March 27, 1962 (4)

The Senate resumed 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. BUSH. Madam President, I call up my amendment in · the nature of a substitute for the Holland amendment, which I sent to the desk this afternoon, and ask to have it stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut in the nature of a substitute for the so-called Holland amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. posed to 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 and 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 Representatives ' 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."

Mr. BUSH. Madam President, the purpose of the amendment is merely to give to the people of the District of Columbia, which is the seat of government for the United States, an entitlement to elect two Members of the U.S. Senate and a number of Members of the House of Representatives equal to the number of Members of the House to which a State having the same population as the District of Columbia would be entitled.

(At this point Mr. METCALF assumed the chair.)

Mr. BUSH. Mr. / President, the purpose of the amendment is to give the citizens of the District of Columbia, in the heart of the United States, the same consid e ration in respect to representation in the Congress . of the United States as is given to the people of States which have lesser populations than that of the Di str ict of Columbia.

In respect to that point, Mr. President, I comment that the population of the NA- District of Columbia in the latest census was 763,000. States with lesser populations than that included the following:

Hawaii, with 632,000.

Alaska, with 226,000.

Wyoming, with 330,000.

Idaho, with 667,000.

Montana, with 674,000.

North Dakota, with 632,000. South Dakota, with 680,000. Nevada, with 285,000, approximately one-third as many as · the District of columbia.

Vermont, with 389,000.

New Hampshire, with 606,000.

Delaware, with 446,000.

Each of these states which has a smaller population is represented in the u.s. Senate by two senators and in the House of Representatives by at least one It is pro- Representative.

A year or two ago the senate passed a constitutional amendment to permit the citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, but those citizens have no authority whatever to vote for members of the legislative branch. More than three-fourths of a million citizens of the Capital City of the United States are disfranchised so far as the l e gislative . branch of this Government is concerned. I think in simple equity the citizens of the Capital of the United States should have representation in the Congress. I believe this is a solution to the political problem which worries a great many people, including, I think, a large majority of voters in the District of Columbia. I have discussed this proposal with representatives of the District Government, with former representatives of the District Government, with residents of this community, and ~th some of the Members of the Senate of the United States. I introduced a measure to implement this proposal on May 11, 1961. It was appropriately referred, I believe, to the Committee on the Judiciary. There it has remained. Unfortunetely, no hearings have been held on the measure.

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

Mr. BUSH. I now bring it forward as an amendment to the pending proposal, so as to bring it to the attention of the Senate. More than three-quarters of a million citizens of the United States in the Nation's Capital have no representation whatever in the Congress. It seems to me to be an appropriate time to bring the measure before the Congress, in the hope that if we do not get satisfactory action on it today at least we can focus our eyes on the im- . portance of this question, and perhaps get a hearing on the bill as a separate proposal, so that it may receive the consideration to which I so fir.mly believe it is entitled.

This , is not a home rule bill, Mr. President. I do not believe that the Congress is in the mood to pass such a proposal, or that the Congress thinks well of the idea of granting so-called home rule to the District of Columbia. I have reservations about that subject. At the present time I should not favor it.

On the other hand, I see no reason why such a large body of our citizens, larger than the body of citizens in each of 11 States which have smaller populations, should be disfranchised and not represented in the Congress of the United States.

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

Mr. BUSH. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I have great respect for the distinguished Senator, but I hope that he will not insist upon his amendment for the following reasons: In the first place, this proposal would be a radical departure from anything else in this Nation. It would give to the District of Columbia-which is not a State, which does not have a Governor, which does not have home rule, which cannot even pass its own ordinancesthe same number of Senators and proportionately the same number of Members of the House of Representatives as every other State in the Nation has.

I am told by the staff member who has been so ably advising the committee head e d so ably by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER]. that this matter has not been submitted to hearings. :.. The Senator from Tennessee has conducted very · careful hearings on . mY proposal, not only in this c · Congress but also in prior . Congresses. Many - points of view have been aired upon the subject. · Because this is such a far-reaching provision, so . completely different from anything now existent in this country, I hope the Senator will not insist upon his amendment, but will permit the subject to be studied, as it deserves . to be, by a committee in . this . Congress or in . the next Congress . .

. Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I know his position is sincerely taken. . . . Frankly, I do not see a _ any reason why . the citizens of the District . of Columbia should be deprived of representation in the Congress merely . because it is a district and not a State. There are more . than three-fourths of a million citizens i,n this city. They now can vote for President . and Vice President of the United · States, thanks to the action of the Congress, but they lack any way of . expressing themselves in the halls of the Congress. It . seems to me that is a perfectly ridiculous situation. . Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has more than 2 million citizens and does not have representatives in the House or in the Senate. · · In addition, I invite the Senator's attention to the fact that recently we extended the voting privilege to the District of Columbia. The Senator from Florida · was one who voted for that measure . . The States have approved the amendment. The citizens of the District of Columbia; liKe citizens anywhere else, now can vote for President and Vice President of the United States.

I suggest that first there should be a little trial run, to see how the citizens of the District of Columbia, after such a long term of nonparticipation, show · their attitude toward the National Government.

· I insist that a measure of such farreaching · consequence should be sub­ . mitted to hearings. I commend to the Senator the careful hearings which are given uniformly by · the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] and his able subcommittee.

Mr. BUSH. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I shall yield at this time on this point to the Senator from Tennessee, who has asked me to - yield.

Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator has said that the proposal was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which is · correct. The measure was referred further · to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. . In the 86th Congress there were very full hearings on amendments concerning " representation of the District. I think an amendment with respect to having representation of the District of Columbia in · the House of Representatives was presented by · the distinguished Senator from New York ~ [Mr. KEATING]. Extensi"ve hearings were held. AS ! ·· recall, · the · amendment - was · reported favorably by the subcommittee, and later it was joined with a constitutiona! amendment I had proposed and the poll · amendment, and then passed by the U.S. Senate. ·

All of those proposals lost out in the House of - Representatives, except the part relating to voting for presidential electors.

In principle I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. I think the people of the District of Columbia should have some representation . . I think, however, that perhaps it ought to be first in the House of Representatives, during a trial period, rather than the U;S. Senate initially.

I say further to the Senator that there are other electoral reforms which I should like to see voted upon and approved by the _ House, as well as by the . Senate, and approved by three-fourths of the States, but I fear that if they were added to the pending joint resolution it might mean the defeat of the whole resolution. _

So I think - it is the . part of wisdom to take them one by one. . . . . Mr. KEATING. Mr. ~resident, will Senator yield? · ·

· Mr. BUSH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York .

Mr. KEATING. . Mr. Presid,ent', I commend the senior Senator from Connecticut for his initiative 1n presenting this amendment. He has had a longstanding interest in extending _ ing the franchise to people in the District of Columbia and in other measures to strengthen voting rights · for all Americans.

He was very much interested and expressed that interest to me at the time referred to · by · the distinguished Senator from : Tennessee when the opportunity came to present in behalf of myself, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL] the constitutional amendment which for the first time allowed American . s residing in otir Nation's Capital to participate in the choice of the President , and Vice President. Under the provisions of our original amendment, the District of Columbia would have - been given the same representation in the electoral college · and in . the House of Representatives which it would enjoy if the District were a State. ·

The amendment passed the Senate in this form. Unfortunately, the House · committee on · the Judiciary, and subsequently the House itself, eliminated the provisions for representation in the House of . Representatives and limited representation in the electoral college to a maximum of three, regardless of the population of the District.

Since the District · of · Columbia under the present · method of · apportionment would - have been entitled to at least four, and possibly five, electors if it · were a State, the . final amendment in effect made three-four,ths or three-fifths citizens of Americans in the District of Columbia . . I . strongly objected at the time to this concept · of "fractional" citizenship, which I still find abhorrent, but three-fourths or three-fifths citizenship is better than none, and for that reason no one who had the interest of the District of Columbia residents at heart could vo t e aga i nst the final resolution.

