June 16, 1960

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of · Representatives on Senate Joint Resolution 39.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution C S.J. Res. 39) proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives, to abolish tax, and property qualifications for electors in Federal elections, and to enfranchise the people of the District of Columbia, which were, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That the . following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the · united States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

"A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be cons.idered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

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

And to amend the title so as to read: "Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the electoral college to the District of Columbia."

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President--

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. As I understand, the amendment to which we are asked to agree is an amendment submitted by the House of Representatives which would adopt one feature of the three-pronged joint resolution, the constitutional amendment which was earlier passed by the Senate, to survive, namely, that dealing with a vote for presidential and vice presidential electors. Is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is my understanding.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I should like to speak for a few moments upon the joint resolution.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is the resolution before the Senate and, if so, is the Senator from South Dakota about to make a speech on a reservation of objection?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I will yield the floor if there is any question.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, the joint resolution which comes before us with a House amendment marks a long way down the road toward extending the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. In December of 1952 the then Presidentelect of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower, sent word to me that he would like to have me come to New York in order to discuss some legislative matters affecting the District of Columbia.

The prospect was that I would be chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate. Among subjects discussed was the possibility of getting the right to vote for the people of the District of Columbia. The Presi- dent spoke very feelingly upon the fact that he believed taxation without representation was contrary to the principle of our country. He said he felt there was something basically wrong if we taxed people and did not give them the right to vote. He thought there was something basically wrong if we drafted their sons for military service and did not give them the right to vote.

During the preceding 2 years I had been a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia and had been accorded the honor by the then chairman of the committee, the late Senator Neely of West Virginia, and the majority leader of that day, Senator McFarland of Arizona, of piloting the so-called home rule bill through its consideration by the Senate in January of 1952.

So I was very glad to accede to the suggestion of the President that we devote some energy to the possibility of getting suffrage for the District of Columbia.

During 1953-54 we passed a home rule bill. We also passed a bill giving the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for delegates to national conventions. The matter of voting for President and Vice President called for a constitutional amendment. We gave some consideration to it but, of course, that was a proposal which would have to go to the Judiciary Committee.

My interest in the subject has continued throughout the years. The interest of the President has continued throughout the years. On various occasions he has continued to express an interest in this goal.

Early in this Congress the distin­ mittee. guished Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL] introduced a constitutional amendment proposing that the citizens of the District of Columbia be given the right to vote in presidential elections. The junior Senator from South Dakota introduced a similar constitutional amendment.

In the amendment which I proposed I suggested that the District of Columbia be given three delegates to the House of Representatives with a like number of electoral votes for President and Vice President, in that way preserving the traditional basis upon which a State has votes in the electoral college. Early this year, when the District of Columbia Committee reported the socalled home rule bill, I offered that constitutional amendment as an amendment to that home rule bill, in fact as a substitute for the home rule bill. Watching the course of these proposals through the years had convinced me that there was little practical possibility of getting home rule, as such , through both Houses of Congress in the same Congress.

Also I knew that every home rule bill which had been presented in the previous 10 years had included a provision to recognize the basic constitutional provision that Congress is given the exclusive legislative jurisdiction for the District of Columbia.

Believing that the people of the District of Columbia should have an effective voice in the Government which governs them, namely, Congress, plus the appointive power of the President, I came to the conclusion that the practical thing to do was to press for a constitutional amendment which would give them a voice in the electoral college for the election of President and Vice President, and, if possible, delegates in the House of Representatives.

So I introduced the constitutional amendment on the floor as a substitute for the home-rule bill on the floor of the Senate. The most important result was the interest which developed. Many Members of the Senate said to me, "We would like to support that kind of measure as an independent proposal.”

The most helpful interest developed was the interest that was taken by the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING]. Not Only did he say he believed that that constitutional amendment should be adopted at that time, but, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, he took an earnest and unrelenting interest in the subject. When the distinguished Senator from Tennessee rMr. KEFAUVER] arranged to hold hearings on the subject, it was the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] who took up the cudgels for the constitutional amendment in a most effective fashion.

The outgrowth of that effort was the reporting of a proposed constitutional amendment to the Senate, built upon the language that had been proposed by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], and myself. That proposal was reported to the full Committee on the Judiciary by the Kefauver subcom­

Mr. KEATING. It reported it to the full committee. However, it was on the floor that the amendment was added.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes. Then there came before the Senate a proposal to deal with the problem of the election of Members of the House of Representatives in case of an emergency which incapacitated a majority of the Members of the House from acting at any time. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] was in charge of that amendment when it came to the floor. The Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] proposed an addition to that proposed constitutional amendment. His proposal was an amendment for the abolition of the poll tax in Federal or national elections. That was agreed to. So, then the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] performed the master stroke of presenting the District of Columbia amendment which had been reported by the Kefauver subcommittee to the full Judiciary Committee. It drew wide support and was agreed to by more than the two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment.

I believe that is an accurate reflection of the record, and the course that this matter has taken. As we adopted the amendment in the Senate , it provided for both representation in the House of Representatives and representation in the electoral college for the voters of the District. The three-pronged resolution then passed by the required two-thirds vote for a constitutional amendment, and it went to the House of Representatives.

