year, necessarily, is devoted in most of the States and in most of the districts to the job of being reelected. The purpose of the founding fathers in having the House selected every 2 years was to bring in a fresh current of public opinion, and that is sought to be preserved by my amendment, by providing that one-half of the House would be elected each 2 years. I found in discussing with the legislative counsel some mechanical problems in connection with reapportionment. I am not going to take the time of the committee at this time to go into those matters. But I will say to the committee that we worked out a device whereby I think any question on that point is overcome. I would be glad to go into detail with you if you want to take the time for that some other time. The CHAIRMAN. Do you cover it in your statement? Senator CASE. I do, somewhat, and in the bill itself. If anyone figures out the bill and applies it, he will see how it works out. The CHAIRMAN. I tell you what you might do, since we do not have time this morning. If you will prepare a statement supplementing your remarks about that, it may be published as part of your remarks, if you desire. Senator CASE. I appreciate that suggestion. STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANCIS CASE ON MECHANICS OF ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 4-YEAR TERMS -, Under section 2, article provision is made in the proposed amendment to the Constitution providing for 4-year terms for the Members of the House of Representatives. In order to get a sequence established so that one-half of the membership of the House of Representatives will be elected to the full 4-year term at alternate elections the following procedure is suggested: Immediately after the convening of the House of Representatives following an election after the adoption of the constitutional amendment, the Members of the House of Representatives shall be divided into two groups. As nearly as is possible the membership shall be divided into class 1 composed of 218 Members and class 2 composed of the remaining 217 members. In the case if a State with an even-numbered membership in the House of Representatives one-half shall be placed in class 1 and one-half in class 2. In the case of a State with an odd-numbered membership the nearest even-numbered membership shall be divided by two with one-half going into class 1 and one-half placed in class 2, the remaining odd number shall be placed in class 1 or 2, so that the final classification shall be as nearly as is possible 218 in class 1 and 217 in class 2. After the total membership of the House of Representatives has been so grouped into classes it shall then be determined by lot as to which group shall hold office for 2 years and which group automatically gets the 4-year term. In subsequent elections the Members whose term expires shall be elected for the full 4-year term. Any vacancies due to death or resignation, or any other reason, which is filled by an election, either special or general, shall be only for the length of the term remaining in that particular district where the vacancy may exist. After a reapportionment following a decennial census the classification into two groups shall follow along the same pattern as outlined above, but only in those States where membership may be changed because of gaining or losing in the reapportionment. Previous apportionment changes show that from one-fourth to one-third of the States will be affected after each decennial census in the number of Members in the House of Representatives. The basis for determining the classification by lot is that it was the procedure that was followed when the original terms of the Members of the United States Senate was established. The elected membership was grouped into three classes. As to which group would serve 2 years, 4 years, and the full 6 years, was determined by lot. Senator CASE. I first thought the simple way to do this was to divide all the districts into odd- and even-numbered districts, and have the odd ones elect every 2 years, and the even ones the next 2 years; but I found that we would run into trouble with reapportionment. So I thought that we would have to do the same thing that was done originally with the Senate; that is, to establish classes of Senators; as the Senator knows, there is a definite class of Senators. After each reapportionment for the States affected you would have to do that again. It is a workable device, I am sure. It would give the Member who is elected to the House, who wants to devote himself to at least 3 years of consecutive work directly on legislation, without thinking about the mechanics of being reelected, an opportunity to do it with practically year-round sessions that we now have, and it would mean better legislation, in my judgment. It would also do something on the problem mentioned by Mr. McCarthy, and that is, for the Member of the House who has children in school, it would give him a chance to establish his child in school without having his child switched back and forth, as House Members find their children must be. They start them in school here, and then jump back to the district in the election year, or vice versa. I know in my own case our daughter switched schools six times in her first 6 years of school. She managed to surmount this alternation, and the other children do, but it is hardly fair to them to do that. The 4-year term would give them stability of schooling, or some continuity in school contact which enters into whether Members of the Congress continue in Congress. It also enters into the decisions of many men as to whether or not they will enter Congress if they are aware of that situation. I think it is in the direction of good government. By having onehalf of the House elected each 2 years, and one-third of the Senate, plus the vacancies, we would still continue, for the purpose of the founding fathers, in having the popular opinions and the current sentiment of people reflected in legislation. I thank the chairman very much. