APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS AND TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION

SEC. 11. (a) The presiding officer of the convention shall, within thirty days after the termination of its proceedings, submit the exact text of any amendment or amendments agreed upon by the convention to the Congress for approval and transmittal to the several States for their ratification.

(b) Upon the expiration of the first period of three months of continuous session of the Congress following the receipt of any proposed amendment by the Congress, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, acting jointly, shall transmit such proposed amendments to the Administrator of General Services for submission to the States, but only if prior to the expiration of such period the Congress has not adopted a concurrent resolution disapproving the submission of the proposed amendment to the States on the ground that its general nature is different from that stated in the concurrent resolution calling the convention.

(c) Upon receipt of any such amendment or amendments, the Administrator of General Services shall transmit exact copies of the same, together with his certification thereof, to the legislatures of the several States.

RATIFICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SEC. 12. Any amendment proposed by the convention and submitted to the States in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States when duly ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States in the manner and within the time specified in the concurrent resolution calling for the convening of the convention.

PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION

SEC. 13. (a) For the purpose of ratifying proposed amendments transmitted by the States pursuant to this Act the State legislatures shall adopt their own rules of procedure except that the acts of ratification shall be by convention or by State legislative action as the Congress may direct. All questions concerning the validity of State legislative procedure shall be determined by the legislatures and their decisions shall be binding on all others.

(b) Any State resolution ratifying a proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be valid without the assent of the Governor of the State.

TRANSMITTAL OF RATIFICATIONS

SEC. 14. The secretary of state of the State, or if there be no such officer, the person who is charged by State law with such function, shall transmit a certified copy of the State resolution ratifying any proposed amendment to the Administrator of General Services.

RESCISSION OF RATIFICATIONS

SEC. 15. (a) Any State may rescind its ratification of a proposed amendment except that no State may rescind when there are existing valid ratifications of such amendment by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.

(b) Any State may ratify a proposed amendment even though it previously may have rejected the same proposal.

(c) The Congress of the United States shall have the sole power of determining all questions relating to the ratification, rescission, or rejection of amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States.

PROCLAMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 16. The Administrator of General Services, when three-fourths of the legislatures of the several States have ratified a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall issue a proclamation proclaiming the amendment to be a part of the Constitution of the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS

SEC. 17. An amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States shall be effective from the date on which the legislature of the last State necessary to constitute three-fourths of the legislatures of the United States, as provided for in article V, has ratified the same.

Senator DIRKSEN. Before calling the first witness, the Chair would like to say that he has a statement on the matter to be heard this morning which, rather than deliver, I will insert in the record, if there is no objection. (Statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN

We are deeply indebted to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Ervin, for the initiative he has taken in introducing S. 2307 and thereby attempting to answer some of the questions surrounding the calling of a convention as a method of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Senator Ervin, who in my estimation is one of the great scholars of Constitutional law, is performing an invaluable service to the nation by exposing to public scrutiny legislation designed to implement the provision in Article V of the Constitution which directs the Congress to call a convention whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures have applied to the Congress. This is a most complex area, for in seeking to implement Article V, the Congress is virtually without precedent to guide it. Since the Constitution's adoption, there have been over 200 applications calling for conventions to amend the Constitution and they covered a wide variety of subjects. Despite this number, however, we have never received applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures on any one subject. Therefore, the convention method of proposing amendments has never been employed. But today the matter of Constitutional conventions is of serious concern because of the fact that 32 state legislatures have applied to the Congress for a convention on the subject matter of reapportionment of state legislatures. The mood of these legislatures leads me to believe that the Congress will be confronted with the requisite number of applications so as to compel the calling of a convention. The applications may be on a subject other than reapportionment, but I expect them.

Article V is silent on questions as to when conventions are to be convened; how the conventions are to be formed; or what rules are to govern their acts. And too, questions exist as to the authority of the Congress, of the states, and of the people themselves, when this method of proposing amendments is employed.

Article V does, however, provide us with the foundation on which we must proceed in developing implementing legislation.