The Senator from New York, the Senator from Maryland, and I and others testified before the House Judiciary Committee urging action upon this particular proposition to provide suffrage for the voters of the District of Columbia in the election of President and Vice President. We also urged delegate representation in the House of Representatives.

Of course, under the Constitution, the House of Representatives is the judge of its own membership. In its wisdom the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives reported a constitutional amendment to the House of Representatives in a form which left only the provision for the election of presidential electors for President and Vice President by the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. I think it is very sad that even this very minimum point in the constitutional amendment, which it was said when the matter was debated would be approved very promptly in a year or two, has now been completely dropped out of the bill so far as the poll tax is concerned. I think it is sad. I shall not contest the matter here. Of course, I shall support what is before us. I intend when we next have an opportunity, in the next Congress, again to put before the Senate the opportunity to support a bill to eliminate the poll tax. It appears that that is the way to do it, because it only takes a majority vote to do it.

I should like also to join with the Senator from South Dakota in the fine things he is saying about my colleague from New York [Mr. KEATING], which are very richly deserved. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that the junior Senator from New York acted with the greatest wisdom and celerity in seizing the opportunity which was before us and in supporting the excellent measure which the Senator had himself authored and in bringing into being something so deserving for the people of the District of Columbia.

I enthusiastically join the Senator from South Dakota in extending congratulations to my colleague [Mr. KEATING], who I think in his first 2 years in the Senate has, through this particular effort, already performed a very signal service, very easy to identify and fix for the people of the District of Columbia, who will be so proud to have this opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage. I know that all of us will throw our weight, in our respective States, behind the ratification of the amendment by the State legislatures.

I regret exceedingly that any of the little bit we were going to do about civil rights in the bill has been canceled . I myself pledge, as I know many other Senators will also do, my best efforts to have passed a bill to eliminate the poll tax, because I am convinced that this is the way to do it.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I am glad to have the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York. He has been a battler for everything connected with suffrage and civil rights. I, too, regret the dropping of the other two proposals in the triple-pronged constitutional amendment as it passed the Senate. However, we are approaching the end of the session , and we all recognize the practical situation which exists. I regret particularly the dropping of the provision for a Delegate in the House of Representatives. However, so far as the Senator from South Dakota is concerned, I recognized that in that particular matter, since the House of Representatives itself was concerned with it, we should respect their wishes in that particular.

I might also observe that it is my personal opinion that the Congress could, by an ordinary act of Congress , without requiring a constitutional amendment, provide for a Delegate to the House of Representatives, if the Congress so desired, at any particular time.

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

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. I , too, wish to emphasize that just as my colleague [Mr. KEATING] took advantage of the opportunity in his committee and on the floor, I think we and all the people of the District of Columbia must be eternally grateful to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, who authored this idea, which seems to be exactly the proper compromise, neatly adjusted to getting through Congress, and I hope, through the State legislatures.

I think both names add additional credit, two very luminous minds having been joined in this action.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I thank the Senator from New York for his remarks. I want to emphasize also what the Senator from New York has said with respect to the activity of Senators in securing prompt ratification by the legislatures of their respective States.

I hope every Senator will take note of that. If the amended measure now passes the Senate, as I expect it will, and goes to the States, I hope there will be prompt ratification.

I conclude my own direct remarks by saying that this action will mark the Eisenhower administration as having sponsored and encouraged the greatest extension of suffrage of taxpayers throughout areas where the United States has jurisdiction. First of all, there was the legislation giving to the people of t he District of Columbia the right to vote for delegates to the national political conventions. Second, there was the adoption of Alaskan statehood. Third , there was the adoption of Hawaiian statehood.

With this action, every step will have been taken which could be taken by Congress and by the administration to get before the country a constitutional amendment to give to the people of the District of Columbia the right to have some voice in the Government under which they live. This is a proper step to be taken for the seat of the Government of the United States.

I hope that the consequence of this step will not be lost on the peoples throughout the world. It has been a reproach to our profession of democratic principles that people in the Capital City of the United States can be taxed, and yet have no vote. This amendment can lead to the end of that travesty. I hope the joint resolution will receive the unanimous vote of the Senate at this time and then be ratified by threefourths of the States before the next year of presidential elections rolls around.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President , will the Sen a tor yield?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I express personal appreciation to Senators of the minority, including the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CAsE], the Senator from Maryland [ Mr. BEALL], and the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING ] , who · have so assiduously advocated the vo t e for the residents of the District of Columbia who have no bona fide residence in other States.

There is valid reason for participation in the franchise of freedom-! call it that rather than just "the ballot"­ whereby the citizens of this jurisdiction will in the relatively near future, we believe, possess not only the right but the responsibility to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. It is not inappropriate to state here again that the platforms of both major parties have spoken out again and again affirmatively for this desirable ideal. I should like to leave the thought-and I know it is shared by Senators who beli e ve as we who are speaking tonight believe-that this is not a partisan issue in any sense. I came to the House of Representatives in 1933, and I believed then that the citizens of this jurisdiction should vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. My Democratic predecessor, Senator Neely, mentioned by Senator CAsE, was a valiant champion of this cause.

