Guam--elective Governor and Legislative Districting

I think that, as some people brought, there was some misinterpretation or some interpretation that was not completely uniform on what the two bills provided.

Mr. O'BRIEN. If the gentleman will yield to me, I think, as the chairman of the full committee stated very well, when he said that what we have before us now really is, if we adopt the amendments, neither the Craley bill nor the O'Brien bill, but a sort of consensus that has developed between the two. I think an explanation of just what each of the two bills would do would be somewhat meaningless because if we respond to the letter to the chairman of the full committee we will, actually have a third bill which is substantially different from these other two.

I do believe that the letter from the Department to the chairman and the amendments proposed follow rather precisely the sentiment expressed at the hearing by the witnesses and by the members of the committee.

Mrs. Van Cleve was here throughout the period of the hearings and took notes of these views of the committee and the members of the committee, and in some instances the specific requests for amendments, and I think that it reflected very accurately what was the consensus of the general feeling. In other words, I do not believe that if we adopt the amendments proposed in this letter, we will offend anyone I know of in Guam. I think it would be acceptable, at least the opinion in Guam as reflected by the words of these people from Guam who testified at the hearings, because they were present when the suggested amendments were made, and those suggestions have been followed very accurately in the letter.

I suppose that is the best thing that we can do, to bring up these proposed amendments, one by one, to the bill and to discuss them here and see if there is any different feeling on the part of the members.

Mr. ASPINALL. In view of that suggestion, these proposed amendments could be considered en bloc, because I think they were prepared with that idea in mind.

Mr. SAYLOR. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to direct a question to Mrs. Van Cleve with regard to the proposed new subsection (c) which provides that the legislature shall not change the manner of electing the legislators more than once every 10 years following the Federal census.

Mrs. Van Cleve, if the legislature passes an act which is declared unconstitutional, then what would be the effect of this provision? Could the legislature then go back under this provision and pass another bill?

You could say that legally they did not pass the one, that the first was unconstitutional; it was not the law, therefore, you would decide to pass a good one. They could say that.

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. I really do not know yet, but I think that your suggestion is most reasonable and that it could arise in a situation like that, and the first would have to be regarded as a void action and thus it would not bar the legislature from an effort to correct the situation.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Unless there is an objection, the proposed amendments will be considered en bloc, the amendments as outlined in the letter from Under Secretary Carver to Chairman Aspinall, dated March 28, 1966. Each member has a copy of those amendments, I assume.

61-024-6614

Does any member offer the amendments?

The gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not have any questions as to paragraphs I and 2, but I do have a question about the amendment of the new section 2 to be added, and I would like to address a question to Mrs. Van Cleve on that subject.

As I say, I am content with the first two paragraphs.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I beg your pardon?

Mr. BINGHAM. I want to address a question to Mrs. Van Cleve with regard to the proposed new section 2, and that is: What is the intended effect of this stipulation that the laws of Guam shall be amended within 180 days after enactment of this bill? I take it, from the last sentence of that section, that it does not run, if nothing happens, that the legislature continues as it is. I just wondered what was the purpose of putting this in?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. It was simply to call attention of Guam conconcerning the question, actually. I would agree with you that the legislature would continue in the same manner that it now is if it does not act affirmatively to change, but this would require the legislature to look at the question.

Mrs. REID. May I direct a question to Mrs. Van Cleve?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.

Mrs. REID. Is it true that the legislature, if it were elected at large, could very well be elected from the heavily populated areas and that you would not have representatives from the small areas?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That is correct. This is one of the hazards that you run into.

Mrs. REID. And this is a question for the people of Guam?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. These amendments would confer upon the legislature the power to decide whether the elections will be held at at large, by districts, or a combination of these two.

Mr. CRALEY. May I ask a question of Mrs. Van Cleve?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes.

Mr. CRALEY. The intent of both of these bills, I think, is to allow the Guam Legislature, if it wants to do so, to redistrict. And also the intent is, as I understand it, and this is where some of the confusion arose originally, if it does give the constitutents in a district the right to separate districts, that the voters can vote for only the candidate within the district or those running at large.

