partly because it was abused by making payment of the tax for members of a voting bloc a means of controlling elections; and partly because of a relentless campaign based more on theory than fact which painted it as a means of keeping poor people and minorities from voting. Thus, it became a civil rights issue.

Repeated efforts to have Congress pass an act outlawing the poll tax in State and local elections have been directed at a few Southern States. They have run into stubborn opposition from southerners who, in the first place, think such regulations of voting procedures belong to the States under the Constitution; and who, in the second place, band together to resist those who are trying to shove something down their throats for no other purpose than to serve a political cause among their own minorities without disturbing anything at home.

Although Florida hasn't had a poll tax for a quarter of a century, most of our Members of Congress have voted down the line with other southerners in blocking Federal legislation attempting to outlaw it in the few States which retain it.

At the same time, Senator SPESSARD HoL­ required. LAND from the time he has been in Washington has been _ the author and principal sponsor of an amendment which would put prohibition of State poll taxes in the United States Constitution, thereby removing the doubts of constitutiona: validity and propriety from the proposed bills to have Congress tell the States how to run their election machinery. .

It 1s the Holland plan which President Kennedy now is trying to get through Congress. It is in line with the :fundamental principle that the way to change constitutional practices is to change the COnstitution by the prescribed method of submitting amendments to the States for ratification. With no more than a handful of States still levying the poll tax, and none needing it either for revenue or regulation, there is little doubt that such an amendment would be ratified quickly if Congress lets it go to the States.

It's a good way to put behind us a tremendously exaggerated issue that consumes too much legislative time, and too much public attention with its propaganda.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the Pensacola Journal is the principal newspaper in west Florida; and it covers a considerable part of Alabama, too, as Senators know. I hold in my hand an editorial published in that newspaper; the editorial is entitled "Holland, Kennedy Oppose Poll Tax." Because I want Senators to know that the people in the Old South part of our State do not frown upon this amendment, but have felt that elimination of the poll tax has been wholesome and healthy, I now read from the editorial:

Florida has been without a poll tax for many years. Its abolition was forecast as likely to bring great trouble , but the dire predictions have failed to materialize.

Then the editorial go e s on to give general approval to the amendment.

I ask unanimous c o ns e nt that the entire editorial be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no o bj e ction, the editorial was ordered to be print e d in the RECORD, as follows:

HOLLAND, KENNEDY OPPOSE POLL TAX

For several sessions of Congress, Senator SPESSARD L. HoLLAND, of Florida, has been attempting to have submitted to the votes of the State a constitutional amendment banning a poll tax payment as a requisite for voting.

Now help has come from an unexpected quarter, President Kennedy, against whose program Senator HoLLAND has voted as often as most Republicans.

The President, according tc a letter read in the Senate by HOLLAND, recalls he supported the Florida Senator when he was in the Senate and st111 believes the amendment "an important contribution to good government" as it "would encourage wider voter participation" in election oi Federal officials. No poll tax or property qualification should abridge the right to vote, he said.

This is one of the two civil rights measures which the administration now is pushing. The other :- is to allow a sixth grade education to obviate any literacy test, which too often is used to disqualify persons, black and white, who are displeasing to the party of the registrars .

Some have argued that an amendment is not needed to abolish the poll tax, now levied only in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Virginia, and Texas. However, the Constitution expressly leaves the qualification of voters up to the States, so an amendment seems · HoLLAND has been plugging for the amendment with more and more success through the years and in 1960 the Senate passed it by 70 to 17 after rejecting a proposed statutory change. However, the House became embroiled in other amendments and failed to act on it.

Florida has been without a poll tax for . many years. Its abolition was forecast as likely to bring great · trouble, but the dire predictions have failed to materialize.

Some of the other Deep South States, however, have used the poll tax to prevent Negroes and poor whites from voting. A cumulative feature in some States requires that if a voter fails to pay he must go back and pay taxes for all the years he failed to pay from the year he be c ame voting age before he can vote.

