With our population explosion, if we keep adding tens of thousands of constituents to an individual Member of Congress, the time will come when he will be so overwhelmed and frustrated by duties in the office that he will have little time in which to legislate and practically no time in which to visit and mingle with his people. 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 the Constitution. As an example, it was never intended that the House of Representatives be separated from the people. I am told that the only occasion on which George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, entered into the discussion of the 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 that when it was proposed that the constitutional requirement of one Representative for every 40,000 be amended to one Congressman for every 30,000 persons, 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. As momentous and weighty as all the other provisions of the Constitution are, and were, when they were being considered in convention, only on this item, did Washington express his direct concern. We must acknowledge the significance of this fact. 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. 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 Congressman-not 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. 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. 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 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 to adequately represent 91 million in 1911, don't you think 182 million, or 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. Mr. WILLIS. Do you have an analysis of changes which would come about as the result of the enactment of your bill to increase the membership from the present number to 469, an additional 34. You did not fully analyze it. Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, I think I can give that to you. Mr. WILLIS. Since we went into what would happen under the Walter bill, I think we should have an equally clear analysis of the changes proposed. Mr. CHELF. That is right. As I stated a while ago Mr. WILLIS. The staff prepared an exact statement of what would happen. Mr. CHELF. I see. Mr. WILLIS. We shall put it in the record at this point. Under your bill, for example, Alabama would save one seat it would otherwise lose. Mr. CHELF. That is right. I can give that to you from memory if you would like. Mr. WILLIS. Illinois would save one out of one and gain an additional one. Kansas would save one, Kentucky the same thing, and so on down the line. Mr. CHELF. That is right. Pennsylvania has three. It would save one of two for Massachusetts. Mr. WILLIS. It would recapture some lost under the 1960 census. States would retain what they have and then gain more. Mr. CHELF. That is true. Mr. WILLIS. For example, Louisiana, under your proposal- Mr. WILLIS. I am not advocating or not advocating it but I am analyzing the situation. I see that California would Mr. CHELF. Gain three over and above the eight she now gets. Mr. WILLIS. California, under the 1960 census, would gain eight and under the bill would gain three more? Mr. CHELF. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLIS. I want that put in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) BILLS ENLARGING THE HOUSE TO 469-ADDS 34 NEW SEATS Purpose: Will take care of 17 of the 21 seats scheduled for elimination due to 1960 census. Bills save completely 10 single seats scheduled to be eliminated from as many States; bills save 3 seats out of 3 for Pennsylvania, 2 out of 2 for New York, and one each for Arkansas (-2) and Massachusetts (-2), and no help for Iowa (-1) and West Virginia (-1). Create 17 new seats. STATES BENEFITING Alabama: Saves 1, out of 1 scheduled for loss. Illinois: Saves 1, out of 1 and adds 1 more (2 seats). Kentucky: Saves 1, out of 1 scheduled for loss. Maine: Saves 1, out of 1 scheduled for loss. Pennsylvania: Saves 3 out of 3 scheduled for loss. Iowa (-1). STATES NOT BENEFITING-SCHEDULED TO LOSE SEATS West Virginia (-1). Massachusetts and Arkansas, while partially benefited, will nonetheless lose one seat each. Mr. WILLIS. Furthermore, in connection with your testimony, which supports your position, I have here a statement showing how many times the composition of the House has been changed in the past. From 1789 to 1911 the composition of the House has been changed 13 times. (See table, p. 138.) Mr. CHELF. All except one year, as I recall it. Mr. WILLIS. The last change was in 1911 and the proposed change which would occur this year, so that would be one additional change in 50 years. Also as a matter of history, while you were testifying I was looking over the largest increases made in the 13 times in our history, which I shall also put in the record. Taking the three largest changes which took place in the past, I notice in 1863 the membership was 243. The population per Member was 127,000. The next change took place in 1873. It was enlarged to 293, an additional 50 Members having been added. The gain in population per Member since 1873 was 131,000. In other words, whereas in 1863 a Member represented 127,000 in 1873 a Member represented 131,000, a difference of 4,000, yet the membership was increased by 50 Members at that time. In 1901 the membership was 391, with an average representation of 194,000. It was enlarged in 1911 from 391 to 435, creating 44 additional seats. The average population in 1911 was 211,000 per Member compared with 194,000 in 1901, or an increase of 17,000. Setting the figures side by side, as I followed you, the last increase was in 1911. The composition then, as now, was 435. The average number of constituents at that time was 211,000. Under your proposal in 1961 