Next month at our annual convention our action program will again include a resolution for national representation since we wish to reaffirm our stand. There has, however, never been any opposition to this by our membership. The District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers through the years has time and again known the frustrations, recognized the inadequacies, observed the inconsistencies, and has been fully aware of the unfairness and the injustices brought about by taxation without representation of the citizens of the District. We have been embroiled in the battle of the budget for school funds year after year. We have even asked to have our taxes raised in order to obtain the schools, school needs, and other budget items we feel are so necessary for the welfare of children. Nevertheless yearly it is the same old story of not being able to spend our own taxes on the items we know are the most necessary. We have no say as to how much money is spent on what items, we have no say in the matter of legislation, and furthermore there has constantly been a lack of coordination between the legislative and Appropriations Committees for the District of Columbia. The inadequate Federal payment is a prime example. We citizens of the District fail to see the necessity of Congressmen from the States handling the legislation and appropriations of the District of Columbia when so often there is shown little or no concern for the true needs of the District. It is not fair to have Congressmen who are uninformed and disinterested in District matters placed on congressional committees in complete charge of District affairs. Fortunately we do have some true friends of the District in the Congress, however, their number is very small in proportion to the District's needs. We are extremely grateful to these devoted workers, and hope that they will continue their efforts in behalf of the District citizens. To summarize, the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers supports 1. Home rule for the District of Columbia. 2. An adequate Federal payment to the District. 3. The right by election to national representation in both the Senate and the House. 4. The right to vote for the Office of President and Vice President or electors thereof. When the above items are allowed the citizens of the District of Columbia then we will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as other American citizens. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness a question, in view of his last statement. Did you mean to have carried over as a part of that statement that without exception the entire membership of the Parent-Teachers Association would be for local home rule? Mr. GILLILAND. No. Mr. McCULLOCH. That is your statement alone? Mr. GILLILAND. No. Mr. McCULLOCH. The last one? Mr. GILLILAND. On the subject of home rule, there is a difference of opinion among the District of Columbia Congress Members. The majority, I think the large majority, favor home rule. But there are Mr. McCULLOCH. Have you had a poll of your members on that question? Mr. GILLILAND. At our national convention last May we voted on the subject. But there are many sincere members of the PTA who do not Mr. McCULLOCH. Have you had a poll in the District on the question of home rule? Mr. GILLILAND. We have an annual convention of some 1,000 delegates, approximately 1 delegate to every 20 members. At that convention we voted in favor of home rule. Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to restate the question. Have you had a poll, an individual poll, of the members of your association in the District on the question of home rule? Mr. GILLILAND. No, sir; we have not. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Irving Schlaifer. STATEMENT OF IRVING SCHLAIFER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. SCHLAIFER. Mr. Chairman, my statement is very brief. Mr. SCHLAIFER. Just one page. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. SCHLAIFER. My name is Irving Schlaifer. I live at 912 Gallatin Street NW., Washington, D.C. I am originally from Omaha, Nebr., and lived there 18 years. I have lived in Washington, D.C., since August of 1937, excepting for the year of 1946, when I lived in Los Angeles, Calif. I am now in my 22d year as a resident of the District of Columbia. I am now in my 14th year as a licensed sightseeing guide and cab owner-driver. In this line of work I have admired the growth of this Capital City of the United States. I have given serious thought to its limited size of approximately 70 square miles. One cannot help but believe that this limited size was one of the main stumbling blocks in the way of its being given the right for its citizens to a national vote. We are glad to know that many Members of Congress feel that we should have national representation, and are willing to pass on a constitutional amendment to that effect. Let this constitutional amendment provide for two Senators and its full share of Representatives according to population, and let our duly elected spokesman to the Congress of the United States have the same full and equal rights as do the other Members of Congress. Definite provisions should be made as to the size of the District of Columbia in this same constitutional amendment. Going back to the early history, as to the creation of the District of Columbia, it will be found that Gen. George Washington and his advisers, as a first step in creating a seat of government for the United States, decided just where the District of Columbia was to be located, and the territory to be included for the District of Columbia, and, as a result, Gen. George Washington and his advisers surveyed out the territory of the District of Columbia. It was decided at that time that a 10- by 10-mile area would suffice as a sufficient territory for the seat of government for many years to come. Since World War I social and industrial changes have increased Government participation in so many more problems of national interest that almost without exception agency after agency has expanded its operations to the extent that the original area set aside to serve as the seat of government is no longer adequate. In recent years we have seen more and more of our agencies going into nearby Maryland and Virginia. It will also be found that a substantial majority of the residents of this so-called metropolitan area reside outside the District of Columbia and are in the nearby suburbs of Maryland and Virginia, and that the great increase in population will continue to be in the nearby suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia rather than in the present District of Columbia. In the treating of the subject of a new area for the seat of government, which is a major problem today, we must take into consideration not only what area is necessary today but an area that will meet the needs of an expanding seat of government for the next two or three decades, as was done when the original District of Columbia was defined and surveyed by Gen. George Washington. The area for the District of Columbia should be enlarged so that it will consist of a territory of not less than 50 by 50 miles, to be measured 28 miles north, 28 miles west, 22 miles east, and 22 miles south of the U.S. Capitol Building. This would provide an area of not less than 2,500 square miles, instead of the present 70 square miles which now makes up our present District of Columbia. The 50- by 50-mile territory for the District of Columbia would overcome the main objection of size when it comes to national representation. We hear too much of doing away with the present area of the District of Columbia by a few Members of Congress who would like to see it returned to the State of Maryland. Much to our regreat, approximately 30 square miles of the original area of the District of Columbia was returned to the State of Virginia over 100 years ago. Bear in mind, the original size of 10 by 10 miles for the District of Columbia, as suggested by Gen. George Washington and his advisers, was made during the horse and buggy days. Today we are in the automobile and air age, and the suggested size of 50 by 50 miles is more in keeping with all the changes that have taken place since Gen. George Washington's time. The CHAIRMAN. I don't mean to cut you off, but these are the exigencies under which we operate. After all, when you hear so many witnesses, the testimony becomes quite repetitious. (Attachment to Mr. Schlaifer's statement follows:) [Extract from "Letters to the Star" department, the Sunday Star, Washington, D.C., Apr. 3, 1960] APRIL 11, 1960. Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: On Thursday, April 7, 1960, I appeared before your committee and filed my statement on House Joint Resolution 529. I wish to have the following information made a part of my statement. The members of the 50 State legislatures that will pass on this constitutional amendment will compare the District of Columbia's population and area with other large cities of the United States. The following facts were taken from the Information Please Almanac of 1960: The population and area of each of the six cities listed is greater than that of the District of Columbia. These facts will have an important bearing on whether the members of the 50 State legislatures will give us national representation in the Congress of the United States. Sincerely yours, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Herbert Leeman. IRVING SCHLAIFER. STATEMENT OF HERBERT LEEMAN, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. LEEMAN. This is hardly a statement. My name is Herbert Leeman, I reside at 1609 Hobart Street, Washington, D.C. I am a native-born, lifelong resident of the District of Columbia. I am president of the Central Suffrage Conference of the District of Columbia and a past president of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. I am appearing here today as a resident and not in a representative capacity. am in favor of what is commonly called national representation for the District of Columbia, and the legislation proposed in the bill being considered by this subcommittee. I believe the various phases of the proposed legislation have already been adequately discussed, and I can only add that the situation is similar to that which prevailed when the matter of the Cultural Center for the District of Columbia was being considered. At that time Mr. Benjamin McKelway, editor of the Evening Star newspaper, summed it up by saying that it is unique when practically all of the citizens and local organizations, including the Board of Trade, the Federation of Citizens Associations, the trade unions, the veterans organizations, and the League of Women Voters, are all in agreement. As everybody seems to be in favor of the proposed legislation, I sincerely trust and hope that we can have early favorable action by the Judiciary Committee so that it can be enacted into law before the adjournment of this session of this Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Samuel Bigio, president, Shepard Park Citizens Association. I will ask you to submit your statement. STATEMENT OF MRS. SAMUEL BIGIO, PRESIDENT, SHEPARD PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mrs. BIGIO. May I say a few words? I will submit this very brief statement. I am Mrs. Samuel Bigio and I reside at 7636 17th Street NW. You have heard from our legislators and from our heads of our city, and from the local levels. I would like you to know that I represent the grassroots, so to speak; I represent a community of approximately 1,600 homes single home dwellings, and a high income group. I know that we go back as far as a fifth generation of Washingtonians. The question has been asked repeatedly as to whether or not these people reside in other cities and maintain residence and can vote elsewhere. I can safely say that the majority of citizens in this fine community have been residing here for many, many years and are happy to endorse the resolution on the floor. Thank you very much for your time. - MCCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. Have you and your group taken any position on local home rule? Mrs. BIGIO. I am glad you asked me that, Congressman McCulloch. Many years ago I was shocked at the action taken by the group. There were about 30 citizens present and took a vote on home rule. There were no sides representing home rule versus national representation, so that they could get a clear picture of the Nation's Capital and the importance of having it polítically free in this democratic Nation of ours. Therefore, I can only state for the record that there was a very small group which were represented at the time, and, therefore, I didn't feel that the feeling, the consensus of opinion of the entire community, was represented truly. And I do know that they are interested in voting for President and Vice President and especially for representation in the House of Representatives, and we hope some day, maybe, you will give us some thought in the Senate, too. Mr. McCULLOCH. I conclude from your statement that you do not know whether your group is for local home rule or against it. Mrs. BIGIO. We haven't had any Mr. McCULLOCH. And that is no reflection. Mrs. BIGIO. I understand perfectly well. Home rule came up on the floor a few years back, and without any thought, the group took action, and that is all I can state. Mr. MCCULLOCH. What was the action? Mrs. BIGIO. However Mr. McCULLOCH. What was the action? Mrs. BIGIO. That they were in favor of home rule. And home rule as such many people don't understand. But in the past 2 years we have learned to realize the true meaning of home rule and national representation. There are many versions, and it is most conflicting. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That will terminate the oral testimony. The record will be kept open for written statements for a period of 1 week. At this point in the record I would like to include letters and other informative communications received by the subcommittee. (The correspondence referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HERBERT BORCHARDT, COMMANDER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Herbert Borchardt. I am commander of the District of Columbia Department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, whose members are honored with the distinction of having served overseas in our country's Armed Forces in times of national peril. In the military service we fought for preservation of our American ideals and institutions of justice and democracy. Now as civilians, we continue our active support of these principles. We observe our obligation to inspire in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizensparticularly our younger people-a warmer appreciation of our form of government, of the American democratic system. For example, only recently the Veterans of Foreign Wars climaxed-right here in Washington-a national contest among teenagers. Each State had sent the high school student who had been chosen, through statewide competition, as outstanding in presenting on television a speech entitled, "I Speak for Democracy." Yes, students from our District of Columbia high schools participated. They too, paid sincere tribute to our proud heritage of true democracy in the United States. It is ironical that their own parents are denied the rights and benefits of democracy. 54876-60- -11 |