The .. am _ amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BusH] would provide for representation · in the Senate, as well as the House. There is much logic in according the people of the District this consideration, since States with much smaller populations have both Senators and Representatives. However, our original amendment did not provide for Senate Members, and no hearings were held on this specific issue. I believe that we should have such hearings. If the question is · not . · resolved today, I shall urge upon the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr . . KEFAUVER], who has . always . been very cooperative on these questions, that hearings be held in order to revive - attention in the District of Columbia situation, which the Senator fro.m Connecticut has so admirably done by offering the amendment, and to · determine what further steps are necessary to complete · the process · . begun by the 23d amendment, · of bestowing full citizenship upon the · people of the District. As the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], has been a strong supporter of efforts of the kind proposed in the past. I have - every reason . to believe that he will be sympathetic to · the point of view presented by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I have an open mind on the conclusion of Senators. I think that the District should have voting representation in the House of Representatives, and I for one, as a member of the committee, will be very much interested in hearing the views presented by the distinguished . Senator from Connecticut, who has focused our attention today on a pressing . problem in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? - .

Mr. BUSH. · I am glad to yield to the Senator · from Ohio. -

Mr. · YOuNG of Ohio. The distinguished · senior Senator from Connecticut has made a very interesting argument. He has offered a very interesting amendment. However, I feel that despite his fine presentation, - we should bear in mind that doubtless many of the 750,000 residents of the District of Columbia vote in the various States from whence they have come, or at least they · have a right to do so. I know that many residents here vote in my State of Ohio, casting absentee ballots. It is becoming easier for those who are away from . m their native States to cast b · ballots. I feel that · that is a . consideration we should have in mind. ·

If the distinguished Senator from . Connecticut were offering an amendment dealing solely with representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of population, I might have an open mind on that question and, following · hearings, I could see some merit to it. But in view of the fact that the District of Columbia belongs to all the States, that it is not a State of the Union, I want . the . distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut to know that at this time I could not possibly go along with any amendment that would give the District of Columbia two Members of the U.S. Senate. ,

Mr. BUSH. I thank the Senator from Ohio.

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

Mr. BUSH. I yield for a question.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I concur wholeheartedly in what the , Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] has said. If the amendment is not agreed to at the present time, as the Senator requested, we shall have ample hearings, because I am in full agreement with the general objective of representation of the District of Columbia.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, that assurance is very important to me. Did I correctly understand the Senator from Tennessee to say that if I request hear ings on the bill which has been in his committee, he will see that public hearings are held and that appropriate witnesses frou the District of Columbia will be given an opportunity to testify on the bill at a public hearing?

Mr. KEFAUVER. That will be done. ment. I cannot say exactly how soon it will be done because other hearings are planned, but it will be done as soon as we can get to it.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, in view of the assurance of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, and in deference to my friend the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], who is the sponsor of the proposed constitutional amendment, and the comments of the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] also, as well as my own belief that a measure of the importance of the one before the Senate should have public hearings and that witnesses who have an equal and · important interest in such an amendment should be heard before the Senate is asked to vote upon it, I will not ask the Senate to act today on the amendment, and I now formally withdraw it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut withdraws his amendment.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND].

The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time:

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I cussion. thought some confusion developed today on the vote to table the point of order. I think I am correct in summarizing the whole subject for the RECORD about as follows:

First came the · motion to consider Senate Joint Resolution 29 to provide a monument for Alexander Hamilton. That motion was roundly discussed. That was the motion to consider.

There followed the Holland amendment in 'the nature of a substitute for all after the resolving clause. With respect to that amendment, a point of order was made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL].

That point of order was laid on the table by the vote of the Senate. That left _ the Holland proposal pending before the Senate. The Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] then offered a substitute, which changed the whole proposal from the status of a constitutional amendment to that of a legislative proposal. That proposal, however, was voted down by the Senate. So the Holland proposal is before the Senate in proper form.

It is not the number that counts. It is not the fact that we took Senate Joint Resolution 29 from a legislative proposal. It is the content and the subject matter of the resolution that really counts in determining its status as a constitutional proposal.

There is no legislative matter included in the amendment that is presented before us. There is no requirement for a presidential signature.

There has been some question about all this, but I think I have stated the true state of affairs with respect to it. I wish the Chair would catechize the Parliamentarian to see whether the minority leader is correct in his state­

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that the Senator from Illinois has correctly stated the situation.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I wish to add one further thing. The opinion of the Attorney General has been used very freely in a discussion on the Senate :floor. I wish to read from the report of the Committee on the Judiciary entitled "Constitutional Amendments," at page 12:

The Constitution provides that "qualifications" for voting for Senators and Representatives shall be the same in each State as those for electing the . most numerous branch of the State legislature, but Congress is empowered to regulate the "manner" of . such elections. Is poll tax payment a "qualification" for voting or does its pay-:­ ment go only to the "manner" of elections? This question was discussed at length in the printed hearings and the preponderance of legal opinion expressed to the subcommittee is that poll taxes are "qualifications" for voting and can thus be eliminated at the Federal level only by constitutional amendment.

