House. Next year it would be of little help. For that reason, I feel that we ought not to take any chances on not getting legislation.

Mr. LINDSAY. Going on the assumption that the size of the House through history has been a very arbitrary thing, there is no logic that you can point to which will arrive at a specific figure-would you agree with the view, which is held by many, that the House is big enough as it is, and that additional Members will make it even more unwieldy?

Mr. WALTER. It is a very large, unwieldy body today.

Mr. LINDSAY. On the question of an even or odd number, there is precedent for an even number is there not? The first census following the adoption of the Constitution resulted in an even-numbered House, did it not?

Mr. WALTER. Yes.

Mr. LINDSAY. The first census of 1793.

Mr. WALTER. That is right, 1793. Then it was 106.

Mr. LINDSAY. I thank you.

Mr. WILLIS. Are there further questions?

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Walter, do you feel that the admission of the new States of Hawaii and Álaska forms a sort of signal precedent for this enlargement this year which might not be used as an argument for further enlargements merely because there will be decennial censuses in 1970 and thereafter?

Mr. WALTER. On the contrary, we have departed from precedent by not increasing the membership this time.

Mr. MATHIAS. You do not think this would further open the door in future years when there would not be the admission of new States? Mr. WALTER. No, indeed.

Mr. BATTIN. I would like to thank the gentleman for his clear and precise statement.

Mr. WILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Walter.

Mr. WALTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILLIS. A gentleman who has been in the forefront of this legislation, the ranking member of this committee, is with us. Mr. Frank Chelf, of Kentucky.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, before I say anything at all, upon the instructions of several of our colleagues, I would like to insert into the record the statements of Mrs. Catherine Norrell, the Honorable Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, and the Honorable Carl Elliott, of Alabama.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE D. NORRELL (DEMOCRAT OF ARKANSAS)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the legislative proposal to increase the membership of the House of Representatives is a subject of genuine interest to the people of the State of Arkansas, as it undoubtedly is to the people of the several additional States that otherwise face the loss of one, two, or three seats each in the House.

As Representative of the Sixth District of Arkansas, I wish to testify to my support of this proposal, and to urge the committee to take action that will bring a bill before the Congress promptly.

Also in support of this proposal, there is of record with the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate a copy of the resolution adopted by the Arkansas State Legislature earlier this year, petitioning the Congress to enact legislation providing an increase in the number of seats in the House of Repre

sentatives. A copy of the resolution is submitted herewith for the record of the committee.

In Arkansas, the redistricting procedure required by reapportionment on the basis of the 1960 census of population was accomplished by the State legislature. However, the congressional redistricting of the State met with dissatisfaction on the part of a great number of voters, with the result that a petition for referendum was filed. Thus the act redistricting the State will be referred to a popular vote at the 1962 general election, with the requirement that all candidates for election to the U.S. House of Representatives next year must run at large. Although a recent ruling of the State's attorney general resolved the question that the State legislature has the authority to bring up a reapportionment bill in a special session, an equally vital question at issue is that of providing adequately for representation of all of the people of Arkansas and of the several other States that are facing similar redistricting problems.

I believe there is information available to the committee to substantiate the crises that have developed in those States. This further substantiates the opinion of Members who favor the proposal to increase the membership of the House. Moreover, it justifies the position taken by the Members now representing those States that, because of the vast increase in population of the United States since the maximum House membership was set at 435 in 1912, we should increase the membership to provide adequately for the representation of our citizens in the National Government.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the committee and testify in support of the proposal.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4 (NELSON)

Whereas Congressman Chelf, of Kentucky, has introduced legislation in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States providing for an increase in the number of seats in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, and

Whereas the State of Arkansas will lose two congressional seats unless the total membership of Congress is enlarged, and

Whereas the total number of congressional seats has not been increased for a number of years, and two new States have been admitted to the Union, thereby increasing the need for additional congressional seats; Now therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-third General Assembly of the State of Arkansas (the Senate concurring therein), That the Arkansas General Assembly does hereby respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to pass legislation introduced by Representative Chelf, of Kentucky, providing for an increase in the number of seats in the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States; be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be mailed by the secretary of state to each member of the Arkansas delegation and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate of the U.S. Congress urging support for the passage of such legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, DEMOCRAT, OF MISSISSIPPI

In 1961 the Congress of the United States must face the decennial problem of reapportioning the House of Representatives in accordance with the census of 1960. Under existing law, unless changed by the Congress, its membership will remain at 435. This is the same figure that has been in force since the Reapportionment Act of 1911 became effective, with the exception of a temporary increase to 437 last session when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union.