The language of Article V reads, "The Congress. . . on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which... shall be valid to all intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified. . . ." I can find nothing in that language of Article V that is not as clear and unambiguous as the English language can be made. We, as members of Congress are bound by Oath as provided by Article VI to support not only that part of Article V that I have quoted, but all of the Constitution.

Let me discuss the reasons as I understand them for the inclusion in Article V of this language that has been described by Alexander Hamilton as "peremptory." There was general acceptance among the delegates to Philadelphia of the necessity of providing a means whereby this new Constitution that was being developed could, when necessary, be amended. Their own experience with the Articles of Confederation attested to this need. But how was this to be accomplished? Two types of proposals were advanced, and without going into any of the details of either of them, I think that it is sufficient to say that neither really met the need that the delegates felt existed. From my reading of history it seems to me that there was a clear recognition of the necessity of providing an unqualified method whereby the people who were surrendering certain authority to a Federal Republic could change that authority at any future time when they felt it necessary to do so and that nothing should be left to stand in the way of the exercise of that right. No Congress could deny it, no court nor executive; this was to be an unqualified right to be retained by the people and exercised by them through their elected representatives in the state legislatures.

I am repeatedly surprised as I read the history of our Constitution at how often I find illustrations of the foresight that these delegates at Philadelphia possessed. Consider that part of the debate that had to do with the adoption of this very language. Fear was expressed that under the other amending proposals some future Congress, assuming greater and greater authority, might become unresponsive to the desires of the people and fail to heed their request for a change in this

basic document that was to safeguard their liberties. It was reasoned that the people might want to reduce the power of Congress and it was considered unlikely that a strong Congress would be responsive to such a proposal. The solution was to provide a means whereby the Congress, upon application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States would be mandated to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution. I believe it is with this background in mind that we should proceed to the consideration of S. 2307. Although I have problems with a few parts of the bill, which I have set down in a much longer memorandum I prepared for the Subcommittee's use, I think that legislation along the lines of that embodied in S. 2307 is of the highest urgency and it is my belief that the function being performed by exposing this problem to debate and scrutiny in these hearings is of great importance to the country.

Senator DIRKSEN. Senator Hruska, do you have a statement?

Senator HRUSKA. Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to read it, if there is no objection.

STATEMENT BY HON. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, this Nation may be on the verge of convening another Constitutional Convention. It is well for us, in this light, to examine and study the constitutional procedure for convening a future Convention.

Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for amending the Constitution. It includes a procedure "on Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, (the Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ***" The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia inserted this provision for one very obvious reason. This reason was the great fear of the delegates of a balky future Congress, a Congress that might prove unresponsive to the wishes of the States, and more importantly, to the wishes of the citizens in those States.

There have been many hobgoblins raised as a result of the recent' pressure by the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Many of these objections are based, in my opinion, upon a fear of some individuals that the people are not able to make their own decisions.

To determine the proper role that Congress must play in the convention method of amending the Constitution, two principles must be kept in mind. One is that whatever the Congress does, it can only do as a result of authority delegated to it in the Constitution. Secondly, Congress in proposing amendments or calling a constitutional con-, vention is not exercising a legislative function.

Since Congress is without authority of its own to call a convention, it is possessed at most with authority only over routine housekeeping functions. Functions, such as providing for the place, date, presumably the duration, financing, voting, and other similar matters of a convention, are within this authority.

It should not be overlooked that there are two basic safeguards against a "wide open" convention, as many may fear. The first is the good faith, judgment, and responsibility of its delegates. The second is the requirement that any proposal of the convention must be ratified. by three-fourths of the States-38 of them-before becoming effective.

Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that Senator Ervin has introduced S. 2307 and that these hearings are being held in order that the many unfounded fears of a constitutional convention will be laid to rest and that the true constitutional participation of Congress in such a convention will be highlighted.

Senator DIRKSEN. Now, my understanding is that Senator Proxmire is the first witness. Senator, please come up to the witness table. My friend, you may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have an opportunity to present to your subcommittee my comments on S. 2307, the bill to provide procedures for calling Federal constitutional conventions to propose amendments to the Constitution. First, I want to commend Senator Ervin for introducing legislation on the subject so that we can begin to come to grips with a very delicate problem-one which has been thrust into the spotlight of public interest by efforts to call a constitutional convention on reapportionment. It is very, very helpful to have before the Congress legislation that can serve as a welcome basis for a discussion of the problem, although I feel the proposal could be improved, as my testimony will indicate.