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Senator MUNDT. No; I think not. I think the suggestion is very interesting, and it is very much worth while. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith? Senator SMITH. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Case. We will not be able to hear another witness this morning. There are two others, in fact. Representative Davis, of Wisconsin, has sent a prepared statement on the subject that he wished to discuss. His statement may be printed in the record at this point. (The prepared statement submitted by Representative Davis, of Wisconsin, follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN R. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to present my views on an electric voting machine for the Houses of Congress, and regret that because the House Appropriations Committee also is meeting at this hour, I cannot appear personally before your committee. As a Member of Congress, I represent the capital district of Wisconsin. Prior to the last war, I also served in the Wisconsin State Legislature. I am familiar, therefore, with the operation of an electric voting machine in a legislative body, since Wisconsin has used such devices since 1916. The contrast between the voting procedure in Congress, and the rapid, efficient, error-proof procedure used in the Wisconsin legislature led me to introduce H. R. 37 in the Eighty-first Congress and H. R. 171 in the Eighty-second Congress to provide for a mechanical and visual recording and automatic counting device for voting. Although Wisconsin was the first to install a voting machine in its legislative chamber, similar devices have been installed in many States and in some European legislative halls. The United States Congress considered such an installation in 1916, estimating it would then save 55 days of legislators' time, but finally decided to wait and see how the new device worked in Wisconsin. We are still waiting, although in the meantime Wisconsin has worn out one voting device and installed a newer model. My personal feeling is that those we represent in Congress are entitled to know how we vote on each issue, for they are directly affected by our votes. But under the present roll-call system, there simply is not time. Through a voting device, a vote can be taken in seconds, and is permanently and correctly recorded. Even those in the galleries at the Wisconsin Legislature are able to follow the voting despite any confusion on the floor, for the votes are visually recorded as well as being registered on permanent records. Aside from the fact that use of machine voting has speeded up the taking of votes in our State legislature, it has provided a greater proportion of legislative time for debate and consideration of legislation, yet shortened the total time of the session. I am satisfied similar benefits would follow installation of a voting device in Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further that you want to ask anyone here right now? Senator SMITH. No. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, June 19, 1951.) ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF CONGRESS TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1951 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan (chairman), Hoey, and Mundt. Also present: Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk, and George B. Galloway, consultant. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Our first witness this morning is Representative Keating, of New York. Congressman, come forward, please. STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, you have a prepared statement? Mr. KEATING. I do. The CHAIRMAN. It may be printed in full in the record and you may comment on the important features, if you desire, or you may read it; you may proceed in your own way. Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I feel that this committee is doing a very constructive job in approaching the problem of reorganization, which is extremely important. The particular subject on which Í wanted to take just a few minutes is not one that is always popular with members of the legislative branch. It has to do with the socalled item veto, that is, giving the President authority to veto individual items in an appropriation bill. There is frequently a reluctance on the part of the members of the legislative branch to delegate any greater authority to the Executive. But I do feel that in our efforts to achieve economy, we should grant to the Chief Executive this additional tool. At the beginning of this Congress I reintroduced two bills, House Joint Resolution 24 and H. R. 492, designed to promote economy and assist in achieving a sounder fiscal policy. I hope that those bills also may be printed in the record. The CHAIRMAN. They will be printed in the record. (H. J. Res. 24 and H. R. 492 are as follows:) [H. J. Res. 24, 82d Cong., 1st sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to disapproval of items in general appropriation bills Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring there |