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That is correct. The additional purpose that concerns you in your draft, as I recall it, was that it was to insure that every voter in a given district can vote for the full number of seats to be filled in that district.

Mr. CRALEY. That is right. Thank you.

Mr. O'BRIEN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah. Mr. BURTON of Utah. Under the present system of electing the Guam Legislature, how many are elected at large and how many from the actual districts?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. At present all are elected at large, 21 members at large.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Does any member offer en bloc the proposed amendments to H.R. 13294?

Mr. ASPINALL. I will offer the amendments, and will ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendments at any place and printed in the record.

Mr. O'BRIEN. It has been offered by the gentleman from Colorado. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. ASPINALL. I think, with what the Department has offered to us in the letter signed by the Under Secretary and as near as I can read the hearings, I think that this is about as close to what the committee had in mind and what the people from Guam had suggested-they were on all sides of it, but this gives them the authority that if it does not work out right that we can redo it later. As has been stated, this has been the practice on Guam for a long time, and it has gone along fairly well. The two-party system has really operated out there, because they put the Democrats out and have replaced them with the territorialists in this last meeting of their legislature. It seems to me that this is broad enough, so that we can find out whether or not they can act.

Mr. O'BRIEN. If the gentleman will yield. I think that we should all be reminded that the idea here is for an incorporated territory. While there is no suggestion that this is just a whim and that next year we are going to snatch back what we have given them—there is a realization that we have the power to do it and if there are abuses, if there are things like that, it will be taken care of by the distinguished members of this committee who will have the honor of serving here next year.

Mr. ASPINALL. I would ask Mrs. Van Cleve to give us the legislative history and what is provided for in the new section (c).

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. The language in subsection (c), Mr. Chairman, is designed to do two things: (1) With respect to the election, it is to the effect that the Guam Legislature cannot more frequently than once a decade consider the question of how it will be basically constituted, that is, whether it will be redistricted or whether it will be by at large or whether a combination of the two. Once having made the decision they are required to live with that. This is the term we chose to use in the first line for the remainder of that 10-year period.

If they chose to redistrict however, the proviso requires that the districting be based upon the then most recent Federal census figure. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you.

Mr. WITMER. If I may ask just one further question, and this, again, I have the explanation for but I think that the record should show it. This does not mean, if they choose in 1967 or 1968 to say: "We will elect x number at large and x number by districts, and at that time set up the districts"-but this does not mean that they cannot redistrict until 10 years later. The proviso will require them to redistrict following the 1970 census.

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That is precisely correct.

Mr. WITMER. So that the 10-year period, as you explained it, means only the decision on whether to district or not to district and, if so, how many of the legislature will be redistricted? It does not affect the boundaries of the districts, so to speak.

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That is correct.

Mr. WITMER. And it is to bring them in conformity with the oneman, one-vote rule.

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. That is right, exactly.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Are there any further questions or discussion?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BINGHAM. Just as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the chairman of the full committee with regard to the new section 2, that in place of the words "within 180 days," that we substitute 'as soon as practicable," and the reason for that, if I may speak to it, I think that it is a mistake to appear to set a deadline that is really no deadline at all. This is somewhat confusing. I take it that the purpose of the provision is to get action as soon as possible or as soon as practicable. I do not want to belabor the point, but I think it would be more clear as to what our intentions are to state as soon as practicable rather than within 180 days.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mrs. Van Cleve, do you want to address yourself to that?

Mrs. VAN CLEVE. We have no objection to that proposed change. Mr. O'BRIEN. The gentleman from New York offers an amendment to the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado to the new section 2, to strike out "within 180 days," and to substitute "as soon as practicable" after the enactment of this bill.

All those in favor of the amendment to the amendment will say "aye"; opposed, "no."

The amendment to the amendment is agreed to.

The question now occurs upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as amended. All those in favor will say "aye"; opposed, "no."

The amendment to H.R. 13294 as amended is agreed to.

Mr. ASPINALL. I move that H. R. 13294, as amended, be reported favorably to the full committee.

Mr. O'BRIEN. All those in favor will say "aye"; opposed, "no." It is carried.

Mr. ASPINALL. I ask unanimous consent to take up for consideration H.R. 13298.