Sons and daughters born here of parents living in the District of Columbia have been unable to establish citizenship franchise rights in the States , and these young men and young women who grew to manhood and womanhood and assumed the stature of voting age were denied the privilege to participate in th e p r ocess of the dialogue of democracy within this Republic.

I again compliment the Senator from South Dakota; and in my way-it has been a continuing way-I am glad to have fostered with legislative bills and vigorous support the principle contained in this result.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I am one of those who admired the work of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in the House of Representatives when he was chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia. I know from the record of the years the long, conscientious, and earnest interest of the Senator from West Virginia in establishing justice and suffrage for the people of the District of Columbia.

When I mention that record, I think it is not inappropriate also to say that the predecessor of the Senator from West Virginia, the late Senator Matthew Neely, was one of the most effective champions of extending suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. He was chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia when I first came to the Senate. It was largely his leadership that originally interested me in activity along this line. It was through his courtesy that I presented a bill to the Senate in 1952, when I was the ranking minority member and Senator Neely was the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia. I wish he might have lived to see this day.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. I desire to add my voice of commendation and appreciation of the Senator from South Dakota, who has for so many years kept the fire burning on this issue. It is to the credit of the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], that without any possible personal advantage to themselves they have continued to work on this issue. It is incredible that this action was not taken a hundred years However, these aims are not accomplished unless people take up the work and do it--people who are interested in the problem for its own sake.

As a plain citizen of this country, I express my appreciation for the wonderful work that all those Senators have done.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Those words, coming from the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, are deeply appreciated. He has long been recognized as a leader in civil rights and a leader in fighting for the principles of sound government.

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

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.

Mr. KEATING. I express my gratitude to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, my colleague from New York [Mr. JAVITs], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], for the kind remarks which they have just made.

This was sort of a tripartite movement, joined in by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], who has had a long interest in this problem, and me.

I am also well aware of the deep and prolonged interest which the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has had in this problem.

The wording of this amendment, with the exception of the matter I shall mention in a moment, was very much patterned after the amendment prepared by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, which was offered in connection with the bill for home rule.

Mr. President, this proposed constitutional amendment should restore to the people of the District of Columbia some measure-but certainly not a full measure-of democracy. The amendment certainly represents an advance over the present un-American condition imposed on the residents of the Nation's Capital, but it still falls far short of what I feel we should do.

Anyone who bases his decision on logic and reason, anyone who is inspired by the American heritage of freedom and liberty, must be less than enthusiastic about the prospects of allowing District of Columbia residents the right to participate in the selection of the Presidents and the Vice Presidents, our national leaders.

Under these circumstances, although I shall support the joint resolution, I must express my concern because of the fact that this historic step in the development of our democratic institutions has been marred by the "take it or leave it" attitude with which this limited amendment has been presented to us. As is so often true when District of Columbia problems are before us, we have relegated this important measure to consideration during the twilight hours of the day, in the twilight weeks of the session.

These circumstances raise to tremendous heights-and, I believe, undeserved heights-the significance of procedural and parliamentary factors. They prevent a fair consideration of the amendment on its merits. They preclude any effort to liberalize the amendment, except at the risk of jeopardizing its ultimate approval.

Mr. President, I very much regret these circumstances. The amendment which was approved here, which was cosponsored by my distinguished colleagues and myself, would have remedied the plight of the residents of the District of Columbia, by giving the District of Columbia the same representation in the electoral college and in the House of Representatives that the District of Columbia would enjoy if it were a State. Even this amendment could have been reasonably improved upon, because it will be recalled that it did not specifically provide that the Representative of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives should have the right to vote in the House, and it did not give a voice in this body to the residents in the District of Columbia.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has proceeded in the direction of cutting down, rather than building up, the relief which we approved for the District of Columbia.

The amendment, as approved by the House of Representatives, eliminates completely the provisions for representation in that body, and limits the representation of the District of Columbia in the electoral college to · a maximum of three, regardless of the population of the District of Columbia. However, Mr. President, inasmuch as the District of Columbia, under the present method of apportionment, would be entitled to either four, or possibly five, members of the electoral college if the District of Columbia were a State, the House amendment in effect would make a threefourths citizen or a three-fifths citizen of every resident of the District of Columbia. This concept of "fractional" citizenship is a new one, which -to me is abhorrent.

Of course, Mr. President, we are here dealing with a proposed constitutional amendment which, if ratified, would not likely be changed for a long period of time; and of course three-fourths citizenship or three-fifths citizenship is better than no citizenship at all. Therefore no Member who has at heart the interests of the District of Columbia could vote against the amendment, particularly in view of the circumstances with which we are faced and the realization that at this time the question is either this or nothing at all.

However, Mr. President, I can only voice my sorrow because of the fact that we have missed this opportunity to bestow full citizenship rights on our fellow Americans, the residents of the District of Columbia.