In my estimation, one of the prime benefits of an orderly procedure for the calling of a Constitutional Convention should be the notice such a process will provide that State petitions for a Constitutional Convention on a particular subject are mounting and that a Convention is a definite possibility. Thus we would avoid the type of situation that erupted this spring when the New York Times observed, with justification, regarding the reapportionment issue that—

most of official Washington has been caught by surprise because the state legislative actions have been taken with little fanfare. Most Congressional leaders seemed to be unaware that the effort to convene a constitutional convention was so near its goal.

This attempt to quickly and quietly gather petitions for a Convention in such a way that the States themselves do not realize the significance of their action was highlighted by a statement in the same Times article that

Senator Dirksen had hoped to keep the progress of the campaign quiet until the end of next week in the hope that two more states would have passed resolutions by then. He then planned to make a dramatic announcement that the requirements for convening a constitutional convention had been met.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the fact that not a single State has acted since that March 17 date to petition the Congress on the subject of reapportionment is eloquent testimony to the importance of complete disclosure in this area.

Such disclosure should also prevent the kind of summary treatment petitions for a constitutional convention have received by State legislatures in the past. Certainly the people of Illinois would have urged the Illinois Legislature to give more consideration to a reapportionment petition that passed the Illinois House after a suspension of the rules and without hearings had the people known that 26 States already

had petitioned the Congress on the same subject. As an editorial in the March 16 Chicago's American stated:

We only wish (the people) had been given a chance to decide, or even to ask questions, while the legislature was suspending the rules and shutting off debate to hustle this resolution thru.

I doubt that the Indiana State Senate would have passed a similar resolution, in the words of the Indianapolis Star, because Senators "did not have enough votes to pass their own 'Kizer plan' on congressional redistricting, and wanted badly to send it to the House to make a record" had those State legislators known of the stakes involved. Finally, I believe it would be much more difficult for State legislators to urge adoption of a convention-call resolution on the grounds that "the convention would never be held, but that Congress would get some idea of unrest by the people," as a legislator in my State, a very prominent and well-informed legislator, said. He wouldn't have said that if disclosure provisions similar to those contained in the Ervin bill were to become law.

However, I think S. 2307 should be amended to require resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress within 10 days after such a resolution is adopted by a State legislature rather than the 60 days provided by the bill. I also believe such resolutions should be numbered before they are transmitted to "the presiding officer of each house of the legislature of every other State" by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House so that States considering similar resolutions can be made aware of the number which have already been passed. I would hope that copies. could also be made available to Members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress so that they could be made aware of developments in this area. Finally, I support a clarifying amendment to S. 2307 which would require transmission of copies of these resolutions to the States and the U.S. Congress within 10 days after their receipt.

All of these proposed amendments should work no great hardship on the officials involved. On the other hand, they will insure prompt notice to both State and National Legislatures of the progress of efforts to call constitutional conventions.

The bill provides that applications for a constitutional convention shall remain effective for 6 calendar years. In my estimation, this is too long a period of time in today's quickly changing world. Theodore Sorenson, in a speech made earlier this year, suggested that 34 petitions should be received in the same Congress since congressional initiation of a constitutional amendment has to take place in the same Congress. While I feel this requirement is a bit stringent in view of the fact that some State legislatures meet only every other year, a 4-year requirement makes great sense to me. Each and every one of the amendments to our Constitution have been ratified by the States in less than 4 years. In my estimation, the States should be given no more time than this for calling a constitutional convention.

Once again, I feel that a reference to the reapportionment experience is in order. Most of the States that petitioned Congress on the subject were malapportioned at the time the petitions were passed. Those States are, by and large, now apportioned fairly. It is quite likely that most of those State legislatures would not now support a reapportionment resolution. Thus the petitions are badly outdated.