This makes voting prohibitive for many. The result is evident when one examines the votes cast in those States which have poll taxes in comparison with total eligible and in States where no such tax is required. The move is one way to accord wider civil rights in a basic field with all States passing upon the issue, not merely Congress.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I have now introduced, for the RECORD, three editorials-two from the northern and western part of Florida, in the Old South portion of the State, and one from the Tampa Tribune, on the west coast. I shall not labor this matter. I might put into the RECORD editorials from a newspaper in Miami-one with the highest standards-and also editorials from newspapers in other parts of the State, all of which approve this position. But I call attention to the fact that these editorial writers and these newspaper editors have seen both systems in operation, and they know some of the ill effects of the old system; and they know that in Florida those ill effects were wiped out, either in part or entirely, by elimination of the poll tax.

Some persons may ask why I do not favor going all the way, and thus urge elimination of poll taxes for all purposes; and it may be suggested that if the poll tax should be eliminated for this purpose, it should likewise be eliminated for all other purposes. However, Mr. President, the real facts of the cases show why that suggestion should not be followed at this time.

For instance, in our State it is required that only fee-simple owners . of property may join in bond elections which impose a lien on their property; and we have had other property requirements which have been effective in controlling those who participate in millage elections where the taxpayers fix millage on themselves. I have known of cases in other States, which have referendum or recall procedures, in which there are specific limitations of this sort, depending upon · the type of proposed legislation sought . to be referred to the people for their approval or their rejection; and there are similar requirements in many other cases where action is to be taken by the local people.

For instance, in Florida we have set up large numbers of drainage districts; and the question of establishing such a district is addressed to the conscience of the people who have to pay the tax and the people who will thus be faced with the question of imposing a lien on their property in the proposed district at the time when they are asked to vote on the matter. So I could cite numerous instances of that kind which come up in connection with the handling by States of affairs important to them and important to their various localities, and m connection with which the poll tax is imbedded either in their constitutions or in their statutes, or iii both.

. So I do not think it' would be ' some or would bring about good results in connection with this matter if ' we attempted to go all the way at the same time, as we in Florida went all the way in 1937. ·

Mr. President, let me say that I am exceedingly grateful to the large number of Senators, from all partS of · the country, who have participated in the offering of this amendment through the years. All f cari say is that I have done my level best in every Congress to bring it out of committee and before the Senate in the regular way; and I have no apology whatever to make for bringing it up at this :time, in this way, with the gracious concurrence of both the majority leader and the minority leader .

When the time comes that the will of the Senate can be thwarted, instead of furthered, by the inaction in a committee for 13 years, it occurs to me . that the Senate then has a right to act, particularly when it may act only . bY two-thirds vote of its membership, indicating the breadth of the support the measure enjoys.

Mr. President, there are - other . comments which I should ' like tO make. I believe I said I would . refer to the general election held in Alabama in 1960- and, · again, without any criticism at . all, e · except of the system under which " that election was held. In that fine State, those who participated in 1960-and all of us know what the issues in Alabama were, and all of us know that they were hard . fougljt-were 31 percent of the total shown by the census as those who · were entitled by age to participate. : I - may say that the Senators from Alabama and the Senators from Mississ sippi . have repeatedly stated in this debate that I can know nothing about this matter in their States because I do not know their citizens who have . suffered · from the imposition of a poll tax there. But, ¥r. President, I know what happened in Florida, and I can see the good results there; and I also know that since this question has come up here, I have received letters and telegrams from various citizens in Alabama and from various ~i . citizens in Mississippi-whose names I shall not state now, for obvious reasons-who have told me that they have b ' been precluded from casting their votes, not only by reason of the fact of the existence of the poll tax, but also by reason of the details in connection with its imposition. .

For instance, one of _ them tells of an effort to pay the poll tax by mail, and tells of the fact that the payment was returned so late that the deadline had passed. Incidentally, in Alabama and also in Mississippi the deadline is February 1, whereas the general elections ao not come until November, or more than 9 months later.

