I would like to come to allow the Guam Legislature to determine the number of districts, the method of election, so long as it is in keeping with the law and the final bill.

The requirement of residency, whether it is 90 days or less or more, and other points-very clearly, these two drafts are not too clear for us to start using them. Those points that were brought up today were not clear to me either, whether they were referring to just district election or territorialwise.

Today these points have come out, and I am sure that the committee will consider redrafting or some solution to this unclearness.

Again, it is the same theme we have been saying the last few days, yesterday and today, that we feel that we understand this system, that we have been discussing today. And I would like very much for the committee to allow us to use our own discretion. I am sure that it will be done in accordance with not only under the laws of the land, but in accordance with American practice.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Don't you think, Mr. Speaker, that you as a legislator, would find it easier if we spelled out specifically certain things? I am not suggesting that we draw the lines, that we take over the question of the number of days that you have to reside in the district. I know you are familiar with those problems. But that sticky question is coming up about one man in one district voting for six members of the legislature. In other words, he has a piece of 6 members as against another man just voting for one. I know he has the same voice in a sense, but don't you think it would be better to provide specifically in the bill that all the members must be elected by districts?

Those would be very small districts in some of the heavily populated areas. But otherwise, I think you are going to run into difficulty, and perhaps another shade of interpretation on this one man, one rule. Mr. TAITANO. We might resolve this by having 21 districts but that should be left up to us. I think we will take cognizance of what has been discussed today, and other things, and act accordingly.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You don't agree that we should specify that all members of the legislature must be elected by districts. You want to be free?

Mr. TAITANO. Personally, I feel that at large should be out completely. Everything should be under district representation. However, we may decide to divide up the island into just six districts and perhaps or rather-seven districts, three from each district. That is a perfect solution, 3 times 7, 21. We have been studying this, going in and out of villages. I am not in favor of taking over large areas like Tamuning and breaking it up into six districts, because then you will have six different political entities. They are not really that, but in Guam they tend to think of the village as one local government, and then this group will be asking for their own health center and this another health center, and in other words, six different governments within one small area. That would be breaking it up too much. But one of the solutions might be that-seven districts, three from each district.

Mrs. REID. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.

Mrs. REID. It seems, Mr. Taitano, I understood you to say just a few moments ago that the solution would be to have 21 districts, 21 members?

Mr. TAITANO. I believe in district representation, but how many districts we will leave up to the Guam Legislature.

Mrs. REID. You don't feel that it would be helpful to you for us to spell this out in this leglslation on this one particular thing?

Mr. TAITANO. Because it looks to me like a matter for local legislature to handle. Again, it is in keeping with what we are thinking about.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I can see your point, to divide up a particular area into six districts, that you would have that conflict of whose garbage is picked up. The difficulty I think, we have here, is you have not only the functions that we regard as State functions but you also have what we regard as municipal. You have municipal officials?

Mr. TAITANO. Just on the executive side. The legislative is all in the Guam Legislature. No powers of enacting rules and regulations affecting that. We are in the municipal business, territorial, and sometimes more than that.

Mr. O'BRIEN. What is the function of the commissioner, sort of like the supervisor would be?

Mr. TAITANO. He is really a member of the executive team and he comes under the supervision of the chief commissioner, who is appointed by the Governor.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Appointed by the Governor?

Mr. TAITANO. And directives are sent down to him for implementation. He has some judicial authority. He can fine up to $5. He is the policeman, too, for minor things.

Mostly in Guam, and this is a carryover from the old days, if you want to locate in Merizo, you go to the commissioner. If you want Red Cross collection, you go to him, such things. He is like the mayor of the area. But he is more on the executive side.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Housekeeping operations?

Mr. TAITANO. Yes.

Mrs. REID. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.

Mrs. REID. Of course, I think each of us is concerned about this particularly because we know all of the ramifications and problems of districting because we have all gone through it. And to me it all seems relative.

Mr. Craley's statement a while ago, about the number of people in his district, and the chairman's statement about his district, Guam is smaller, granted, but it will be the same problems in a relative way as we have. That is why we are so concerned about this. To me, this is my own personal opinion, it just seems it would be easier for you if we spelled out this one particular thing in the legislation. Mr. CRALEY. Will you yield?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I will yield back my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRALEY. First, I would like to welcome the speaker and the minority leader and all the rest of the delegation here from the Guam Legislature. I am sorry I was not here yesterday when you first appeared. I am delighted to see you here and want to publicly express my appreciation for the many courtesies that were extended to our delegation when we were out there in November and previously.

The point, and I come back to the Congresswoman from Illinois, I would like to see the Guam Legislature have the opportunity to present to us a proposal without presenting too many guidelines at this point, because I think that they sense somewhat the feeling of our group here, and I think that they can come up with their own proposal and before we write it for them and ask them to accept it, I would like to see them write it and give it to us for consideration. I think we may come up with the same ultimate conclusion and my only feeling is that it would be better coming from them to us for ratification than to have us give it to them and say "this is it." This is just an opinion of mine, but I think that they sense what the courts have decreed and I think that they also are interested in some form of district representation.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRALEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I gather the impression that the people from Guam who have testified today are pretty much agreed to what we provide in this legislation. Their concern is that we might, as a result of our discussions here, go beyond that and lay down additional so-called guidelines, and if we wait for them to come up with a plan, aren't we in a sense taking over the legislative responsibility? What they are proposing, as I understand it, we stand pretty much what we have here with a modification of a word or two, and them leave the rest of it to them, which I think is the only way we can do it. I don't want to be repetitious, but we have discovered that we are not very good at reapportioning, and apparently neither are the States.

Mr. TAITANO. Sir, at this moment, may I allow Congressman Bordallo to state his points?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Congressman?

