ever before, yet the opportunities for discussion with one's constituents and defining one's ideas about these problems, and hearing theirs, are becoming more limited.

I respectfully submit that favorable consideration of an increase in the size of the House of Representatives to 469 Members is urgent.

(Statement of Mr. Sikes follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to support the proposal of our colleague Congressman Chelf to increase the membership of the House of Representatives. I am assured that other Members have covered the historical aspect of this matter and have put the problem in its proper perspective-giving the numerical data surrounding the question of the membership of the House of Representatives. I shall not burden the record by repeating these facts and figures. Mr. Chairman, if the total membership of the House remains at 435, the average congressional district will rise in size from 345,000 to 413,000. This, of course, is aside from the constitutional guarantee of at least one Representative to a State regardless of population.

While gains and losses are of 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 has increased by 18 percent. This raises a very important question: How many people can a Representative adequately represent? This bill, Mr. Chairman, would increase the membership of the House to 469 Members.

Several arguments are offered against increasing the membership of the House. Among these is that there is a lack of physical accommodations. Well, we are crowded but a new office building could be ready for occupancy in part by the time the next Congress convenes. There is ample space on the floor of the House itself. Of course, the expense of operating the House will be increased by adding new Members and appropriate staff personnel but this in itself will enable the Congress to serve more adequately a growing Nation. I have heard the argument raised that a House of such proportions would be unwieldy. I do not consider this a valid argument. The increase is less than 10 percent. We have an experienced leadership and under the rules of the House no one Member is in a position to tie up proceedings of the House for indefinite periods of time. If needs be, the rules can be tightened.

In brief, I find the following reasons compelling ones for increasing the membership of the House: (1) Over the past 20 to 30 years our workload has increased manifold. During this time the Federal Government has taken on many responsibilities and functions formerly reserved to the States and cities or not performed at all. Vast new Federal programs plus increased attention to foreign affairs and national defense have made the workload of former years seem puny by comparison. (2) Another aspect of contemporary legislative life resolves around the large number of people who visit Washington as visitors or to do business with the Federal Government. Many of these people have legitimate interests but they do consume many hours of a Member's time during a session of Congress. Visiting constituents like to see their Congressman and should be encouraged to do so but all of us know that it is a time consuming proposition-yet one we would never dream of dispensing with. (3) The increase in the number and complexity of the problems and subjects that come before congressional committees has materially added to the demands on the membership. (4) And finally, the slight decrease in workload with the parallel slight decrease in the number of constituents a Congressman would serve, will give each Member opportunity to better serve those whom he represents.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our form of government is the best yet devised wherein the innate best qualities of the individual can be given full and free expression. Representative government gives substance and meaning to Western civilization and to our basic principles of government that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We are on solid ground when we propose to increase the membership of this body in order to bring a growing Nation closer to its Representatives. James Madison reported in his Journal of the Federal Convention that when it was proposed the constitutional requirement of one Representative for every

40,000 be amended to 1 for every 30,000, George Washington spoke out for the proposed amendment and urged its adoption. He asserted that it would give him satisfaction to see the smaller representation be adopted in order to further secure the rights and interests of the people. On this item alone did Washington express his direct concern.

I urge favorable action on this bill.

Mr. WILLIS. They will be, but I want to cover those who are here. Mr. FENTON. I would like permission to file a statement.

Mr. WILLIS. Very well.

(Statement of Mr. Fenton follows:)

Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 24, 1961.

Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on Reapportionment,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR ED: I had the privilege and opportunity of being present this morning when your subcommittee opened hearings on various bills introduced to increase the membership of the House, at which time I requested and was granted permission to file a statement.

First of all I would like to point out that we were all greatly impressed by the excellent presentations made before your committee by Congressmen Walter and Chelf, for it has been the wide references to their bills that has attracted the most attention from Members of Congress.

While I am from the great Keystone State of Pennsylvania where congressional redistricting still remains to be acted upon by the State legislature, there are of course other States in the same predicament.

It is only natural that Members of Congress are so intensely interested in this matter because first of all they are naturally interested in protecting the rights of their own individual constituency, and particularly to avoid the gerrymandering which too often takes place when the subject of congressional reapportionment becomes a political football.

After listening to the testimony presented I am more convinced than ever that if the House of Representatives fails to take legislative action we will be remiss in our duties to the taxpayers and public, not only where redistricting is not enacted into law in the particular States affected, but in our service to the Nation as a whole.