Who can say any citizen, unless he is eating and drinking politics all his life, as ' do Members of the Senate and the House . of Representatives, is going to remember a deadline m:ore than 9 months ahead of the date upon which the vote would be cast?

Furthermore, two of these letters protested at the method of collection. - collection in orie of the two States is done by th~ sheriff, and they objected · and protested against that. ·· · ·

I will allow any Senator to see the letters, if he · wishes, and the · same goes for the wires although I do not expect to use the names of the persons, whom I do not know, and I do not know whether they are white or colored. All I know is that they write or wire about the difficulty which they have in trYing to cast their votes.

One teacher from Alabama wired me that she did not object to the amount which she had to pay, that she was willing to pay more than the amount of the tax in assisting efforts to repeal it, and she urged knocking out the poll tax because she objected to the system and objected to the kind of machine control exercised under the system .

. I think the . evidence, not only that I have seen with my own eyes, but that which has come to me by the mails and by wires from the two States which a · are the only ones I have mentioned, and I think the evidence offered to the House committee which has been holding hearings on a proposed constitutional amendment which is similar, if not identical with the one we are considering here, shows abuses have grown up under the imposition of the poll tax. When the election figures themselves speak louder than any letters or wires, because, whereas the national average of participation is about 70 percent of those who are qualified by . age, residence, and otherwise, participation in these two good States was only 25 and 31 percent, respectively, in the 1960 election, I do not think any more definite proof is required of the fact that we need to take appropriate action.

I believe affirmative action taken here would result very quickly in ratification by the States.

Mr. President, I am going to ask that there be incorporated in my remarks, as a part of them, an editorial from the New York Times entitled "Abolishing the Poll Tax," the date being Sunday, March

The ' PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickey in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ABOLISHING THE POLL TAX

Congress is taking the long way to a good end in its consideration of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax. This archaic system of restricting the right to vote survives in only 5 States ; · and fairness tp both Negroes and whites requires its total discard with maximum speed. Its effectiveness in negating democracy is seen with special force in a State s . such as Mississippi, where the · . combination of poll taxes and literacy tests has been a factor in keeping three-quarters of the citizens from voting. The quickest way to get rid of this obstacle to true majm : ity rule would be through a simple law prohibiting the States from making payment of a poll tax a requirement for voting in Federal elections : But the southern Democrats are riot ' ready to move with such directness, and the administration has decided to settle for the much more cumbersome method of a constitutional amendment. Such an . amendment cleared the Senate 2 ye a rs ago · by a margin of he ' nearly 4 to 1, but · :never . came to a · vote .. · in · the House. This year it may again get lost in the endless jockeying that bedevils every effort to inch ahead on the civil rights front . President Kennedy's declaration of support for the measure should reduce this noxious possibility. Even after the proposal gets through Congress · ; it faces a wearying wait for ratification by the States. No sectional controversies were involved in the 22d amendment barring a third Presidential term. Yet it took almost 4 years from passage to effective date . A start on abolishing the poll tax is already long past due .

Mr. HOLLAND. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks an editorial from the Washington Post dated March 20, 1962, entitled "Question of Democracy' ~ _,_ and that is exactly what it is, · Mr. President.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the . RECORp , as · follows:

QUESTION OF DEMOcRACY .

Some people are getting · a good ' d deal of . wry satisfaction out of the clash between southern Senators mi the Holland anti-poll-tax amendment to the Constitution. It is something of a novelty to observe a mild-mannered son of the South rub salt into the wounds of his colleagues, and no one can deny that it is amusing to listen to their sputtering retorts and personal insults. · Yet there is a deeper significance in this little drama which the country · and especially the Congress ought not to miSs .