While there would be no change in the total membership of the House, it is anticipated that there would be changes in the number of Representatives from 16 of the States. The present estimate of gains and losses to these States, aside

from Alaska, which would have one Representative, and Hawaii, which would have two Representatives, is as follows:

These expected changes in representation are due to population shifts among the States. During the past decade, the total population of the United States increased from 151,325,000 to approximately 184 million, but the rate of increase varied widely among the States. Some States showed marked gains; others a comparatively small one. Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia actually lost population. If the total number of Representatives remains at 435, it will mean that the average number of persons in a congressional district will rise from 345,000 to approximately 413,000. This, of course, is aside from the constitutional guarantee of at least one Representative to a State, regardless of population.

While the gains and losses are of very real interest to the States affected, there is a far more serious problem confronting the Nation as a whole. During the past decade the population increased by a record 18 percent. How can the Representatives adequately represent so many people and do justice to their

work?

It is believed by many people familiar with the work of the Congress that something must be done soon to lighten the congressional load, so that the Representatives may have more time to devote to their duties. The most practical way to accomplish this end would be to increase the number of Representatives by providing that the present population ratio per Representative should remain at the 1950 figure of 345,000, rather than permitting it to rise to approximately 413,000. It is estimated that this would result in an additional 82 Representatives, or a total of 517 in all.

It might be of interest to show at this point how each State would probably fare if the suggested change was made. The figures are based on a preliminary estimate of the 1960 population, both of the Nation and of the several States, and there may be a few changes in the table shown below when the final figures are compiled. Aside from Alaska, which would have one Representative, and Hawaii, which would have two Representatives, the gains and losses are estimated as follows on the basis of 517 increase:

Arkansas--

Losses

1 West Virginia__

1

In the past there have been two main arguments against increasing the number of Representatives. The first was the lack of physical accommodations. The second was that the House would become too unwieldly.

There have been times when the lack of office accommodations was a most persuasive argument. Today, however, this is not the case. A third House Office Building is under construction and will be ready for occupancy before January 1, 1963. This building, besides housing many committee rooms, will have 171 three-room congressional suites. The House Chamber presents a more difficult problem. However, by utilizing waste space and by rearranging the seating facilities, it should be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in Representatives.

The second objection, that a marked increase in the membership would make the House too unwieldly, merits serious consideration. If the leaders of the House had to work with 517 members, rather than 435, their problems would be complicated to some extent. However, without denying the validity of the argument, certain other factors must be considered in determining its relative weight.

In the first place, the House operates under very strict rules that severely restrict the opportunities of the individual Member to make a nuisance of himself. For example, the total time allowed for debate is limited, and those handling the debate decide who may speak and for how long. Whether or not amendments may be offered is determined in advance by the Rules Committee. The same committee also determines what bills may be taken up by the House. All things considered, the proceedings move with remarkable smoothness and a minimum of waste motion, and if an increase in the membership made it necessary to tighten the rules further, there is no doubt that it would be done.

In the second place, the leaders of the House of Representatives are selected from among the ablest members of each political party. They are chosen for their ability to work with others and to implement their respective programs. Over the years, their success in these fields has become almost legendary.

Finally, the question arises as to just when a legislative body becomes unwieldy. Primarily, it is a matter of definition and opinion. Almost anyone would agree, however, that size alone is not the determining factor. A large, well-led, and highly disciplined body is far less unwieldy than a smaller, poorly led, and undisciplined one. For example, the British House of Commons has 612 members, but it has a distinguished record of achievement, despite its numerical size. Parenthetically, the average parliamentary constituency is composed of slightly more than 80,000 persons.

What effect would an upward revision in the number of Representatives have upon the operations of the House? Probably it would increase the problems of the leadership to some extent, but not to the point where these experienced, resourceful men could not cope with them. On the other hand, it is unlikely that such a change would affect adversely the present efficiency of the House. In any event, such an increase, per se, would not make the House unwieldy.