I thank the Senator from South Dakota for yielding to me.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his remarks and for his valiant service in connection with this entire subject, both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, as Senators will remember, the joint resolution, as passed by the Senate, and as it went to the House of Representatives, contained, in addition to a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with the subject now before the Senate, two other provisions. The first was a constitutional amendment proposed by my distinguished colleague the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER]. It provided for the prompt filling by the Governors of the several States of any vacancies in the membership of the House of Representatives, in the event an atomic catastrophe were to remove one-half or more of the membership of that body. In the second place, that joint resolution included an amendment which I have been sponsoring for approximately 11 years, and in that sponsorship I have been joined, and am honored that I have been joined, by many outstanding and extremely able Senators, such as the late Senator George, of Georgia; the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], who more lately has withdrawn from that sponsorship; the late Senator Hoey, of North Carolina; the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN] ; the Senators from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER and Mr. LoNG]; and numerous others who come from the same region of the country from which I come, and whom I have regarded over the years, and still regard, as among the finest Americans ever to serve in the Senate.

That amendment, which they and I have sponsored for some 11 years, proposed once and for all to remove the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in an election in which a President, a Vice President, a Senator, or Members of the House of Representatives were being elected-that is to say, in Federal elections.

Mr. President, for 11 years we have tried to get that amendment before this body. We finally got it before this body during consideration of the so-called Kefauver amendment, some months ago. The REcoRD will show that that amendment received an overwhelming vote of approval from the Senate; the amendment was adopted by largely more than a two-thirds vote, and with a very large attendance of Senators, representing the 50 States of the Nation. But notwithstanding that fact, and because of the peculiar situation existing in the House of Representatives-which I do not criticize, and on which I make no comment at this time-it was thought best by the advocates of the District of Columbia amendment to drop the polltax amendment and to drop the amendment so ably sponsored by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], and to confine this amendment to the one subject matter of granting to the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to participate in the election of Presidents and Vice Presidents.

I have talked at some length with the distinguished sponsor of this amendment in the · House of Representatives, the Representative from New York, Mr. CELLER; and I am fully satisfied that the course he adopted was one which he felt compelled to adopt because of the situation existing in the House of Representatives. I call the attention of the Senate to the remarks of the distinguished Representative from New York, Mr. CELLER, as they may be found on pages 12556-12557 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for June 14, COVering the consideration by the House of Representatives of this particular amendment, which is now being debated in the Senate. I shall refrain from reading the generous and much too kindly adjectives which Representative CELLER applied to the present speaker; but I shall now read into the RECORD the other portions of his statement:

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

I have never wanted to adopt any obstructive tactics when a good constitutional amendment, or one that was thought to be good by a great majority in the House and the Senate, was pending. I have never been willing to adopt a so-called dog-in-the-manger policy.

I advised Mr. CELLER I would not attempt to place the poll tax amendment on this particular measure because, under the circumstances which he related to me, and which I confirmed from others, and which prevail in the House, that would have meant the defeat of both amendments.

So I have abided by, and I now abide by, my statement, and Representative CELLER assures us that he will abide by his statement, as it appears in the REcORD, that he will do all and · sundry on the House side in the next session to support repeal of the poll tax.

I understand from the distinguished Representative from New York that he will join with me in an early introduction of that measure again in the House of Representatives, in the fonn in which we passed it last year, as I shall again introduce it in the Senate.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the distinguished Sen a tor from Florida yield to me?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from New York.

Mr. KEATING. I neglected to say, when I was speaking earlier, that I deeply regret that the amendment sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Florida was dropped in the other body. I have assurances that it will receive early consideration in the next session. This assurance was given by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Certainly, if any Member of that body can give such an assurance, he ought to be able to do it.

While it has always been my position that this purpose could be accomplished by statute, I certainly shall support the distinguished Senator from Florida, because we all know that the constitutional amendment route commands considerably more support than does the statutory route.

I commend the Senator from Florida for the very assiduous way in which he has dealt with this problem and the great effort which he put forth here to attach his amendment to legislation on a somewhat unrelated subject.

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate the kindly remarks of the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, to hurry on to the statement I expected to make, I wish to make it very clear that I am not entirely sold on the amendment which is before the Senate, although I propose to vote for it. The reason why I am not entirely sold on it was stated by the Founding Fathers, and I think that there is a grave question as to whether the position they stated at that time is not yet true. That position was that, based upon the experience they had had in other cities, each lying in a State of the Union where the Capital of the young United States of America had been for a time located, they felt that it was sounder to have the Capital in an area where it could be insulated from the continued pressure of an electorate and of a citizenry which, clothed with all of the powers of an electorate elsewhere, would be pressing for local improvements, pressing for local measures, pressing for construction of buildings, and for other measures not justified by the state of the economics in the Nation, and otherwise resorting to pressure which would be more acutely felt by Senators and Representatives of that young Government because of the fact that they were surrounded by the citizens of the site of the Capital.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to my friend from Mississippi.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator think this joint resolution should go to the Judiciary Committee for study?

Mr. HOLLAND. I think if there were any prospect of its being passed upon with any degree of expedition, that would be a good course. My experience with the poll tax amendment, after it had been subjected to three hearings, after the record had been printed three times, after a subcommittee had reported it three times to the able Committee on the Judiciary, approvingly, after we found we could not get any action at all before the Judiciary Committee leads me to think it would at least be a debatable question as to whether it would be wise to submit the measure to that committee.