I respect the opinion of the Attorney General, but I submit to the Senate that there is expert legal opinion in other sections of the country, much of which was presented to the subcommittee when this subject was under hearing and dis­

Mr. RUSSELL. I do not know the purpose of the rather remarkable post mortem which has just been delivered by the distinguished minority leader, acting as the coroner, for those of us who have opposed this legislation and this method. It is a rather remarkable performance, after the Senate has taken action, after the point of order has been made, and after the Senate has voted on the question, for the minority leader to seek confirmation of his position from the Parliamentarian. A great deal of time has elapsed, and a number of other questions have been voted on.

It seems to me that the distinguished minority leader might have sought confirmation before the vote. If he had done so, it might have been of assistance to other Members of the Senate.

Evidently, his conscience was hurting him somewhat about having the rules of the Senate ravished in the manner in which they were ravished by the Senate. He therefore felt he must seek consolation, by some kind of confessional route, by getting the approval of the Parliamentarian of the Senate.

Mr. President, we have seen a great many remarkable things transpire in the Senate. Yet this is the first time in 173 years that the Senate has found it necessary to use the method it has used, which at best is a stretching of the rules of the Senate to an extreme to which they have never before been stretched in 173 years. It was the first time that this method had ever been employed in 173 years . . I assure the Senate that this is not the first time Members of the Senate have been eager to submit constitutional amendments to the several States, and have used every device that was available to them to have them submitted to the several States.

As I understand, the minority leader had need to call on the Parliamentarian to say that he has cast a wise and proper vote.

I respect the Parliamentarian of the Senate. However, I consult the Parliamentarian in advance, and if 1 have any information to transmit to the Senate, I transmit it before the vote, and do not wait until after a third reading of the bill, and after a number of amendments · have been passed on. I do not wait until then to call on the Parliamentarian to say that I was correct in the position I took.

The last vestige of the legislative proposal was extirpated, dug up, thrown away, and burned ' with the thorns in the effort of the proponents of this unheard of procedure to give life, vitality, and propriety to this remarkable procedure that we have followed today.

When the Senator from Illinois retires to his beautiful estate along the banks of the Shenandoah or Potomac, where the Senator lives, and picks up the pruning hook and prunes the bushes and burns the trash, lie can imagine that he is also burning the last remnant of the legislative proposal that was called up and used as a vehicle to transmit a proposal to the Senate.

I hope the Senator from Illinois feels better. I have no feeling of resentment, but I must comment on the fact that this has been a day of extremely unusual and remarkable events in the Senate.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. President, I am deeply distressed by the infelicity and pain that I have caused my distinguished friend and brother in the .faith;

Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator has caused me no pain. The only pain I felt was when the Senator voted · wrong.

Mr. DffiKSEN. I believe I detected a note of pain and distress. However, I thought I should first invite my distinguished friend from Georgia to come and share with me the beauties of what he calls my estate, but which in reality is a very humble property on which I grow some :flowers, some of which I obtained from Atlanta. I hope they will bring great comfort to me. So I hope the Senator from Georgia will come and share that comfort with · me.

I believe it is written in the Good Book, as my distinguished friend from Georgia time. knows, that one man clad in righteousness is a match for all the hosts of error. I believe that today we see righteousness triumphant, and the doing of a job that should have been done a long time ago. I know it brings pain. It is not unlike the labor that produces a new child in the world. Perhaps if this process is finally consummated, both in the House and in the Senate, the new child in the form of a world without a poll tax will have been born. Obviously that will be of some importance. .

So I am sure, Mr. President, that I lution. have violated no rule. I am sure that my summation of the situation has been quite circumspect. I am equally _ sure that I detected some confusion earlier in the afternoon. I hope that now the votes will be correct, and that we can send . d this proposal off to the other branch of the Congress and wish it well. So I apologize if I have offended my affectionate friend.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I assure the Senator from Illinois that I was not offended. I was shocked, astonished, and surprised, but I felt no roll. offense. I have been around the Senate too long to take any offense whatever at any position which any other Senator takes. I hope the other 99 Members of this body will be as kind to me in not being offended at any position I may take.