Of course we are all aware that in States that are not reapportioned the candidates for Congress would have to run at large. This would bring about chaos in many States for unquestionably Members in some States would be elected from an area for which they were not qualified to act. In this respect we can take even some of our own districts that are adjoining. While they are adjoining, in many instances the county next door has entirely different civil and social problems that are quite distinct from its neighboring counties. Hence the united opposition to gerrymandering which does more harm to the taxpayers than it actually does to the so-called officeseeker.

Despite the fact that international controversy and tension are occupying the headlines of the metropolitan press today, all of us know who are reading the daily newspapers that those headlines also carry distressing attention to the fact that in many instances some of our great States have failed as yet to redistrict as is compulsory under the law.

I do not want to go into any further detail as to the merits of any particular bill but I would say to you, Mr. Chairman and the members of your committee, as I have repeatedly done for many months past that failure of the Congress to act in this matter will bring about an inequitable and unjustified situation the danger of which might be felt for many years and generations to come. Therefore Mr. Chairman, I would urge upon you to act immediately. This is a matter that has been more than justified by the evidence presented on the record today. It is imperative that immediate action is necessary so that Congress is given the opportunity to do its duty before it adjourns this session.

Very sincerely yours,

IVOR D. FENTON.

Mr. STRATTON. I had hoped to be able to testify but the hour is late. Perhaps I might get permission to file a statement.

(Congressman Stratton testified, see p. 101.)

Mr. MILNE. I shall file a statement for Mr. Martin of Massachusetts. (The statement of Congressman Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. MARTIN, Jr.

I desire to be recorded in favor of an increase in the size of the House. Our work in the past 25 years has increased substantially, and the population which each Representative must serve is now about 400,000. The Nation's population becomes larger each year.

Inasmuch as we have sufficient room in the House Chamber for an increase, and the office building under construction will provide accommodations for an increase, there is no logical reason why it should not be done.

If we fail to take into consideration the addition of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood, we are in effect creating a reduction in the size of the House. Furthermore, may I point out when new States have been admitted in the past, arrangements have been made so the other States would not be penalized. With the increase in the activties of the Federal Government, resulting in an ever-growing impact upon the lives of our people, the work of the Congressman increases as he serves the needs of a growing number of individuals. There is a real danger that if the number of people we are required to represent becomes too large, our services to individuals must of necessity be diluted and our constituents will suffer accordingly.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I request permission to file my statement for the record.

(Congresswoman Granahan's statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSWOMAN Kathryn E. GRANAHAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA

I have come to the hearing this morning to demonstrate my strong interest as a member of the Pennsylvania delegation in the proposals to increase the permanent membership of the House of Representatives as recommended in the various bills now before you. We in Pennsylvania are, of course, vitally concerned because, under present law, we will lose three of our present seats in the House in the forthcoming 88th Congress.

At present, the membership consists of 437 seats, including the two added for this present Congress—that is, one each for Hawaii and Alaska. But beginning in 1963, when the 88th Congress convenes, the permanent membership is to revert to 435 seats, which was the number prior to admission of the 49th and 50th States. As a result, we will have changes in the delegations of the various States, not only due to population shifts, but also due to the absorption by all of the States of the three seats set aside for the two new States.

I, therefore, strongly recommend that we enlarge the permanent membership to reflect at least the assignment of three seats to the two new States. When we admitted Alaska and Hawaii as the 49th and 50th States, respectively, we were acting to enlarge the representation of all of America's citizens in the Congressby giving residents of Alaska and Hawaii the opportunity to have voting members of Congress to represent them in the same way as citizens of other States are represented.

But as it is working out, that additional representation for citizens of Alaska and Hawaii is to be at the expense of the representation now accorded citizens of the other 48 States. We are not that pressed for space or accommodations in the Congress that we cannot maintain and enlarge slightly the existing membership of 437. Nor is the House membership unwieldly or in danger of becoming so by continuing with 437 or going up to 438 or even a few more seats.

Naturally, we in Pennsylvania have a strong stake in this. As you all know, we have been having tremendous difficulty at the State level in reapportioning 30 districts into 27 and unless we can finally solve that problem in the very near future, we face the prospect of an at-large election which I don't think either party would want or welcome.

If we could maintain all 30 districts, it would, of course, be an easy solution. Recognizing that any reasonable modification of the 435 limitation will probably be of some help to us in this problem, I join my colleagues in asking for the sup

port of this subcommittee for a reasonable solution to this serious problem affecting not only Pennsylvania but other States as well.