In pointing to the need for his amendment to abolish the poll tax in five Southern States, Senator HoLLAND , of Florida, bore down on the concept of minority government that still prevails in some parts of the South. In Mississippi only 25.63 percent of th _ e people of voting age participated in the 1960 election. In Alabama the percentage was 31. "If the people in every State do not have a stake in that kind of situation," said Mr. HoLLAND, "then I do not know what I am talking about." · · · '

Senator EASTLAND contended that Mr. HoLLAND knows "nothing more than the man in the moon" about voting in Mississippi and Alabama. But the Senator from Florida went right ahead with his exposure of the sorry dilution of democracy in the poll tax States. He threw the spotlight on Mr. EAST­ LAND’s contention that voting should be further restricted instead of being enl a rged and on the . serious loss of population in the States that tax voting.

It may be, of course, that the traditionally anti-civil-rights Senators are merely going through the · motions of opposition. Certainly they are orating more for the record than for the Senate. It is perfectly clear that whenever the issue can be brought to a vote the proposed amendment sponsored by Senator HoLLAND and 67 of his colleagues will be approved. Nevertheless, it is salutary to have the shallowness and reactionary na .:. ture of the opposition exposed by a courageous member of - the southern fraternity who cannot stomach the concept of government by the few. With the contest in this posture, surely the Senate cannot take long to reassert its b _ belief in popular government.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the writer of this editorial was mistaken in attributing to the senior Senator from MissiSsippi · [Mr. EASTLAND] the statem · ent "that voting should be further restricted instead of being enlarged." This statement was made instead - by his junior colleague [Mr. STENNIS] early in the debate on the motion to consider s.J. :Res. 29. - ·

I am not taking the time to quote from these editorials, but I want people to know that in jurisdictions where there has not been a poll tax or any other imposition upon voters for decades, this same sentiment prevails.

I noticed with particular gratitude an editorial in the Washington Star of yesterday. I remember that 10 days ago, when we started this debate, there was an editorial in the Star which indicated that this . was a "phony" issue. That is the word they used. This is the editorial the Star has written after a debate of 10 days. I read it:

TIME For A VoTE

The debate, if it can be called that, on Senator HoLLAND's poll tax amendment has dragged on long . enough. It is true that no great harm has been done since no business of urgent importance has been delayed in the Senate. Still, we think that the Senate, and we are sure that the country, is getting tired of windy discourses on the weather, the Supreme CoUrt, and similar subjects t' that have nothing to do with the business IOn. at hand: -

There is no issue of states rights-

I want to come "back to that in a moment.

There is no · issue of States rights expanding Federal · power or anything of the sort involved. No claim can be successfully maintained that an intolerant and intemperate majority is trying to force . something down the throat of the South. This is simply a proposal to amend the constitution-a proposal which must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House and then ratified by three-fourths of the States before it can become effective, In short, Senator HoLLAND is advocating a procedure which faithfully adheres to the democratic process. Those southerners who are stalling action by what amounts to a filibuster, in fact if not in name, are ~sing as champions of nothing better than the proposition that the minority has a right to impose its wm on the majority.

Returning to the matter of States rights, a great deal has been made of that, or sought to . be made of it. I do not think there is any person who has fought any harder than has the Senator from Florida for measures which are regarded as protecting States rights and against measures which are regarded as diminishing States rights. I think the record shows that abundantly. But in this matter we are proceeding in recognition of, instead of in depriving the rights of the States, in the way the Constitution has provided for amendment of the Constitution except in one or two matters which were not subject to amendment, but which in all other matters of public concern was subject to _ amendment . . It provides that a proposed amendment should pass both Houses of Congress by a vote of two-thirds of each - House, before It can be submitted to the States, and then requires that threefourths of the States must ratify It before it can be effective.

That provision was put in there to pro- .teet States rights and the States; by requiring that any such proposal shall be submitted to what I shall call the jury of States as the method of determining whether the conscience of the Nation as . a whole was so aroused on the proposals as to require action, in accord with the States rights doctrine and with the States rights protective feature of the Constitution. Such a proposal could not be submitted tO the States unless twothirds of the Senate and of the House had voted for it :first. Then that proposal had to run the gauntlet which we know it has to run in the States.