Mr. EASTLAND. Has not the House shown we were right? What did it do with the amendment? It kicked it out.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Mississippi speaks with a little heat on this question. Perhaps he does not have the experience in this field that the Senator from Florida has had. The Senator from Florida, as a member of the State senate of his own State, helped to knock out the poll tax requirement as a prerequisite to voting in all electionsnot merely Federal elections, but all elections. He found, from actual experience, how good results came to his State by the immediate participation of more white citizens in greater numbers, and by the gradual participation by Negro citizens, who, up to that time, had been banned from participation not only by the poll tax requirement, but by the requirement of white primaries.

I mention to my friend that we also abolished, a little later, but in connection with the same movement, the requirement of white primaries.

The Senator from Florida has stated repeatedly to all his friends in the Senate that he and every other student of government in his State has found that we have had purer politics and sounder government, and a government nearer to the people, than we had before, when, by the device of the poll tax, too frequently, in some counties, a few of the court house officials were able, by paying the poll tax for others, particularly impecunious persons, to dominate elections.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina and Mr. EASTLAND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLAND. I agreed :first to yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Then I shall yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I believe the Senator stated that the poll . tax in Florida had been repealed.

Mr. HOLLAND. I did. We repealed it in 1937, and we found immediately a great surge forward in participation by the poor white people. We found a gradually increased participation by the colored people of our State.

Mr. EASTLAND. Has not that question been decided?

Mr. HOLLAND. That question ha.s long been decided in our State. The Senator from Florida simply has a conviction that it would be a sound thing to have the question submitted to the States of this Union to see whether or not threefourths of them would favor that procedure; and in the five States remaining where, by the poll-tax device, citizens are precluded from voting, if they were encouraged to vote, he believes sounder and cleaner government would prevail in each of those five States.

The Senator from Florida is devoted to each of those five States. His mother came from one of them. He has fought continuously and diligently for the interests of each of the five States . He will continue to do so.

That does not mean the Senator from Florida will always agree with his distinguished friends from those States, because he thinks that by the policy of repression, in this vital matter of inviting citizens to participate freely in voting, these States have failed to achieve their maximum potentialities.

I ask Senators to look at the population growth figures, the figures with respect to progress, the figures in the field of education, the figures in the field of selective service. It will be found, I think that those figures are completely irrefutable. I fear that those States have stood in their own light in this matter.

The Senator from Florida is not · angry about the situation.

Mr. EASTLAND and Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLAND. I will yield in a moment.

Mr. EASTLAND. We have heard all of those words.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think Senators are courteous enough to permit me to complete my statement.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator makes time conviction. a very convincing argument. Why does the distinguished Senator not offer an amendment to carry out his proposal?

Mr. HOLLAND. Notwithstanding the interference and interruption by his distinguished friend, the Senator from Florida still thinks eventually that the poll tax will be repealed, and that the same States which, up to now, have failed to repeal the poll tax will then say, "We have received great advantage from the repeal of the poll tax, and we find we have cleaner government and purer government as a result of the repeal."

Mr. President, I agreed to yield first to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Is it not true that although the state of Florida repealed the poll tax and my State of South Carolina repealed the poll tax, this is a matter for the States rather than the Federal Government to handle?

Mr. HOLLAND. Undoubtedly it is. Undoubtedly it was. There comes a time, however, if we are to regard as at all worthwhile the rights of people to participate in elections for President, Vice President, Members of the Senate, and Members of the House of Representatives, when there ought not to be any distinction merely because there is a State line between my State and the adjoining fine State of which I am very fond.

My amendment does not apply to elections for Governor, or courthouse officers, or school officers.

In my opinion we should not have a distinction which provides that citizens of one State are precluded from voting if they have not paid $2, $4, or whatever the fee may be, and citizens of my State may vote freely, regardless of whether they have been able to pay or have sought to pay that particular tax. Has the Senator concluded his questioning?

Mr. JOHNSTON

The only point I make is that I believe this is a question for each State to determine. My State repealed the poll tax, but I will not undertake to force some other State to repeal the poll tax. I think each State has a perfect right to regulate its own affairs.

Mr. HOLLAND. That is undoubtedly true, so long as the Constitution remains as it is. The Senator is completely correct. However, there - is no greater recognition of the doctrine of States rights than reliance upon the principle of the Constitution that before a fundamental change such as is proposed shall be made the proposal must be submitted as a constitutional amendment to the jury of the States. That is the rule established by our forefathers. That is the way we proceeded, when the amendment to give women the vote was proposed. That is what we provided when we voted for many changes in the Constitution. The Senator from Florida, exactly as he is willing now for the States to pass upon this particular proposed amendment in issue-though he has some doubts about its wisdom-is very strongly in favor of the submission of the poll tax amendment. The Senator from Florida does not wish to have the RECORD show that he has abandoned his long­ · The Senator from Florida does not wish to .adopt an obstructionist tactic under which, as a result of forcing his amendment upon the joint resolution, no action upon either will be taken in this Congress.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I promised to yield to the Senator from Mississippi next, and then I shall yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator is making a very fine argument. Why does the Senator not offer his proposal as an amendment of South Carolina. · to the joint resolution?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thought I had made that very clear.

Mr. EASTLAND. What the Senator is now discussing is not even in the joint resolution. It has no bearing upon it. If the Senator is correct in his position, why does he not offer an amendment to the resolution?

