million people in the United States who literally have no representation, because if it took 435 Members to represent adequately 91 million, I contend that the additional 91 million people who have come upon the scene in the United States are entitled to at least 34 seats. Incidentally, the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska, as has been testified by my beloved colleague and friend, Tad Walter, have also come into the Union since 1911, and these 4 States, as testified by him, have drawn, shall I say, on the 435 bank. So that makes us in worse shape than ever before. We are therefore actually losing seats as the thing stands.

Opponents of this and similar bills say that this would make the House "unwieldy." Let us go into this carefully. They argue that we are selfish in our motives because they contend that our legislation seeks to keep politicians in their jobs and that the cost to the taxpayers would be terrific.

These objections are erroneous. For instance, I have been a Member of the House for almost 17 years, and in all that time, Mr. Chairman, I have never yet heard all 435 Members answer any given rollcall, up or down, good or bad, important or unimportant. It just is not possible. As we all know, deaths, illnesses, important committee meetings, and vacancies prevent 100 percent attendance. An accurate and systematic check of the yea and nay votes over the past 16 years shows an average attendance-this is important, gentlemen, speaking of unwieldiness-let us be fair about it-shows an average attendance of less than 370 Members per rollcall for the past 16 years. This means that an average of 65 Members never vote, no matter how important or unimportant the situation may be. This is through no fault of their own. As I said a while ago, it may be death, illnesses, assignments overseas, committee work, or what have you. You can never get 435 Members together. That is the point I am trying to make.

So, what is unwieldy about this number that I am seeking, 469? An average attendance out of 469 would be approximately 400.

If the House is too large and too unwieldly, as our opponents argue, why is it that we 435 Members of the House are always through with our work, difficult as it may be, at the end of any given session, and often have to wait on the other body to finish their work? The House, as you all know, operates under strict rules that practically divest Members of an opportunity to make a nuisance of themselves. As you know, the total time for debate is limited, and those handling the debate decide who speaks and for how long. Whether or not amendments may be offered is determined in advance by the Rules Committee; and the same Rules Committee determines what bills may be taken up by the House. When we take everything into consideration, the House moves with remarkable smoothness and a minimum waste of time.

In addition to the above, the leaders of the House are selected from among the ablest Members of each political party. They are chosen for their ability and their skill to work with their colleagues and to know and appreciate and understand them. Over the years, their success in these fields has become almost legendary.

Size alone is not the determining factor, as so many fall into the trap of believing, gentlemen, as to when a legislative body becomes unwieldly, because a large, well led, and highly disciplined body is far less unwieldly than a small, poorly led, and undisciplined one.

The British House of Commons has 612 members, but it also has a distinguished record of achievement, despite its size. Incidentally, the average district of a Member of Parliament, the House of Commons in Britain, is composed of slightly more than 80,000 constituents, compared with our 412,000 constituents.

Mr. WILLIS. What is the overall population of England?

Mr. CHELF. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not have that. I thought I had everything memorized, from soup to nuts.

Mr. WILLIS. I wondered if that ratio of representation holds true in regard to overall population.

Mr. CHELF. I will get that for you, sir.

A few years ago under the Eisenhower administration, we created 40 new Federal judgeships right in this particular Judiciary Committee. Several weeks ago, at this very session of the 87th Congress, we created an additional 73 judgeships. Why? Obviously, this action was necessary in the interest of better government because it afforded better service to the people of the Nation. Due to the very rapid growth of the country, our courts had become clogged with litigation, and the only way to relieve the dockets was to create new Federal judges. Why not take action to relieve the representatives of the people so that they may be in a better position to serve their constituents more adequately?

Insofar as the argument of selfishness is concerned, let me say to you, gentlemen, that this legislation is, to the contrary, most unselfish, because it really prevents a Member from growing too powerful and too important by the reduction of the size of a given State's delegation. In other words, I am a more powerful Member of Congress if I am one of a delegation of four than I am if I am one of a delegation of eight. I am twice as strong, I am twice as important, twice as powerful. It is just that simple.

The argument of terrific cost falls "flat on its face" for the very simple reason that the 34 newly created seats, including Members' salaries, office staffs, their salaries, allowances, all the prerogatives of the office everything-would cost the 183 million people of the United States today an average of three-quarters of 1 cent per person per year. That is cheaper than the old penny postcard. I think that is little enough to pay for representation.

With our population explosion, if we keep on adding tens of thousands of constituents to an individual Member of Congress, the time will come when he will be so overwhelmed and so frustrated by the housekeeping duties of his office that he will be literally chained to the chair and he will have little time in which to legislate and practically no time in which to visit or mingle with his people, which is most important.

Through no fault of his own, a Member would become unavailable and inaccessible, which is just the reverse of what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted our Constitution.