It must be conceded, however, that the House of Representatives should not be enlarged unless the reasons for doing so outweigh the arguments against the proposal. There is no merit in change for change's sake. If something is to be done it must be supported by good and valid reasons. Therefore, let us examine the reasons for increasing the number of Representatives.

The most obvious of these is that the work of the Representatives has increased manyfold in the past 30 years. During that period, the Federal Government has moved into numerous fields theretofore left to the States. It has taken on responsibilities, in both foreign and domestic areas, that were unknown or were unrecognized prior to that time. Not only has the number of Federal activities grown, but they have become more complex and affect ever more intimately the lives and welfare of our citizens.

Each new program either brings more people into contact with the Federal Government or adds another relationship to those that already exist between the people and that Government. Confused and uncertain, distressed by rigid rules and often uncompromising Federal administrators, the citizens turn in ever-increasing numbers to their Representatives for help. So widespread has this practice become that some Representatives spend nearly half of their time "running errands" for their constituents.

Some students of government deplore this fact of a Representative's activities. And yet it is a most important one. By it a measure of humanity is injected into the operations of what, to many Americans, is a gigantic, impersonal machine. At the very least, the individual is helped to understand the necessity for the Government's action. At the most, an injustice is corrected. In either event, he knows that someone has understood and tried to help him with his troubles, and this goes far toward making him better satisfied with his Government.

Another byproduct of the multiplication of Federal activities is the growth in the number of lobbyists representing groups with special interests. Some of these groups are nationwide; others are quite small and are concerned with more or less technical problems. In either case, their representatives must be seen and their arguments weighed. Contrary to a rather widely held popular belief, the lobbyist is not a sinister influence. He serves a very important function because he helps to inform the Representatives of the needs and desires of the people. Where subjects are controversial, each side is represented by a lobby, and this aids greatly to focus the basic issues in the minds of the Representatives. Nevertheless, the amount of the Representatives' time taken up by lobbyists is very considerable.

A third result of the expansion of Federal activities is a great increase in the number and complexity of subjects that come before the various congressional committees. The amount of time spent in hearings and executive sessions varies from committee to committee. Many of them average 2 or more hours a day throughout a session of Congress, to say nothing of the homework done by the Members. Even so, it is physically impossible to cover all the subjects that should be considered.

Attending the multitudinous congressional receptions given by every large group having interests in Washington is another time-consuming activity. Appearance at such gatherings is almost mandatory. Contrary to popular opinion, their purpose is primarily business, not social. But they do take their toll on the time of busy Representatives.

Finally, a relatively unpublicized but demanding activity is the receiving and entertaining of schoolchildren and adult constituents who are visiting in Washington and who stop in to see "our Congressman." During the entire period when the Congress is in session there is a steady stream of such guests, but in the spring it assumes flood proportions, just when the Congress is in high gear Most of the Representatives enjoy this contact with "the district," but it does cut deeply into a Representative's day.

Superimposed upon all these activities, and seriously complicating them, is the fact that the number of people represented by the average Congressman increases each year. For example, after the 13th census in 1911 the population ratio per Representative was 211.877. Next year, if the present reapportionment law remains in force, the population ratio per Representative will rise to approximately 413,000. Small wonder that our Representatives in Congress find such difficulty in doing their work properly.

What business enterprise that had greatly increased its production, both in amount and variety, and doubled the number of its customers, would expect to operate efficiently with the same number of key employees? Yet that is what we expect of the House of Representatives. It is submitted that we are asking

too much.

The Congress has not demanded that the size of its two coordinate branches of Government remain static as their problems and difficulties have increased. The number of Federal judges has grown as the population and the judicial duties have grown, and there is constant pressure to authorize the creation of more judges. Neither has the Congress been closefisted with the executive branch, whose vast growth is too well known to require comment. Only in the legislative branch, aside from some increase in the staffs, has there been no change over the past five decades, despite the vast increase in its work and responsibilities.

The House of Representatives was envisioned as the popular House. Its Members were to be close to the people and it was to be their particular duty to represent the people. But how, by all that is reasonable, can one man be close to 413.000 individuals? How can he represent them properly? It is asking too much of human flesh and blood.

74691-61-3