I believe the conscience of the Nation out. is sufficiently aroused so that we will have speedy ratification, because I find nowhere a willingness to defend a program of poll tax.

The men who have spoken in defending it are fine men, fine lawyers, and fine orators, and can speak at considerable length on any subject, and they have spent much time in asserting and proving that this iS a constitutional matter. I know the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hn.L], who made one of the finest speeches on the poll tax I have heard, spent probably nine-tenths of his 5-hour speech asserting that this is a constitutional matter, imbedded in the Constitution. f i hi 1 i 'f •t ere ore, n S cone US on, I I is embedded in the Constitution, as it is, it is a matter which can be taken up only by constitutional principles, and we have chosen that method and have pursued it for 13 years, without any apology of any kind and without any castigation by the people of my own State and by the people of the States of those who have joined in introducing this proposal. we are proceeding constitutionally because we know it is a constitutional question, and I shall not dwell on that part of the argument, because Senators who are seizing the opportunity to oppose our proposal and ' have attacked it have proven conclusively in the RECORD that this is a constitutional question and must be handled by constitutional means.

Mr. President, · their demonstration of that fact falls far short of proving that it should not be disturbed at all. There are now 45 States which have entirely eliminated requirements of this sort.

In the beginning every State of the 14 which came into the Union after . er the ratification of the Constitution-:-the Thirteen Original States plus Vermonthad a requirement much more burdensome than the poll tax requirement, insofar as the amounts involved were concerned. Mr. President, each one of those 14 States long ago knocked out its provisions of that type.

It is true that the great Commonwealth of Virginia has a poll tax provision, but that was put into its laws not back at the beginning but after the War Between the States, and it has no relation at all to the very substantial conditions for qualifications for voting which existed in the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

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

Mr HOLLAND I yield to the Senator from Illl OIS.

Mr .. D<?l!GLAS. · It i$ not true that the ,VIrg~ma poll _tax . as a necessary 9-ualificat10n for votmg was _first proposed m 1902, so far as modern trmes are concerned?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I believe that to be correct but, so - far as the Senator from Florida is concerned, I cannot so state definitely. I state definitely it was proposed after the War Between ­ the States and not at all as a residue or hangover of the much more burdensome provisions which had existed in the beginning in the Commonwealth of Virginia and which long ago were knocked Mr. President, many other States have had requirements with regard to voting. In some cases these have been poll-tax requirements and in many other cases there have been requirements which went much further than the poll tax such as, for instance, the one last knocked out in the State of Pennsylvania, which went a good deal further than the poll-tax requirement. I believe that was knocked out in 1933. Again I would not trust my memory to say so with finality. · Mr. President, the 45 States which do not have poll taxes have some right in this matter to insist that the votes in the 5 remaining States be more representative of the people of those States.

When we consider the Mississippi election of 1960-when only 25 percent participated, and the winning side received 116,000 votes as compared to 108,000 votes for the next; when the 116,000 votes which prevailed, thus controlling the entire electoral vote of Mississippi, represented a little less than 10 percent of the total number of the citizens who were qualified to vote, if only they chose to do so, by paying poll taxes and doing the other required things-how can we feel that that is a representative expression? Should not other States be deeply concerned about expressions from my State, or from the State so ably represented by the present Presiding Officer, · the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS], or from every other State, as representative of the thought of the people of those States? How else may we be satisfied that righteous verdicts are being reached? -

Mr. President, claim has been made on the floor that some of these States have sought to eliminate poll taxes in recent years and have failed to do so. That is a rather humorous matter, if one really thinks it through. It has been proposed as a measure of broadening the participation in voting, and then has been voted upon not by all the people but by the people who have paid poll taxes and who have some interest in the perpetuation of the poll tax system.