I thank the Senator for his very kind invitation to visit him at his cottage. I will accept the Senator's modification. I thought it was a lovely home when I was privileged to visit in it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. But modest.

Mr. RUSSELL. Perhaps by some standards. Judging by homes where I come from, down in the country, the Senator has an elegant home. But I will accept the Senator's standard concerning his own home. I appreciate the invitation to visit it and to share the glories of the :flowers, the :flora, and the fauna that may be on his lands. I appreciate the invitation, and I shall accept it sometime.

I will share with the Senator from Illinois almost anything except an increase in the confusion that he has caused by the statement he has made in seeking to clarify the situation.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Come with me tonight.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Florida will state it.

Mr. HOLLAND. Was the amendment Burdick offered by the Senator from Florida adopted by a voice vote?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

Senator is correct. Before the third reading was had, the Senator's amendment was adopted by a voice vote.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida will state it.

Mr. HOLLAND. Has the joint resolution been read the third time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution has been read the third

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida will state it.

Mr. HOLLAND. At what stage in the proceedings will the yea-and-nay vote occur, at which it must be determined that two-thirds of the Senators present and voting have voted affirmatively in order to pass the joint resolution?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next stage in the proceedings will be the vote on the passage of the joint reso­

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it appropriate at this time to ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the joint resolution?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, on the passage of the joint resolution, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the The Chief Clerk called the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE] are absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE J would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YoUNG] are necessarily absent. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] is absent because of illness.

On this vote, the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] and the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] are paired with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNGJ. If present and voting, the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Utah would each vote "yea," and the Senator from North Dakota would vote "nay."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 77, nays 16, as follows:

[No. 33 Leg.)

YEA8-77

Aiken Clark Hickenlooper Allott Cooper Holland Anderson Cotton Hruska Beall Curtis Humphrey Bible Dirksen Jackson Boggs Dodd Javits

Douglas Jordan

Bush Dworshak Keating Byrd, W.Va. Engle Kefauver Cannon Fong Kerr The Carlson Goldwater Kuchel Carroll Gruening Lausche Case; N.J. Hart Long, Mo. Chavez Hartke Long, Hawaii Church Hayden Long, La.

Magnuson Mundt Scott Mansfield Murphy Smathers McCarthy Muskie Smith, Mass. McGee Neuberger Smith, Maine McNamara Pastore Symington Metcalf Pearson Wiley M111er Pell Williams, N . J. Monroney Prouty Williams, Del. Morse Proxmire Yarborough Morton Randolph Young, Ohio Moss Saltonstall

NAYS-16

Byrd, Va. Hill Stennis Eastland Johnston Talmadge Ellender McClellan Thurmond Ervin Robertson Tower Fulbright Russell Hickey Sparkman _ an

NOT VOTING-7

Bartlett Capehart Young, N.Dak . Bennett Case, S. Dak. Butler Gore

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. METcALF in the chair) . Two- thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the preamble to the joint resolution be stricken out.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the title of the joint resolution be appropriately amended.

The motion was agreed to; and the title was amended so as to read: "Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the qualifl.ca tions of electors."

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] leaves the Chamber, I should like to take this occasion to extend to him my congratulations for a job well done and to commend him for the fairness, tolerance, and understanding he has shown consistently over the past 2 weeks of debate.

I am sure my colleagues will realize that it was not easy for the senior Senator from the State of Florida to take the position he took in relation to the proposed constitutional amendment which has just passed this body, but having had close dealings with him over the last 2 weeks especially, I have come to admire him and honor him. I think in what he has done he has represented the finest traditions of the Senate and he has shown courage which I think we should all take note of.

I am delighted we were able to pass the proposed constitutional amendment under the outstanding leadership of the Senator from Florida, and I commend him. It was a pleasure to serve in the ranks under his leadership.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I appreciate more than I can say the kind words of the majority leader. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that it would have been impossible to bring up the measure, much less pass it, without the very active help of the majority and minority leaders. We obviously would not have been able to accomplish what we have today without the great assistance of the majority leader of the Senate, which I appreciate.