Mr. WILLIS. You did all right.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIS. At this point I would like to offer for the record the statement of Congressman Edward R. Finnegan; that of Representative J. Irving Whalley, of Pennsylvania, and the statement of Congressman James A. Byrne, of Pennsylvania.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARD R. FINNEGAN

Mr. Chairman and members of Subcommittee No. 3 of the Judiciary Committee, I am glad to have the opportunity of bringing to the attention of this committee certain items that are pertinent to its examination of H.R. 1178, the Chelf bill; H.R. 6431 and 7355, the Walter bills; and H.R. 8616, submitted by my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Sidney Yates to provide for the redistricting by the Bureau of the Census when such has not been done by the various States. We in Illinois have a 1960 population of 10,081,158 and, although showing an increase of 1,368,982 or 15.07 percent over 1950, did not show so rapid an increase in population as other expanding States. As a result, we were penalized by the loss of one congressional seat. Many urban areas such as we have been dissatisfied, and justly so, I believe, with the census report. But we are required to live under this for the next 10 years since it was not rejected by the Congress. The method of computation long ago approved by Congress in establishing a priority list makes use of the mathematical method of equal proportions. The explanation sent out by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census on June 30, 1960, contained a table of multipliers for apportionment. The House, which is presently constituted at 435 members, finds Illinois at that level being entitled to 24. At the level of 439, Illinois would be entitled to 1 additional and would return it to the number of 25. I have, using the method set forth with the table of multipliers, described in the publication of June 30, ascertained the position of Illinois in relation to the 3 preceding States, namely, Ohio at the 435 level, as the last one entitled to a priority. Immediately following this State comes Massachusetts at 436 level, Missouri at 437 level, Pennsylvania at 438 level, and Illinois at 439 level. Using the same multiplier at the 25 priority level, referring to the State of Illinois, I find that had the census report listed .004 percent additional population in Illinois, my State would not have lost a seat but would have been entitled to 25 seats at the 435 level. Investigation with the Census Bureau has shown that errors approaching this amount have been found without too complete of a rechecking, but they can supply only certificates to the areas that were not included in the census entitling these communities to their proportionate share of such Federal aid that they care to seek based on the corrected population. In the 12th District of Chicago, Ill., which I have the honor to represent, the 1960 census indicated an increase over 1950 of 6,295 persons. This is a growing district which showed no demolitions, but did, in fact, show more than 5,000 new building permits and most of the new buildings in a large area consisting of high rise apartments extending upward to as high as 20 stories.

It is very hard to keep from criticizing the accuracy of such a census. The situation existing in my district is duplicated in all of the others in the metropolitan area of Chicago which unaccountably saw a tremendous drop off in population. Even the methods newly employed for allocating the work load to the census takers and the recordkeeping are such as to prevent an accurate check against the figures submitted. All political subdivisions of large States are by precincts but unaccountably all of the census results were taken of 1,000 person units running across precinct lines. It is, therefore, impossible to find the exact precinct population without an additional census. I believe that the State of New York is at present asking for an additional such census to be made by the Census Bureau and is prepared to pay the cost of some $750,000 so that a proper redistricting can be made of the State and congressional districts.

We of Illinois do not wish to belabor an unfortunate situation that will remain until the next decennial census. Rather we wish to emphasize that this is one more reason to make certain that our State is not underrepresented. Legislation that would increase the House of Representatives to 439 Members is, to me, not only called for but necessary. With an ever-increasing population, it is inevitable that there will be a relative increase in the number of consituents in each

district. However, by returning the House to 435 Members, we will be experiencing an absolute decline in representation-for Alaska is entitled to one seat and Hawaii is entitled to two. This means that 3 congressional seats have to be carved out of the 435 remaining. With Congressmen already representing more than is possible to be really representative of the people, an added burden would separate Members of Congress further from their constituents-and remote representation was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution when they set up the House of Representatives. I also agree with the additional 1 seat to 439 as it is a legislative necessity to keep the number of the House at an uneven figure.

I also would like to point out in closing that the average population of each of the 437 districts with a national population of 179,323,175 is 410,350. The average population of the four States that would lose one of their congressional seats as presently arranged is :

I therefore urge serious and expeditious consideration of the legislation now before this committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. IRVING WHALLEY, REPUBLICAN, PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to present to you a statement in support of legislation which would enlarge the membership of the House of Representatives. I feel strongly that we should act on a measure this session. Many reasons have been given why the House membership should be increased. In the past, new Members have been added because of the addition of new States and also because of the growth of our country.