Mr. HOLLAND. There are many reasons why I do not do so. The first is that I think it would kill both proposals. The second is that the way the joint resolution comes to us, it is not open for amendment. It is before us for recession and agreement, or else to go to conference.

Mr. EASTLAND. The joint resolution could go to the Committee on the Judiciary to be considered.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida has not been encouraged, by his experience with the Committee on the Judiciary, to think that the committee would be anything but a permanent graveyard for the proposed amendment, if it were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. EASTLAND. Is my friend satisfied with the verdict of the House of Representatives? If it is not a graveof South Carolina. yard in this case, what is it? -

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the Senator perhaps came into the Chamber l a te in the argument.

The Representative from the State of New York has obligated himself, along with the Senator from Florida, to reoffer the proposal in the early part of the next session of Congress. It will be offered in the House and in the Senate. The able Representative from New York has offered to use all means available to him un de r the House procedures, some of which do not rely upon the Committee on Rules, to bring the measure to a vote in th e House.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I hope the Senator will p e rmit me to finish my thought.

Mr. EASTLAND. I desire to unders t a n d my friend.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida feels that rather than to defeat the good purpose of many Senators and many House Members, who wish to submit this particular proposed amendment, he is willing to wait a little while.

· The Senator from Florida has waited 11 years, with his good friend the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG], who is in the Chamber. The Senator from Florida is honored to say the Senator from Louisiana was with him when he first introduced this proposed amendment, has remained with him, is still with him, and has repeatedly shown his devotion to this ideal. The Senator from Florida is willing to wait a little longer. We are patient men.

I remember, with respect to the socalled tidelands bill, we waited year after year. We saw the bill vetoed once by a Democratic President. We saw the bill vetoed a second time by a Democratic President. We lacked two votes of having enough votes that time to override the veto in the Senate, as the Senator from Mississippi knows. Finally, a friendly President approved the bill. Then we had to watch the act go to Court. It was in Court a year or two on one phase. Then it was in Court many other years on another phase. It finally came from the Court nearly 14 years after the Senator from Florida started working on it, only a few weeks ago. The decision, while it did not please everybody, at least upheld the major positions of the Senator from Florida throughout the argument.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. Therefore, the Sen- . ator from Florida is willing to wait a little while longer on this issue.

I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President-­

Mr. HOLLAND. I am sorry. I had agreed to yield first to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. If the Senator will permit, this is a very topical question.

Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President , probably the reason the aspirations of the other States were not satisfied so completely is that those States did not have the benefit of the argument in court of the senior Senator from Flor i da, which argument was no doubt very persuasive with respect to his own State.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the distinguished Senator , but I am unable to agree with him, because the other three Gulf States, which did not prevail, had very able, very conscientious, and very dedicated representatives who argued wit h all the wisdom and skill anybody could have.

The decision was based upon historical facts. As the law was drawn and submitted by the State attorneys general of the Nation, and as the law was interpreted by the court, two States could make a clear case.

The Senator from Florida is hopeful that the Congress, in its wisdom, will iron out the difference by drawing the same kind of line for the good States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, forgetting entirely the fact that the Senator from Florida did not have the support of the Senators from all those States in connection with his proposal.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida would like to see an even line worked out.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. The point I make is simply this: For 14 years we struggled with the tidelands bill before we obtained a decision. When one is right, I think one should not count time too heavily. I am willing to wait another year. I would rather do that than defeat another good effort in its chance to be submitted to 50 States, and to be decided by the collective wisdom of the people representing those 50 States through their legislatures.

Mr. GOLDWATER and Mr. EAST­

LAND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLAND. I agreed to yield first to the Senator from Arizona. Then I shall yield again to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President , I think the Senator from Florida is making his customarily convincing argument as to his views.

I am hard put to place my remarks in the form of a question , so if the Senator w ill indulge me, perhaps I can support him in part of his thesis. I may have to oppose him in others. ·

At the outset, I am unalterably opposed to the poll tax idea, but I think it is a matter for the States to decide. I do not think it is something that should be influenced by people outside the States. Elections are matters for the States to determine for themselves.

In respect to my feeling in this matter, which is a States' rights feeling ·, I should like to read a part of the joint resolution that we are being asked to consider tonight:

A number of elec to rs of President an d Vice President equal to the whole number of Senat ors and Repre sentat ives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state-

Here is an outside controlling factorbut in no event more than the least populous State.

I think this provision is consistent with the Senator's argument that we should not have outside controlling influences upon elections in a State or in the District of Columbia , if the District is given this privilege. I suggest that the outside influence that would be exerted upon the District of Columbia would come from the con g lomeration of philosophies and ideas of people who populate the District and who ori g inate from different sections of the country. It would also be controlled in respect to the number of electors that it could have by comparison with the least populous State, even though the population of the least populous State might well be, as it is today, . well below the population of the District of Columbia.

I am sure the Senator from Florida will agree with me that we hear very liberal Senators argue · in the Senate that there should be no control such as is exercised with respect to interstate traffic in money during elections, and no control by outside groups. I myself have been vociferous in the Senate about organized labor acting in the political arena on behalf of Senators and Congressmen when they have no interest in the State at all.