Mr. President, I am so sure that the conscience of this country will not stand for the continuation of this practice, so bad as it has shown itself to be, if we give to the States an opportunity to pass upon · the question, that I have been making the effort all these years, joined by many other Senators, to pass this proposal.

I observe that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] is in the Chamber. The Senator from Tennessee has been of great assistance as chairman of the subcommittee which, in the last two or three Congresses, has heard the question. We hr . ve joined together in seeing that we do all we can to give to people generally an opportunity to be heard in this matter.

Mr. President, I . do not believe I have any further comments- · to make at . this time. I repeat that I am not in .· any way castigating · any State, and I am not castigating any brother · Senator. I am merely presenting a cause in which I believe and which I know from experience is a wholesome cause, which will lead to greater democracy and to better government. I hope the Senate will so regard my feeble efforts over these many years. · .

During ; the delivery of Mr. HoLLAND's speech,

. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, before I take up the · situation in .Alabama, I shall be glad to yield t;o the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. . .

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida be so kind as to yield for a minute, i,n order that I may send to the desk for printing · an amendment which I have discussed with the Senator? I should like to do this with the understanding that my statement will not interrupt the continuity of the remarks of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I -· am glad to yield for that purpose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BUSH. I thank the Senator from Florida for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an · amendment of the pending measure. The amendment provides that the people of · the District of Columbia, which constitutes the · seat of the Government of the United States, shall be entitled to elect two Members to the U.s. Senate ancf a number of Members to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Members of the House of Representatives to which States having the same population as the District of Columbia would be entitled.

The Members of Congress authorized by this article shall · be elected ' at such time and in such manner, and the electors of such Members shall have such qualifications, as Congress shall provide bylaw.

Mr. President , 11 States of the United States have smaller populations than the District of Columbia. Each of them has at least · one Representative in the House of Representatives, and each has 2 U.S. Senators.

The District of Columbia, with a population of 764,000 according to the 1960 census, is larger than any of those States. It has no representation in Congress.

I have discussed this proposal with officials of the District of Columbia government and with many citizens of this community. It seems to me that Congress must now consider the desirability of giving to this large population the same consideration in the Halls of Congress as is given to at least 11 States whose population is smaller than that of the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be printed and lie on the desk. I ask unanimous consent that a table of States having population less than that of the District of Columbia be printed following my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the amendment be p ' printed following the table.

';['he , PR . PRESIDING OFf'ICER. . The amendment will be received, printed. -and lie on the table: and; without objection, the table and · · amendments wm · be · printed in the RECORD.

The table and amendments . are as follows: Population of District of Columbia

(1960 census)------------------- 763,956 States with less population than

District of Columbia:

HawaiL------------------------- Alaska __________________________ 226,167 632, 772 VVyoming _______________________ 830,066

Idaho ___ _ ________________ _ _ _ ____ 667,191 North ~ontana----------~------------- Dakota __________ _ ________ 674,767 632, .W6 South Dakota------------ '-- --- - - 680, 514

Nevada---------- Vermont : __ _ ____________________ ~ -------------- 285,278 389 , 881 New Hampshire _________________ 606, 921 Delaware------------ - ----------- 446, 292 Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: '

"That the following articles are hereby proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United · States. both or either of which shall be valid to all intents · an.d purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of their submission by the Congress:

"'Article-

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

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

, "'Article-

"'The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall be entitled to elect two Members to the Senate and a number of Members to the House of Represen ta ti ves equal to the number of Members of the House of Representatives to which a State having the same population as such District would be entitled. The Members authorized by this article shall be elected at such time and in such manner, and the electors of such Members shall have such qualifications, as the Congress shall provide by law.'"

Amend the title so as to read: "Joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the qualifications of electors, and the granting of representation in the Congress to the people of the District of Columbia."

Mr. BUSH. Mr . President, I thank the Senator from Florida for according me the privilege of submitting this amendment. I shall call up my amendment for the Senate's consideration at the appropriate time.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.