With the admission of Hawaii and Alaska in 1960 it certainly seems necessary and fair to increase the House membership again.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JAMES A. BYRNE OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUGUST 30, 1961.

Mr. Chairman and members of Subcommittee No. 3 of the Judiciary Committee, I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to address myself to your honorable committee on the subject of this legislation before you, namely, H.R. 1178, the Chelf bill, increasing the House membership to 469; H.R. 7355, the Walter bill, increasing the House membership by four Members; and H.R. 8616, the Yates bill, which provides for the redistricting of a State by the Bureau of the Census where the State refuses to act.

The House was last increased in 1911 (population 91 million) to 435 seats. Since that time the population has doubled and we also have the addition of the States of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union.

The new census (1960) has set up a population division of 412,000 per district. The State of Pennsylvania has increased in population by 810,000. Under the formula Pennsylvania loses three Congressmen.

It is a well known fact that the present duties of a Congressman are too many to best serve such a large constituency. The body electorate is alert to the national problems confronting the Nation, and the House Members must be close in their identification to the people. Many districts, because of State legislative enactment, number far in excess of this number of inhabitants.

The business of the House committees and district matters are time absorbing and together with attendance on the floor prevent intelligent effort in these areas. An addition of 34 Members would not in any way add to the cumbersome operation of the House but would relieve the terrific pressures now experienced by the present membership. I am in favor of both bills providing for an in

crease.

The Yates bill is a legislative necessity. The at-large elections do not contribute to proper selection of candidates representative of the divisible areas of the economy within the boundaries of a State. The populous areas would elect all the candidates, to the detriment of other interests, such as farm or agricultural areas. It would lead to the selection of a one party rule in a State.

This bill is a lever to force the States to redistrict and thus escape the control set up by ambitious and calculating members of the assembly to forestall reapportionment. The bill permits the legislature, at the State level, to supersede the actions of the Bureau in redistricting a State, by acting thereon on the State level.

I am in favor of this legislation as a permanent protection against redistricting. Our forefathers foresaw the detrimental effects of the selection of Congressmen at-large and constitutionally provided a remedy.

Mr. WILLIS. In order of their entrance into the room, I would like now to hear from Congressmen who wish to testify.

Congressman Hudleston.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, I appeared here briefly the other day and made a short statement and then filed one for the record of the hearings.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Wickersham.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Oklahoma is not being affected by this redistricting. However, we were very much affected 10 years ago and 20 years ago. We lost a total of three Members. Incidentally, I acquired all that area. My territory is 500 miles long. However, I am satisfied with the territory that I have.

We have all the helium in Oklahoma; we have about a third of the natural gas; about a third of the oil; about a third of the wheat and cattle; three-fourths of the cotton; two-thirds of all the alfalfa feed; about a third of the Indians; and we have the only two Strategic Air Command bases in the State; and the largest artillery field in the country; we have half the peanuts, and I have a third of the area of the State. I know from experience that, placing two districts together in a redistricting method, which would result if this committee doesn't act, causes a lot of ill feeling among the Members who are pitted against each other. I have known that from experience because this is the third time I have been to Congress in the 20 years that I have been here.

I personally think that the Congress should consider redistricting of the whole country on the basis of not just population but a combination of population and area together, giving some credence to both. It would make a much better Congress.

If you run at large, as they are going to have to do in Illinois and some of these other States, it brings on another problem that we have experienced in Oklahoma. You will have many Joe E. Browns, Will Rogers, and Roy Rogers and famous movie names running. The individual politician, who has devoted his life to being a statesman or a politician, finds himself lost among this myriad of names that are familiar to the boys and girls. If you don't think that is true, look at some of the happenings in many of the States, including Oklahoma.