Mr. R. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be safe to say this, that even though the delegation came up here with a very clear mandate of the desires of the people regarding the governorship, I daresay that on this question of district representation, although in general principle we agree, that perhaps there is the need to study this matter and perhaps provide the vehicle for a more just representation. I would have to confine my remarks to, say, that I don't quite state that we do have the clear mandate of the people regarding the question. It has never been actually put to them, say, in a referendum whether or not, because of background, I will now render to you, on just how has the at-large system worked on Guam. To my own personal views, I feel that the at large has worked well on Guam, although it is a debatable point. This issue, you know, is not only confined to the United States regarding partisanship and the question of allowing representation apportionment, it also exists on Guam and we all know that this is usually a politically packed question. It is packed with a lot of political partisanship.

Well, the first legislature was elected with, I believe, two or three independents, and the rest of them were all of one party.

The second legislature again had some independent representation. The third, the same way, it had 3 against 18 of one party.

The fourth was where the big cleavage took place. It was actually split up of the major party there, which was then known as the Popular Party, broke in two, and the other one formed its own party and we called it the Territorial Party.

So that was the big time, the one time in the history of our civil government that there was such an emotional, you might say, emotional display on the part of the people on given issues at the time. So the Popular Party since 1956 up until 1962 managed to capture 100 percent of all seats in the legislature, so the Legislature of Guam for 8 consecutive years became a one-party legislature. But the record will show that in the course of these years, every year, the socalled minority, although a major party, major opponent of the majority party then, was continually gaining strength and then, finally in 1964, it won majority seats to the extent of 13 against 8. So what I am trying to impart to the committee is that we ourselves, I don't think, can really safely say we are clear on what would be the best method on Guam, because Guam has its own unique conditions.

No. 1, as you say, Mr. Chairman, it is very compact, so any member of the legislature is really almost answerable to every citizen in the territory because you are as accessible almost as a next-door neighbor, because they can reach you by telephone. It is not expensive for one person to travel from one end of the island to another, if matters are serious enough that that person has to obtain an audience with a member of the legislature.

So when you look into the record of what happened, this matter that came up about large districts having unfair advantage over scattered districts, especially in rural areas, well, take Tamuning, in the present legislature it has roughly six to seven residents of that district in the Guam Legislature. Yet, check the record, and the split between the two parties was roughly 40 to 60-60 percent to the majority from Tamuning, so they did not actually get their strength from that large district, but they got most of their strength from districts where they do not even have a representative.

For example, in Agana Heights, they are very strong, almost 70 percent of the voters in that district belong to the majority party, and there is not one single representative from that district.

The same goes in the district of Umatac. They are strong in that district and they don't have a single representative from that district. So on Guam my own experience is, because of the compactness, the excellent communication, transportation dialog of every citizen of the territory, you almost have to carry a national image to stand a chance to be elected in the legislature, but if you do it is not precluding you from responsibility to look after the interests of every single community. Otherwise, you would not stand a chance.

So there is no district that you could take for granted. In the meantime, what I fear is this districting thing can create factionalism, whereby a person only needs to vote from his own district, sits in the legislature, perhaps even has already, would almost be forced to shed his coat of statesmanship, and really surrender to strictly a political expediency, because all he cares to have to please is his own district members and as long as he can get the votes in his district, he may not necessarily care what happens in the other districts. So you may create factionalism.

So I think generally what Mr. Speaker says, since there is this unique condition there, it seems to me the only intelligent way would be to provide it on an and/or basis.

In other words, the legislature may continue with the at-large, if it so desires, or have districting.

Mr. ASPINALL. With this understanding that they can't change it. except every 10 years.

Mr. R. BORDALLO. Perhaps a time limitation.

Mr. ASPINALL. Because either one conforms to the theory or philosophy of one man and one vote.

But, you must say, if you are given the authority, you must have some stability to it. The only way you can have stability is to make

a term.

Mr. R. BORDALLO. That is a very excellent idea, Mr. Congressman. Mr. O'BRIEN. Would it be your idea-I understand it now, you are in agreement that you should not continue to be mandated to elect at large, nor should you be directed to elect in districts.

What you would do would be to change this bill, lines 9 and 10, which read now, "The legislature shall be composed of not to exceed 21 members elected from legislative districts," to read as follows: "The legislature shall be composed of not to exceed 21 members elected at large or from legislative districts."

Mr. R. BORDALLO. That's the way

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Speaker, what would be your reaction to that? Mr. TAITANO. Exactly.

Mr. O'BRIEN. What about the rest of the language in the bill? Mr. ASPINALL. They ought to agree first on the term?

Mr. O'BRIEN. What about whatever course is taken by the legislature, that it shall be, first, based upon the last census, and any change shall not occur until after the next census and other changes after subsequent census?

Mr. TAITANO. That should be provided in the bill.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Then the rest of the bill as I read it would apply even with the and/or, I believe Mrs. Van Cleve, wouldn't it, because it would all be contingent on what they did, on page 2, would follow regardless?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. In other words, those are provisions that would apply only if you decided to go to the district?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That's right, Mr. Chairman. The first proviso, as I see it, would need to remain in any event. It would have no application in fact, if the election remained at large. It would be required if there were districting. It would constitute the basic protection that I think all agree is necessary.

The second proviso provides along the lines that we discussed earlier to make its purpose clearer. It would be necessary in the face of the either/or arrangement, but would only in fact apply to one of them.

The last sentence would become unnecessary since that was put in only as a transitory provision pending districting.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Well, do we understand then that you are in agreement on that approach?

Mr. TAITANO. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRALEY. Would the chairman yield for a moment?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Craley.

Mr. CRALEY. May I get some further elaboration on this? If the Guamanian Legislature decided to go to districts, is it your intent then that residents within a district would vote for only the candidate from their district?

61-024-6613