As an example-and it is a good one, if I may say so, since it is not my idea. This came from history. A gentleman stepped out of history today to aid and assist the plea that I am making to you. I am told that the only occasion on which George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, entered into the discussion of the Constitutional Convention was when he urged that the House

be made accessible to more people rather than less. James Madison reported in his "Journal of the Federal Convention," gentlemen, that when it was proposed that the constitutional requirement of one representative for every 40,000 be amended to a Congressman for every 30,000, George Washington spoke out on the proposed amendment, urged its adoption, and asserted that it would give him much satisfaction to see the smaller ratio of representation be adopted in order to further secure the rights and the interests of the people. At that time, some 175 years ago, gentlemen, George Washington made this argument and set this precedent and example. I do not think we are very far afield on this situation at all.

George Washington, in my opinion, has made the strongest possible argument for the enactment of H.R. 3725. It was the primary object, intent, and purpose of George Washington and the drafters of the Constitution to keep the Members of the House of Representatives close to the people. It has been possible in the past for a Member to see his people and have his people see him. Let us not attempt to change this "modus operandi" because if we do, good, sound, responsible, democratic government will become a legend rather than a living, active, moving force. In common parlance, a bricklayer can lay so many bricks in a day, a dentist can fill so many cavities, and a father can support only so many children. Likewise, a Member of the House can serve just so many constituents and no more-adequately, that is.

Gentlemen, remember, the size of a Member's constituency has grown from the 30,000 recommended by Washington in 1789 to 412,000 in 1960. Increasing the size of our staff is not the answer. The loyal and faithful members of our staff are truly, in every sense of the word, "assistant members of Congress"-bless them-but there are so many things that demand the personal attention of the House Member. When people come to one's office, they want to see the Congressmannot an aid. When the committees are in session, the presence of the Member is required-not his secretary. When the House meets, we have to answer the rollcall and vote and, with only 24 hours in each day, we find it increasingly more difficult to be at all places at all times.

Another reason the House membership should be increased is that the work has increased manifold. During the past 30 years the Federal Government has moved into many fields left heretofore only to the States. It has taken responsibility in foreign and domestic fields the likes of which we had never known prior to this time. Today the citizens of America are becoming wards of the Federal Government from the cradle to the grave.

At birth it deals with vital statistics; then schools in impacted areas, school lunches, labor, agriculture, airlines, railroads, buses, highways, communications, small businesses, housing, old-age pensions, social security, retirement funds, aid for the blind, lame, flood control, veterans' benefits, reforestation, limited hospitalization, and many other benefits, and at death what happens the social security and the Veterans' Administration help pay the funeral expenses. If that is not from the cradle to the grave wire me collect.

Truly, therefore, my friends, not only has the number of Federal activities grown but they have become so complex that they affect constantly and intimately the lives and welfare of all of our citizens.

In conclusion let me say this: The argument has been advanced that this legislation is not necessary because today we have faster means of travel, radio, TV, telephones, and telegraph and that all of this makes it easier for a Member to serve his people. With the aid of these facilities, we have been able to increase the average constituency from the 30,000 in 1789 to 412,000 in 1960. However, with all of these modern facilities and the invention and use of others since 1911, we still cannot cope with the situation. Frankly, it is getting out of hand. There is no substitute for a face-to-face meeting and a handshake with one's constituents.

I want my people to know me and my people want to know their Congressman. I want to be able to call them Joe, Jack, Bill, and Henry and I want them to be able to call me Frank.

As I previously stated, the Rules Committee membership has been increased recently by 20 percent. The seats in the Senate have grown from 92 to 100 in 50 years. This is an increase of 8 percent. Therefore, what is wrong with the House moving up only 7.2 percent on the basis of the requested 34 seats?

Gentlemen of the committee, I implore you to give the more than 91 million people who have come upon the scene in America since 1911, at least 34 seats which would make the total 469. I repeat: If 435 Members were needed adequately to represent 91,972,000 in 1911, don't you think 183 million, or more than double that number, are entitled to some consideration and representation?

Remember, these are electoral college seats that are being lost by these 16 sovereign States.

I urge you to vote for H.R. 3725.

Gentlemen, in your very capable hands we rest our case.

(The complete statement of Hon. Frank Chelf, Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky, follows:)

STATEMENT BY FRANK CHELF, MEMBER OF CONGRESS (DEMOCRAT), KENTUCKY Mr. Chairman and members of subcommittee No. 3, I appear before you this morning on behalf of the entire Kentucky delegation: Hon. Brent Spence, Hon. John C. Watts, Hon. William H. Natcher, Hon. Frank A. Stubblefield, Hon. Frank W. Burke, Hon. Carl D. Perkins, Hon. Eugene Siler, and myself, in support of H.R. 3725 to provide that the House of Representatives shall be composed of 469 Members.

