ment. Years ago, up until the 86th Congress, we adopted and fought for full representation in Congress, as well as the right to vote for President and Vice President.

The people of Washington have been asking for help for a long time, but we don't lose our commonsense. It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that this joint committee is composed of 100 organizations including labor groups, chambers of commerce, civic associations, women's organizations, every cross section of social and business life of the Washington and national community.

As a representative of this joint committee I say to you that we know as a practical point that those who want to kill the possibility of this legislation will recommend alternatives.

We recommend and urge that action be taken in this 86th Congress. We recommend and urge that your subcommittee act speedily, as soon as the hearings are completed, and urge that your full committee act favorably on this resoltuion.

We believe that the House Rules Committee will act favorably if the Judiciary Committee reports out your bill.

We further believe and are confident that once any disparity that exists between your bill and the bill discussed by Mr. Keating is settled, that in the joint meeting of the House and the Senate that any differences will be resolved.

We hope and aspire to the fact that we will be able to vote for President in 1964.

Mr. Chairman, in this lengthy statement that I have prepared-and I wish to congratulate you on the statement that you opened the hearing with I ask several questions, and answer them. I think they are important. I think it is important to the legislative history that possibly this committee consider one or more of them.

We are satisfied that the bill is definite, and we have replied that it is definite as to the number of Delegates that we will be entitled to.

We are satisfied and have replied that the qualifications for Delegates are not spelled out in the bill. We think that if this committee does not want to include in the bill, or the resolutions, speaking properly, the qualifications for Delegates, at least this committee should give guidance to future Congresses of what they intended as the qualifications for a Delegate.

I point that out because when Alaska had a Delegate, which was a nonvoting Delegate, the qualifications were the same as those for Representatives. When the District of Columbia had a nonvoting Delegate back in 1871, it was the same as the requirements for a voter in the then citywide elections, and the Delegate only had to be 21 years of age instead of 25 as a Representative has to be.

Our citizens joint committee would recommend and urge that the qualifications for a Delegate be the same as the qualifications for a Representative, with the exception that the Delegate, when elected, be an inhabitant of the District of Columbia in lieu of an inhabitant of a State.

Our committee is satisfied that the bill as drawn enables Congress to implement the amendment so as to make it workable.

Now, the question of whether or not the Delegate can vote-and this is the practical question-we believe that if it wasn't the intent of the draftsmen that this Delegate could vote, that such language would never have been included in the bill. But Congress, having exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia, wants to be in a swing position which the joint committee doesn't object to. If it should ever prove against the Federal City interests or the Nation's interests to have a Delegate voting, which we can't concede, Congress would have the right in the future to take away that voting power which it had granted without going back to the people.

Mr. Chairman, to show the committee's flexibility and the practicability and to support the position that you have taken, we fully recognize this is not a home rule bill and it should never be discussed in this hearing. We agreed, in the citizens joint committee, that that would never be discussed. I think it is a good rule that you have adopted because otherwise you could cloud the issue.

We know that this isn't a bill for statehood.

We know that this is the best that we can get.

We believe that if this committee approves it, and it is passed by the full Judiciary Committee and sent to the House, that the House will approve it, and that you gentlemen will be responsible for making historic legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest this: On page 2, article I, section 1, of the House Joint Resolution 529, there is a provision as follows: "The people of the District, constituting the seat of the government of the United States, shall elect, in such manner and under such regulations as the Congress shall provide by law :"

Doesn't that envisage the right of Congress to set forth the qualifications?

Mr. DAVIS. It would envision the right to set forth the qualification. Mr. Chairman, you are holding the hearings. You are receiving, may I say, the full load. I think the guidance that you will give in the legislative history as to what your intentions are will be important to the Congress that has to pass the enabling implementing legislation in the future upon the enactment of this congressional

amendment.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. This bill wouldn't require amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. To provide for qualifications of delegates. Congress, by law, could do that.

Mr. DAVIS. Congress, by law, could do that. It very clearly states that. But your direction is important to the future application of this bill.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holtzman.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. The witness stated that we know what is going to happen. Of course, I must take issue with him. No one really knows what is going to happen. The witness also stated that those who offer alternatives haven't a desire for this bill only. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that I am for this bill, and yet I cannot help but weigh the alternatives that take in a broader perspective, and I will support this bill. I think that the gentleman

should revise his thinking about that point, because several of the members of this committee who suggested alternatives I know will support this bill.

Mr. DAVIS. I, too, would like to change this bill. I, too, have different ideas. But the committee feels that to change it is going to jeopardize it.

What we are after is what the chairman said. We are after the enactment of this bill. If Congress will concede to changing it in the future, to give us the representation in the Senate, that is something that Congrss will decide in the future. But that is not before this committee, and we are supporting your bill, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. You certainly have the excellence of brevity.

I see our former Commissioner, F. Joseph Donohue, in the room. We will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. F. JOSEPH DONOHUE, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am F. Joseph Donohue, a Washington lawyer, a native-born citizen of the United States, born in Massachusetts, where I had the opportunity to breathe the air of freedom that was purified by the Boston Tea Party, Nathaniel Hale, Lexington and Concord. But I have lived in the District of Columbia for 41 years, and I would say to the gentleman from Michigan while I am just a pawn in the hands of the Congress, I would resent being

The CHAIRMAN. You say that you are a pawn?