Personally, I think that Congress ought to have an intensive period of 3 months here at work and 3 months at home with their people and their relatives and 3 months visiting various installations in the States and 3 months overseas around the clock, I think we would save the

Government literally hundreds of millions of dollars and you would have a much happier populace and a much happier bunch of Congress

men.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOLL. Mr. Chairman, may I indicate to the distinguished Representative of Oklahoma that he can add to his list of contributions, the name of his State to one of the most popular songs in history. Mr. WICKERSHAM. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIS. I see next in order of entrance is our friend Representative Stratton of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. STRATTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I indicated at the last meeting, not realizing that you were going to meet again, that I would file a written statement, but since you are meeting again I would prefer to present it orally and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Chairman, there isn't a great deal I can add in the way of new arguments with respect to the issue of increasing the membership of the House, but I would like to express my very strong support for the proposals before you with regard to this and particularly for the very eloquent statement and presentation of the gentleman from Kentucky the other day, Mr. Chelf. I believe that an increase in the House is warranted by circumstances. We have had no change in 50 years. There is no particular magic, it seems to me, in the figure 435, and I think it is obvious to all of us that not only has the population increased but the demands upon the individual Members have increased enormously in this period of a half a century. I think all of us would agree that probably one of the most difficult jobs a Congressman has to do is to try to find time to read and to meditate on some of the major issues that are before us as well as doing the day-to-day routine assignments that are also a proper and necessary part of the job of being a Congressman. Some Members have been taking rapid-reading courses in an effort to try to do their job. I am not one who believes there is anything magic in that approach, but I do think it is a development which underlines the fact that while we spend a lot of time doing these other things that are necessary to be representatives we sometimes find-and I am sure I am as guilty of it as othersthat the subject for which we have the least time is the research and meditation that is necessary for our job.

Now, obviously, if we are going to represent in the next Congress a greater population than we represent today, this simply means that time for thought and study is going to be reduced further, and the net result is that the job done by the House is bound to suffer.

I am not particularly wedded to any particular number of new Members, but I do feel that the proposal made by Mr. Chelf is a reasonable one, that 34 is a modest increase, and I think that a case has been made for this increase and that it is a very strong case.

Therefore I would like to urge, Mr. Chairman, that the committee support the Chelf bill and report it to the House so that the Members of the House can have an opportunity to work their will on it.

I would like to address myself briefly, Mr. Chairman, also to the general subject of redistricting which, as I understand it, is at least indirectly before this committee in the shape of the Corbett bill.

Mr. WILLIS. It is directly before this committee and we will take action on it.

Mr. STRATTON. It was my understanding that you were concerned with that subject, yes, sir. I think anyone ought to make it perfectly clear, with regard to this subject of an increase in House seats, that we would have no business here testifying before this committee if we were merely seeking to save a particular seat or to protect our own particular fortunes. What happens to one individual Congressman is not of concern, Mr. Chairman, but it is tremendously important that in the job of redrawing district lines that must be carried out. every 10 years by the States we must have some assurance that this action is performed on the basis of reasonable and a sensible and an intelligent standard, and particularly that it does not deliberately thwart the will of the people themselves.

I am not too familiar with what may have gone on in other States but I am familiar with what has gone on recently in my State of New York, and if I might I would just like to utilize the situation in New York as an example of the need for some comprehensive kind of legislation to deal with this whole subject of redistricting, and may I say that I do not think that the Corbett bill, while it has some merits, really goes to the heart of the whole problem.

The State of New York is a State which is roughly 50-50 by enrollment-party enrollment. It provided the largest majority for Mr. Kennedy in the last election, some nearly 400,000 votes; it has a congressional delegation which is split almost 50-50, 22 Democrats and 21 Republicans, with the Democrat candidates getting a total of 366,000 votes more than the Republican candidates in the last election, roughly the same majority that the President himself got.

Now as a result of the census, New York loses two Congressmen. There is a report that the New York State Legislature, which has not vet met in special session to carry out any redistricting, has nevertheless agreed informally on the way in which the pie is to be cut up. This report was in fact published in the authoritative New York Times and the Governor and the legislative leaders have never denied the story. As a result of this plan the State of New York, which is divided 50-50 and which as I say, went by a substantial margin in favor of Democratic congressional candidates in the last election, would be switched to a representation of only 15 Democrats and 26 Republicans. This is not just my estimate of the intention of the proposal of the State legislature, it has been supported by the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Miller, who is the chairman, as you know, of the Republican National Committee.

Now I think that this type of situation is the real scandal today and I think this applies to the Democrats as well as the Republicans that whenever there is a redistricting it seems to be considered fair game for the party in power in the legislature to try to carve as many seats away from the opposition party as possible. Whenever anybody objects, he is told, "Well, your party did it last time," or "Your party has done it out in this State," or "that State" and "We are doing it here and it is all part of the game."