I believe the Senator has been touching indirectly upon a very important part of our entire election procedures in this country. Up to this time in our history I have been concerned about outside influences coming into my own State of Arizona, and while I realize a Senator is elected to represent not only his own State but to represent the people of the United States, nevertheless he is bound to reflect the feelings of his own people more than he would reflect the feelings of the people of a State rather distant from him.

The whole question of outside influence in American politics is an important and rather insidious one. I am very reluctant to discuss this subject, but we have an important election approaching us in 1960. We shall select a President for the next 4 years. I have been very much disturbed about the apparent efforts of forces outside of the United States trying to influence our elections . In my capacity as chairman of the Republican senatorial campaign committee, I abhor these tactics, and I hope that we shall not be influenced by what o t her governments think of our candidates or of our parties. I think that we as Republicans and Democrats can refrain from insinuating that one candidate might be influenced this way, that way, or the other.

I am prompted to recite to the Senate this evening a UP! Report No. 223 that came off the wire service at 7:40 this evening , because this is typical of what I am trying to relate to the Senate:

LONDON.-A Democratic combination of Stevenson for President and KENN ED Y for Vice President “could beat any Republican tand em," the Soviet newspaper Iz v esti a said today.

In a dispatch from its New York correspondent, Izvestia said it was still difficult to tell who th e Republican nominees would Aside from the fact that I find myself in complete disagreement with Izvestia, as of now the only other candidate concerned has removed himself by some rather intemperate remarks.

But to quote Izvestia further:

" Many a re coming round t o the conclusion that NIXON has compromised himself an d will not be able to win in November," the analysis said.

"But judging by statements by informed observers th e Republican 'smoke room' take little heed of th is ," the dispatch s a id. "The entire Government machinery, including President Eisenhower is on NIXON's side." I could argue with that, too.

As for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller , Izvestia said, " He actively exploits W ash ­ ington's failures and the decline of U.S : prestige abroad which, as he put it, is at its lowest ever in the pos twa r period."

"Stevenson and KENNEDY advocate an improvement in relations with the Soviet Union and in the international climate, " the dispatch said.

" Almost the entire trade union rank and file, many representatives of modern business circles , and the intelligentsia and farmers are in favor of the Ste v enson-Kennedy ticket."

The main stumbling block for the Democrats, Izvestia said, is that there seems to be no unity among them. ·

The Senator may think the chairman of the Senatorial Campaign Committee is attempting to make a political speech. I am not. I merely hope that our country will not be influenced by what Mr. Khrushchev says, or what Izvestia, or any other publication in the Soviet Union says.

I relate this dispatch tonight only to bring out a little further the strength of arguments that have been voiced by my friends from the South and other conservative sections of the Nation that election problems are primarily problems of the local and State areas , and that the Federal Government should impinge upon them as slightly as possible.

I repeat that I am against the poll tax as I am against segregation, but I do believe that it is a problem of the States and not the Federal Government. I am hopeful that the Senator from Florida will keep up his dedicated fight in the effort that he has launched, with not too much success this year, but possibly uc­ s cess in the future.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his kind remarks. There is nothing further from my mind than to bring a political issue into this debate. I do not happen to be enthusiastic for either the Vice President or for Mr. Rockefeller, but I am sure there are many fine people who are enthusiastic for one or the other of them. I shall claim the rights of a delegate to the Los Angeles convention a few weeks from now to vote for whomever I think is the best candidate at the time for President. But I think we make a mistake if we let this debate dwell on that subject. While the issue relates to the Presidency and Vice Presidency, if there should ever be a citizen of the District of Columbia distinguished enough in the esteem of his fellow Americans . to be nominated for the Presidency or for the Vice Presidency, I see no particular reason why lie should not have the electoral support of the votes of his own fellow citizens in the District of Columbia. But let us leave that question for the moment.

There are three matters I would like to mention briefly before I close my remarks. The first is this: It seems to me that during the debate some Senator should remark on a situation which is almost ridiculous if it were not rather serious. I refer to the approach which is now being made in this amendment that completely reverses the attitude of the Founding Fathers with reference to the rights and privileges of citizens or residents of the District of Columbia.

Anyone who has read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, anyone who has read the Federalist Papers, knows that it was understood that local government should continue in the District of Columbia. Everyone who knows that history knows that local government did continue here for many years, and people in - the District continued to elect their mayor, their councilmen, their commissioners, or whatever they were called, their school district members, and their various local officials, just as people do in any other normal American city.

Everyone who has read this history knows that it was the distinct conviction of the Founding Fathers that it would be unwise to give to the residents of the District of Columbia the right to participate in the election of President and Vice President. Why? For the very reason I recited in the beginning, that they would be too close to Congress, would have too good an opportunity to exert pressure, making life miserable for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, by continuing and assiduous expressions for local objectives. The minutes show quite well that the pressure that had been exerted upon Congress in some of the other cities where for a time the capital had been maintained was the reason for that decision.