to hike the number up to 469, an additional 34 seats would be brought about by a doubling of the population, in other words, from 200-plus thousand average per Member in 1911 to 412,000. Is that correct? Mr. CHELF. That is true, double. Mr. WILLIS. This list will be made a part of the record. (The information referred to is set out on p. 138.) Mr. WILLIS. You have made a fine presentation. Mr. BROOKS. I think it would be fair at this point to commend our colleague, Mr. Chelf, on the fine effort he made to bring these facts to the attention of the House and this committee. It was a rough ride and I am glad we could accommodate him and listen to his fine presentation. Mr. Tuck. I think we ought to commend the gentleman from Kentucky on the wonderful effort he has made along these lines. I especially wish to commend him for bringing so many facts before the committee which I think have been very helpful. Mr. CHELF. Thank you, Governor. There is nothing in this world that I appreciate any more than your friendship. Mr. LIBONATI. I wish to thank you for your untiring efforts and for this legislation which has been developed to the point where argument is unassailable. I was expecting that the gentleman would develop the criticism of the present formula which is used for the determination of the number of seats to each State which is not dependent upon population at all but on symbols which are carried out under a formula Mr. CHELF. Equal proportion, yes. Mr. LIBONATI. Illinois gains 1,300,000 population and loses a seat. Mr. LIBONATI. Pennsylvania gains population and loses a seat. Mr. LIBONATI. So it is not just plain arithmetic but rather an algebraic formula which seems to give precedence to States in the lower sections as against the higher sections. Certainly there should be some discussion regarding this method of determination for seats. It will not come out as easily as the table presented by the chairman relative to the number of persons being represented by their Congressmen in each State. In view of those circumstances, let us say this: There is no reason why a State, which is identified with the average figure of 412,000, having gained almost three times that population, should have three more Congressmen if there were not a deadline on the number of Congressmen to be seated in the Congress of the United States. Certainly those 1,300,000 in Illinois are unrepresented, along with another 412,000, because of the loss of this seat. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts and his cooperation. Mr. CHELF. I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. WILLIS. The record should show that the formula back about 1911 was called the formula of major fractions. Mr. CHELF. That is right. Mr. WILLIS. That was changed about 1929 to the formula called equal proportion. In actual fact we wrestled with this problem in 1950 and we had very lengthy and scientific hearings on the formula. Frankly, I do not recall anyone criticizing the present formula. In other words, every bill introduced here is anchored to the present formula. Mr. CHELF. It is what? Mr. WILLIS. The formula of equal proportions. In other words, no bill before us proposes to change this formula. I have heard no criticism of it. All of these bills are anchored to, they abide by, and they follow this formula devised by Congress in 1929 before we knew what the populations shifts would be. I want to make that clear. Mr. CHELF. I did not attack the formula. I have enough troubles without attacking that. Mr. WILLIS. I wanted to make it clear you are not changing the formula. We are respecting the formula which squares with the Constitution and long-established policy. Mr. LIBONATI. I was not critical of the formula, but the limitation which results in the operation of the formula against certain States which increase in population to such great proportions, such as Illinois, which increased some 15 percent in 10 years. Certainly as to Illinois the formula is not acceptable in its operation, not in its determination and as a scientific method of handling this condition where you have a limitation on the membership. It is not in conformity with population in individual States. Mr. WILLIS. I understand. I think all the States gained in population. Under the formula it seems everyone is satisfied with it. You turn the wheel around and ask who is least represented and who gets what. At this point it would be extremely important to have made part of the record a statement prepared by the Bureau of the Census. (See p. 43.) Mr. LIBONATI. If Illinois had 38,000 more inhabitants, it would not have lost a seat in accordance with the formula. Mr. WILLIS. That is the very reason why, under the Walter proposal, by increasing the number to only four, Illinois would be "taken care of" under that formula. There is no question about that. What I want to make clear is that we are not proposing to go into the question of changing the formula. I want to make part of the record a statement prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, telling us exactly what States would come first, second, third, and so on, if we were to enlarge the membership from the present number to 539. I shall name some at the top. If you enlarge it by this formula the State that is affected first would be Massachusetts, then Missouri, then Pennsylvania, then Illinois, then California. In addition to the eight she will get, she also comes in for a new one. The next one is Texas, Nebraska, Kentucky, Indiana, New York. Minnesota, Michigan, Arkansas, California again coming in for an additional 1 when you reach the point of 449. If it were 449, California would retain the increase of 8 members under the 1960 census and would capture 2 more. |