I wish to emphasize that my resolution does not conflict with or have any bearing upon the question of "home rule" for the District of Columbia. This is not an "either-or" proposition. My amendment provides for a vote in Federal elections and representation in the House. While I have always favored home rule and I will continue to work for home rule, and I have signed petitions for home rule, this bill is not a home rule bill nor is it a substitute for home rule. It is a matter of public record that the residents of the District of Columbia have been campaigning for the right to vote almost since the time the land which became known as the District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Virginia and Maryland. Their early campaigns for the franchise were supported by several Presidents. Presidents James Monroe in 1818, Andrew Jackson in 1831, William Henry Harrison in 1841, and Andrew Johnson in 1866 urged national representation for the District in various forms. In addition, there have been numerous resolutions over the years— some 75 in number. Of these, three were favorably reported by the Judiciary Committees of the Congress-in the Senate in 1922 and 1925 and by the House Judiciary Committee in 1940. I may mention that I supported and voted for the bill in 1940 which was favorably reported by this committee. In this Congress for the first time a resolution has passed one of the Houses of Congress. The Senate, on February 2, 1960, favorably approved Senate Joint Resolution 39. This circumstance and the recent granting of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii lead me to be optimistic about succeeding in getting my amendment adopted by the House during this Congress. The long struggle to give a vote to the District of Columbia has slowly but surely educated the American public to the point where there is little resistance to giving the vote to the residents of the District. Because of this circumstance, I feel that my resolution stands an excellent chance of succeeding. This legislation will in no way lessen the control of Congress over the seat of government. It merely insures the District of Columbia the right to vote in national elections and to have a representative voice in the Congress. Certainly the legislation is long over due. I hope the subcommittee, the full committee, and the Congress will act favorably on my resolution and recommend it for submission to the several States so that it may become a part of the Constitution of the United States. (H.J. Res. 529 follows:) [H.J. Res. 529, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College to the District of Columbia Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress : "ARTICLE "SECTION 1. 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 : "A number of Delegates to the House of Representatives to serve during each Congress determined by the method known as the method of equal proportions or by any other method currently employed for determining the number of Representatives, with such powers as the Congress, by law, provides; but the District shall have at least one Delegate; and "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of delegates to the House of Representatives to which the District is entitled under this article; such electors shall possess the qualifications required by article II of this Constitution; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and cast their ballots as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. "SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that you have set hearings on your resolution, upon which testimony will be taken at length. I think it is apparent to all knowledgable citizens that there is great interest in this proposal. There are some things to be considered, and I know that they will be carefully considered in view of the testimony that will be given in these hearings. I have not prejudged the proposal. I do not think that it is in keeping with a committee on the judiciary to prejudge any proposals until the record is written. I am sure that we will write a full and complete record, such that will give all Members of Congress the basic facts upon which they can finally work their will. That procedure is, of course, in accordance with the best traditions of America. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I concur in the statement which you made wholeheartedly and feel that these hearings will justify the need for a resolution such as the one you have introduced. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers? Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as these resolutions provide for Delegates to the House of Representatives, I am wondering if we can explore the idea, since these resolutions also provide that the President and Vice President be based upon the apportionment, as if they were respective States, as to whether or not we should also consider in this resolution the addition of a couple of Senators over in the U.S. Senate, because that is the most deliberative body that we have, and they can certainly express themselves over there. I think this is something for us to consider as we go along with these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Do you say the Senate is the most deliberative body? Mr. ROGERS. They have unlimited debate, and as I understand the people of the District want to express themselves so that they have two Senators over there. If they are going to give us three Delegates in the House, I am sure they can express the interests of the people of the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to change that to mean the mostMr. ROGERS. Talkative? The CHAIRMAN. Lengthy deliberative body. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir; splendid, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toll? Mr. TOLL. Mr. Chairman, I am tremendously impressed by the statement of our distinguished chairman and I wholeheartedly support it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I think I will wait until I hear from my distinguished Senator, Senator Keating. I know I will be greatly enlightened on this matter. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Keating, we will be very happy to hear from you. You are always welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate that. I must admit to a certain feeling of nostalgia here. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague, Congressman Rogers, for the encomiums which he has heaped upon the Senate of the United States, and to all of you my gratitude for this opportunity to be heard. I will try to be brief. If, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of brevity or because of a call, I should not complete my statement, I would ask that it be made a part of the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. Senator KEATING. This is a very important day for the people of the District of Columbia. I am sure they are grateful that this subcommittee has met to consider a plight which they have faced for many, many years. The subcommittee certainly is to be commended for the decision to meet and consider this problem. I am confident, on the basis of my long association with this committee during my service in the House, that it will be very sympathetic to the arguments it will hear in favor of granting the right of suffrage to the citizens of the District of Columbia. I will leave it to the representatives of this community, who are represented here by many outstanding men and women, to explain the injustice of the District of Columbia's present predicament. I know they will have no difficulty in convincing the members of this subcommittee that it is wholly un-American to deny representation to an area of the country which exceeds in population, as the chairman has indicated, 12 States which have full representation rights in both the House and Senate. I know they will have no difficulty in convincing you that it is wholly undemocratic to deny representation to an area of the country which contributes more Federal taxes to the Federal Treasury than is contributed by any one of 25 States of the Union. I know they will have no difficulty in convincing you that it is wholly unjust to deny representation to an area of the country which contributed more men and women to the Armed Forces of our country during World War II than any 1 of 14 other States. This is America. We do not believe in second-class citizenship. We do not believe in taxation without representation. We do not believe that men and women who are asked to risk their very lives for their country, should be denied the right to participate in its political processes. I say to the members of this subcommittee that this condition is inconsistent with our principles, with our traditions, and with our aspirations. It implies to the rest of the world that we do not practice what we preach in our Nation's Capital. I know it is difficult to stir widespread concern for the problems of the residents of the District of Columbia. We all have our own constituents whose problems deserve and receive our primary attention. But this is in no sense just a matter of local concern. This condition impairs America's prestige throughout the world. This condition troubles Americans throughout our country. I know, for example, that it has received extensive editorial comments in newspapers in all parts of the United States. I know that the chairman has had my experience of receiving many letters on this issue from constituents. In all of this comment, not a single argument appears against the proposition that the residents of the District of Columbia should be allowed to vote and enjoy representation in Congress. The only point of contention has been how much and what kind of representation is appropriate. In my view, the District deserves to have home rule, as well as national representation. I share entirely the chairman's viewpoint which he expressed, that home rule and national representation are two separate and distinct matters. In my view, the District should have as many representatives in Congress as any other political unit of our Nation of similar population, and, in my view, those representatives should have the same powers and duties as any others, although as you probably realize, the resolution which went through the Senate did not prescribe what those powers and duties would be. I realize that we shall have to compromise somewhere short of these ideals, as a practical matter. The resolution passed by the Senate was a compromise, worked out by a number of Members with a strong interest in this problem. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Senator KEATING. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I think a great deal of credit is due to you because it was your amendment, I believe, that caused, as far as the Senate is concerned, the people of the District of Columbia to have a vote. Senator KEATING. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman. I offered it on behalf of my colleagues, Senator Beall of Maryland, and Senator Case of South Dakota, and myself, at a time apparently when the climate was ripe for action in that field. I appreciate the comments of the chairman. The joint objective which we had was to get as much relief as possible from the present condition. We succeeded by a cooperative effort in getting through the Senate a resolution which would give the District full representation in the electoral college and in the House of Representatives. House Joint Resolution 529 does not go as far as the Senate-passed resolution. As I have indicated, under the Senate resolution, the people of the District would be entitled to "a number of Delegates to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Representatives to which they would be entitled if the District were a State." House Joint Resolution 529 would give the same representation in the House, although the language is somewhat different. However, under the Senate-passed resolution, the people of the District would be entitled to a number of electors for President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. The CHAIRMAN. Will you again yield? Senator KEATING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I believe your amendment provides for five Delegates. Senator KEATING. It provided for the number of Delegates- Senator KEATING. It would be the number of Delegates which the District would have Representatives if it were a State. It calls for a number of electors which the District would have if it were a State, which would be two more than the number of Representatives in Congress. Whether the District would have two or three Delegates under its present population is in dispute. The CHAIRMAN. In other words you provide for two electors as the States have two electors because they have two Senators. Senator KEATING. That is right. Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. In connection with my suggestion about Senators being named, wouldn't it be fair that if you are going to base this on a question of electorals, the number as you indicate if the population is such that they would be entitled to three Delegates, wouldn't they by the same token be entitled really to five votes rather than three because, as you point out, there are a number of States that don't even qualify for one, like Delaware, Vermont, Wyoming, and Nevada. Senator KEATING. I am not sure I understand your question. Mr. ROGERS. My question is: wouldn't it be just as easy to name two for the Senate and have the representation the same so that you will have the same equal number of electors for the District of Columbia as you would for all the States? Senator KEATING. Do you mean to provide in the resolution for the election of two Senators? Mr. ROGERS. Yes. You have passed a resolution saying that you will have three Delegates here in the House. You haven't taken acre of yourself at all. You haven't provided that the District of Columbia will have any voice in a coequal legislative body. Since you are going to limit the electors to the electoral college to a population basis, as you do the representatives, why wouldn't it be, if you want to be fair about it, fair to give two to the Senate and give them the same duties and responsibilities that you are going to give the Delegates? Senator KEATING. I think that those who have studied this problem realize that to try to convert this into virtually a statehood bill, would cause complications of great magnitude, and that would be the effect of the suggestion which you have made; I am afraid. Knowing the complexion of the Senate I am sure it would sound the death knell of any Senate legislation if we tried to make this a statehood bill in any way. |