Mr. President, times change. The attitude of the citizens of the United States at the present time, the attitude of Senators and Members of the House at this time, may well be different on this subject from the attitude of the Founding Fathers. However, I want the RECORD to show, because it is an interesting observation, and I think people should ponder it a little, that the Founding Fathers very definitely and devotedly felt that the residents of the seat of Government, the residents of the District of Columbia-not then established, when the Constitution was written, but later established-should not have the right to participate in the selection of the President and Vice President, but should have the right of local self-government. They did have it for many, many years, as every Senator knows. So it is interesting, and I wanted this observation to be a part of the REcoRD of this debate, and to observe that in the judgment of those who are suggesting the amendment at this time that there is a purpose completely variant and completely opposite and contradictory to the expressed purpose of the Founding Fathers in this matter, at the same moment that we are withholding local self-government from the District.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That is a very interesting observation. I think along with it there should be noted the fact that at the time the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution, there were very few States. There were Thirteen Original Colonies, and I do not recall what the electoral vote of the respective States was to be. Certainly the electoral vote of the first States was much less than that of the present 50 States, with 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, a total of 535. The provision in the amendment limiting the electoral vote of the District to that of the least populous State would mean that it would not have more than three. Certainly 3 votes out of 535 is a very small proportion, and the impact would be much less, proportionately, than it could possibly have been at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator for his comment. Of course it is needless for me to remind the Senator, because he knows it already, that when the electoral representation of the District of Columbia is being recorded, it is being credited for - having two Senators , which it does not have and will not have.

In addition, the amendment as now submitted does not require the very careful and meticulous separation of citizens that would be required if we had to find out who were really entitled to vote in the District of Columbia in these elections, because we all know that several hundred thousand residents maintain their legal residence and their right to vote back in their own States.

For example, in the office of the Senator from Florida, where there are 12 employees, all of them except 1, as I recall, now maintain their residence in Florida, casting their votes in Florida, and several of them have families--wives or husbands or other members of their families who also cast absentee ballots. Therefore, no one can pretend for a moment that the area of the District of Columbia is comparable, on the question of citizenship of those who live here with, for example, the citizenship and the residents in the State so ably represented by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], where those who live there are residents and voters by a great preponderance, certainly 98 or 99 percent.

So one of the improvements of the amendment that comes back from the House is in this very matter. The representation of the District of Columbia in the electoral college is placed much more nearly in accord with the merits of the situation than was the case with the one against which the Senator from Florida voted.

Another change which the Senat o r from Florida thinks is desirable is wi t h reference to the provision which pe r ­ mitted the election of delegates to the House of Representatives and, what made it worse , submitted to Congress itself the question as to what power to give those delegates, whether full power or not. The Senator from Florida was utterly opposed to that proposal, because it would put pressure in the maximum degree against the men and women sitting in the Senate and in the House. The Senator from Florida is glad that that provision was omitted in the draft of the resolution which comes back from t he House of Representatives.

Mr. President, the sole purpose of my making these rem a rks was to say ju s t this: I shall vote for the amendment. I will do so with some misgivings, because I realize it runs counter to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who wanted to insulate Congress against the type of pressure and type of influence which may be exercised against Members of Congress, if this amendment is adopted.

We have come a long way in the school of democratic government and democratic living. It is not for me to say that that may not be a proper change in the philosophy of our Government. The people eventually will determine that • question through the action of their State legislators. I have some misgivings on that subject. That was the first thing I wanted to say.

The second was that by no means shall I desist from continuing to offer the poll tax amendment. I think it is fundamental in this country that citizens who otherwise are qualified should have the right to vote for their President, their Vice President, and those who represent them in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. I believe that cleaner government and purer government will come with the · recognition of that right, in which I very strongly and profoundly believe.

I shall be back in the Senate, offering that amendment early in the next session. I hope the Senate will, without being annoyed by too much other discussion, be given the chance to vote. I am sorry I have had to take this long. I appreciate the colloquys with distinguished Senators.

It is my own very firm conviction th a t in the case of the poll tax amendment, those who believe in the civil rights program, which in some of its particulars I strongly disagreed with-that is the one which has been voted-will find in five States that most of the enforcement which it is believed will occur under the terms of that act will be defeated by the _ nonpayment of the poll tax by persons who otherwise would be qualified. I want the RECORD to show that, because that is what I firmly believe. I believe that if Senators and Representatives realized that fact, and if they realized that the right to vote of vastly more persons than the total population of the District of Columbia is affected by the poll tax amendment , there would have been a different attitude long since expressed toward that amendment.

In closing, I thank the Senate for its vote on that amendment this year. I hope that that vote will be followed by an even greater · vote of approval next year. With all my heart, I believe we will not have any real solution of the problems which formerly related to all the Southland , but which do not now relate to all of it, unless , as one feature of such solution, we adopt the provision that poll taxes may no longer be used as a method and means of preventing persons who are otherwise qualified from going to the polls to vote for their President , their Vice President, their Senators, and their Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr . President , I yield the floor.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas . Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President , I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. • Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, if there is not to be a yeaand-nay vote , I desire the RECORD to show that I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President , I desire the RECORD to show that I am against the joint resolution . I ask for a yea-andnayvote .

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Texas that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House. [Putting the question.]

In the opinion of the Chair, two- thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. KEATING. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to lay on the table.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from New York to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from South Dakota to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.