There is ample precedent and a historical basis for this legislation. Beginning in 1789, there were 65 Members of the House and as the population increased, the House of Representatives was likewise increased to serve their needs. On April 14, 1792, the number of 65 Members was raised to 106. In 1802, the House was increased to 141, in 1811 to 181, in 1822 to 213, in 1832 to 240, in 1850 to 233, in 1862 to 241, in 1872 to 283, in 1882 to 325, in 1891 to 356, in 1901 to 386, and then in 1911, 50 years ago, the number was upped to 435, where it has remained until the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, which brought it to its present 437. These figures taken from the Congressional Library present a revealing record of the growth of the country and the House of Representatives. From 91,972,000 in 1911, we have grown to 182 million in 1960-double our size. Incidentally, the average congressional district has grown from 200,000 in 1910 to 412,000 in 1960.

The House has not only this precedent but we have a precedent of recent significance. The increase in the Rules Committee membership from 12 to 15, is an addition of 20 percent. I seek to increase the House by 34, which is only approximately 7.2 percent, notwithstanding the fact that the population of the United States has more than doubled. My bill would help 14 of the 16 losing States to maintain their representation. Only two States would not be helpedIowa and West Virginia. According to the statisticians in the Census Bureau

and the so-called equal proportions formula, it would take a House increase to 488 to restore Iowa's loss and an increase to 528 Members to solve West Virginia's loss.

I had hoped that my bill would aid all 16 States losing Members but "the chart" of the Census Bureau prevents it.

Notwithstanding the fact, gentlemen, that no legislation introduced will help little West Virginia, all but one of their delegations in the House have signed the so-called Chelf petition. For this sympathetic understanding of our problem, we, who stem from the remaining 15 States involved, are deeply grateful and shall remain everlastingly thankful to these loyal friends and gentle neighbors. In addition to helping those 14 States that lose seats, my bill would enable those States that have greatly gained in population to acquire seats in addition to those already allocated to them by the 1960 census. Fortunately for them, my legislation would help to reduce their heavy workload per Member. The States that would be entitled to "bonus seats," which are over and above those already allocated, are Texas, two; Oregon, one; Ohio, one; New Mexico, one; New Jersey, one; Michigan, one; Louisiana, one; New York, one; Colorado, one; Connecticut, one; Florida, one; Illinois, one; Indiana, one; and California, three "bonus seats" in addition to the regular eight Members already allocated to it. H.R. 3725 would not only give "bonus seats" to those already gaining but it would also give additional representation to several States that ordinarily would not be affected, up or down, by the 1960 census. In addition to this, my legislation would materially assist 14 of the 16 States that lose seats. As an example, it would help 28 States and harm none.

As it has been stated, prior to 1911, it was the custom to automatically raise the number of the House every 10 years. Inasmuch as no increase has been voted since 1911, we, therefore, have an additional 91 million pople in the United States that literally have no representation because if it took 435 Members to adequately represent 91 million, I contend that the additional 91 million in the United States are entitled to at least the 34 seats that I seek. Incidentally, the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska have been admitted to the Union since 1911 and, therefore, these four States have drawn from the established allotment of 435 congressional seats.

Opponents of this and similar bills say that it will make the House "unwieldy." They argue that we are selfish in our motives because they contend that our legislation seeks to keep politicians in their jobs and that the cost to the taxplayers would be terrific. These objections are erroneous. For instance, I have been a Member of the House for 161⁄2 years and in all that time, I have never yet heard all 435 Members answer any one rollcall. Deaths, illnesses, important committee meetings, and vacancies prevent 100 percent attendance. An accurate and systematic check of the yea and nay votes over the past 15 years shows an average attendance of less than 370 Members per rollcall. This means that an average of 65 Members never vote, no matter how important any business may be. On this basis, if we increase the House to 469, an average attendance would be approximately 400. What is so “unwieldy" about this number?

If the House is too large and too unwieldly as our opponents claim it to be, why is it that we 435 Members of the House are always through with our work (difficult as it may be) at the end of any given session and often have to wait on the other body to finish their work? A few years ago, under the Eisenhower administration, we created 40 new Federal judgeships. Several weeks ago, at this session, we created an additional 73 judgeships-why? Obviously, this action was necessary in the interest of better government because it afforded better service to the people of the Nation. Due to the very rapid growth of the country, our courts had become clogged with litigation and the only way to relieve the dockets was to create more judges. Why not take action to relieve the representatives of the people so that they may be in a better position to more adequately serve their constituents?

Insofar as the argument of selfishness is concerned, let me say that this legislation is, to the contrary, most unselfish because it really prevents a Member from growing too powerful and too important by the reduction of the size of a given State's delegation. In other words. I am a more powerful Member of Congress if I am one of four than if I am one of a delegation of eight.

The argument of terrific cost falls "flat on its face" for the very simple reason that the 34 newly created seats, including Members' salaries, office staffs, allowances, and everything would cost the 182 million people in the United States today an average of three-fourths of 1 cent per person, per year. This is less than the cost of the former penny post card.