I am sure, in all fairness, the States which are expanding their representation substantially as a result of population changes, and the new States of Alaska and Hawaii will recognize the justification of a change in the law which would provide a reasonable increase in House membership reflecting, at the very least, the seats being set aside for the two new States.

Thank you.

Mr. BATES. I would like to file a statement, Mr. Chairman. (Congressman Bates' statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. BATES

Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today urging that your committee make recommendations which would follow the precedents of the Congress since the founding of the Constitution.

Only your wisdom and the careful presentation of evidence can determine exactly how many seats should be added. Nevertheless, the record is quite clear from a study which I have made of this matter that at least four seats should be added to the present permanent membership which would take into consideration the addition of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union. The fourth seat would be added to preserve an odd number of members.

From the apportionment under the Constitution until the Fourteenth Census (1920), with the sole exception of the Sixth Census (1843), each enumeration was followed by an increase in the House membership. Laurence F. Schmedkebier in his book, "Congressional Apportionment" (Brookings Institute) states on page 120 "Generally, each previous apportionment (to 1920) had provided for an increase in the size of the House so that no State would lose a Member. In line with precedent the House Committee on the Census in 1921 reported a bill."

Early acts did not provide for the number of seats, as such, but established the number of constituents for each Member. From 1800 to 1830, there was prescribed a ratio of 1 Member for every 33,000 persons. In 1832, the ratio was fixed at 47,300, and in 1842 at 76,680. Hence, if Alaska and Hawaii had been brought into the Union during this period they would automatically increase the membership without disturbing seats in any other State.

In 1850, the Vinton Act was passed which fixed the membership at 233. This freezing of the membership did not last, as both membership and apportionment were changed in the next apportionment in 1862.

The admission of new States resulted in an increase in membership either permanently or until the next enumeration. However, as long as new States were brought into the Union the membership was enlarged and in certain acts this was specifically provided (1872, 1882, 1891, 1901, 1912). The last increase was subsequent to the Thirteenth Census in 1910. The Apportionment Act of 1911 fixed the size of the House at 433 with the provision that if either Arizona or New Mexico became a State before the next apportionment, it should have 1 Representative. Both became States in 1912, and the membership was thus increased to 435, which has continued to the present time.

As an indication of the increases after enumerations during the period new States were being admitted the following table is submitted (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1956, table 406, p. 341):

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I urge that you favorably report out a bill which would follow these precedents which have been clearly established.

Mr. CURTIN. I would like to file a statement, Mr. Chairman. (Congressman Curtin's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLARD S. CURTIN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity of expressing to you and the other members of this distinguished subcommittee my views in reference to the proposed legislation to increase the membership of the House.

I appear in support of the bill introduced by Congressman Chelf of Kentucky, H.R. 3725.

Congressman Chelf has made such a fine and comprehensive presentation of the problem that anything I could say would be largely repetitious of the arguments he has presented to you. Let me say that I heartily concur in the state ments that he made.

It would certainly not be unreasonable for this committee at this time to report favorably on this legislation, which would substantially increase the membership of the House. We must realize that no change has been made in the membership for 50 years, and, in that time, the population expansion in the United States has been tremendous. I believe the increase is approximately 90 million people. It would, thus, appear that if a membership of 435 was needed to properly represent our national population of 50 years ago, an increase in the membership of some 34 Members at this time, to represent an additional 90 million people, would not be out of order or unfair. For this reason, I support H.R. 3725.

Mr. CURTIS of Massachusetts. Would there be time for me to address the Chair for 1 minute?

Mr. WILLIS. We are now in the process of having statements filed only, Mr. Curtis.

Mr. LIBONATI. I move all Members be given the right to file state

ments.

Mr. WILLIS. I see Thomas Lane here. Mr. Lane, would you like to make a statement now? If you would defer to Mr. Cooley, he would like to make a short statement at this time.

Mr. LANE. I don't mind waiting a bit, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Cooley.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HAROLD D. COOLEY, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. COOLEY. I merely want to say in behalf of the North Carolina delegation that we concur in the splendid statement presented by our colleague, Mr. Chelf, of Kentucky. I think he made a very clear, cogent, and a convincing statement. We endorse the statement in toto, and we are supporting the Chelf bill.

I think I speak for all my colleagues, some of whom are necessarily absent. They authorized me to speak for them. We hope you will adopt the Chelf bill as presented.

Mr. WILLIS. Would you care to supplement your statement?

Mr. COOLEY. I think that is sufficient.

I would like permission for any Member of our delegation who decides to do so to have the right to file a statement. Mr. WILLIS. That may be done.