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Not if I know "Jiggs" Donohue.

Mr. DONOHUE. I wish it were not so. But I would resent being ceded to the State of Maryland. I have lived here for 41 years. We have a fine community. And sometimes a distinction is not made between Washington as the Capital City, and the hundreds of thousands of us who live here who call Washington home. I will go the rest of my life I probably will anyway-without the right to vote, but I would do it gladly rather than have the Congress of the United States say to me, "You no longer are a native of Washington; you are now a citizen of the State of Maryland."

I didn't elect to live in Maryland. I elected to remain in the District of Columbia and to pay my taxes here because I make my living here. Mr. MEADER. What is so bad about Maryland, Mr. Donohue?

Mr. DONOHUE. Nothing, no more than anything is so bad about any of the great 50 States of the country. But I live in the District of Columbia, and I would certainly resist being made a citizen of another State. I could go there freely if I wanted to, thank God, under the Constitution, but I elect to remain here.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. You would say this is not an anti-Maryland statement but rather a pro-Washington statement.

Mr. DONOHUE. That is a pro-Washington statement. I think the people ought to know that we who live in Washington love Washington, and we do a great deal, perhaps unknown to the Members of the

54876-60- 4

Congress, to make your Capital City a city in which people are pleased and happy to live.

I have known every President since Woodrow Wilson. I have seen more than 4,000 elected Members of Congress come here, and many are still here; over a period of 41 years. But I can't understand why I, and nearly three-quarters of a million other Americans, who pay taxes, who fight your wars and we have had two Congressional Medal of Honor winners from Washington, both Washingtonians in World War II—are still kept in the unhappy category of being classified as in the same group with adjudicated lunatics, convicted felons, and alien enemies. I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this committee, and I will be eternally grateful for this little modicum of being an American, the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, and the right to have some kind of a delegate who can get on the floor of the Congress of the United States and speak for Washington and Washingtonians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. There will be no applause.

It is contrary to the rules of the committee. If there is applause again, the room will be cleared.

Our next witness is the distinguished Senator from the State of Oregon, Senator Wayne Morse.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may it please the committee, I have a very short statement which I will read, because I know of your time limitation due to the joint session we are all scheduled to attend.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I take great pleasure and pride in being permitted to appear before you this morning to urge upon you the merits of a constitutional amendment to provide national representation for the District of Columbia.

In my own small way, I have been urging District residents to prepare for the successful outcome, as I hope it will be, of your deliberations, by way of registering to vote in the District primary election next month. Participation in that primary election I have told them is a dress rehearsal for the far more meaningful exercise of the precious right to a ballot in a national election.

You will hear from those who can speak more elequently than I of the arguments for the enfranchisement of the District. They will be good arguments and pertinent arguments, but in one very fundamental sense this proposition rests not upon factual, statistical presentations, valuable though they are, rather it rests upon the deep faith that everyone of us holds, an abiding faith in a system of government which derives its just authority from the freely given consent of the governed.

Unless there is, in a system of government, provision made for an opportunity for the governed to participate in the selection of their governors, most Americans, and rightly, are uncomfortable with that

government. To have such an anomalous situation- a denial of national suffrage-existing in the Capital City of a great Republic, conscious of its democratic traditions and principles and anxious that these principles be extended to all men and women everywhere, is deeply disturbing to most Americans. The situation which occasioned the political disenfranchisement of the District residents has long since receded into the mists of history. The Congress of the United States, and the Executive of the United States no longer need fear the impact of pressures from the city of Washington. Quite the reverse is true, so much so in fact, that the balance needs to be redressed. The constitutional amendment being considered by the committee, when ratified, will remove the anomaly and present to those American citizens who live in the District of Columbia the birthright of every American citizen.

I will not labor further the point, Mr. Chairman, for as I have indicated, it is one which is so deeply imbedded in our constitutional fabric as to be the ground from which all else follows in our system.

Instead let us turn to the specifics of the House joint resolution. If the committee in its wisdom feels that the package of proposals contained in Senate Joint Resolution 39 ought to be considered separately by the House, I would not dissent, since I feel that the merits of the proposals are such that each can stand upon its own.

But I note that there are differences between the language of House Joint Resolution 529 and the corresponding section of Senate Joint Resolution 39, relating to the District, which we might review together with profit.

Let me say at the outset, as a Senator, I would welcome to sit with us in our Chamber one or two elected Delegates from the District and I would support an act of Congress conferring upon them all of the rights and privileges of a Senator of the United States, including the right to vote in the Senate of the United States.

At an appropriate time I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment, either by way of an amendment to a House-passed measure or by way of a measure introduced in the Senate, which would give to the District at least one voting Delegate in the Senate of the United States.

However, to accomplish the objective desired, of obtaining the right to vote in national elections for District citizens, with the least delay, the committee may wish to explore the advisability of reporting Senate Joint Resolution 39 modified by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting such language as the committee may feel proper. I suggest this procedure to obviate the difficulties and delay which might be occasioned by the passage of a House numbered measure which may have to be referred to and considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary before being passed again by the Senate. By utilizing the Senate-passed measure, which is before your committee, as a vehicle the House could work its will but permit the constitutional amendment to go directly to conference.

This procedure is suggested because of a lively apprehension upon my part that the Congress may not be in session sufficiently long this year to run the full course over again upon this very important

measure.