Personally, I would prefer the language of the Senate-passed resolution, in that it would place the District upon a parity with the States in the choosing of presidential electors.

Senate Joint Resolution 39, if it were now incorporated into our organic law, would allow the District to choose between four and five presidential electors. House Joint Resolution 529, on the contrary, provides for only two to three electors. The greater weight in the selection of a President and a Vice President afforded by the Senate measure is, I believe, justified, if only in partial recompense for the century and a half of disenfranchisement accorded residents of the District.

I am confident that your committee in markup session will consider this and other points which may be raised. The conference procedure exists to provide both Chambers with an opportunity for conscionable compromise upon the details of language while preserving the principle of legislation. For this reason I would suggest that the route and method I have outlined can provide the legislatures of the States with an early opportunity to register their views upon this constitutional proposal.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for your courtesy.

I want to make very clear, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, that what you decide upon in this committee is going to receive the support of the senior Senator from Oregon, and I am going to do everything I can to expedite our procedures over in the Senate so that we can get action on this important amendment without long delay and without, if possible, going back to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, so we can get this measure into conference at the earliest possible time.

I thank the committee for its courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Senator. We are glad to have you always.

Our next witness is Mr. Alexander Hawes, of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

I don't think I need to ask you to be brief, being a lawyer.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER B. HAWES, ON BEHALF OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. HAWES. I will be brief. I have a short written statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Alexander B. Hawes. I am appearing on behalf of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

I wish to express the appreciation of our association for the efforts which you are making to right a longstanding injustice the complete disenfranchisement of the people of the Nation's Capital.

As members of the legal profession, we are particularly concerned at the present denial to 850,000 Americans of the most basic American political right, the right to share in one's government through the vote. Americans who live outside the District participate in their government at all levels, local, State, and National. The bar association believes that District residents should have as closely

similar and equal rights as possible, subject to the ultimate legislative control of the National Capital by the Congress.

Accordingly, we strongly support the proposal to amend the Constitution to give the District representation in Congress and in the electoral college, as well as the legislation, now pending before another committee, to provide for home rule or local self-government, at what corresponds to State and city levels. We believe in what has been called the total vote for the District, and not just in one or two portions of it.

We therefore heartily endorse House Joint Resolution 529, now pending before you.

I want to depart from my statement here to say that I have had the temerity to suggest three changes in this resolution. I do not consider myself a political expert and able to forecast what is politically feasible, and it is of course up to the committee to decide in the first place whether any of these changes can be made.

1. The proposed amendment does not directly grant the District's Delegates in the House the power to vote, but only "such powers as the Congress, by law, provides" (p. 2, lines 10 and 11). Since there is no need for a constitutional amendment to authorize the election of nonvoting Delegates, the amendment undoubtedly is intended to authorize voting Delegates. But in its terms, it fails to say so, and it actually leaves it possible-however unlikely it may be for Congress to refuse voting rights to the District Delegates or to deprive the Delegates of voting rights once given. It would seem better to be definite and to substitute for the clause I have quoted some such words as "the rights, powers, and duties of Members of the House of Representatives."

2. The proposed amendment does not give the District representation in the Senate. Since, as has often been pointed out, the population of the District exceeds that of each of 12 States, each having two Senators, and the combined population of three States, having an aggregate of six Senators, it would seem only fair, from the point of view of numbers, that the District should also have two Senators. Perhaps a more important consideration is that the Senate has certain functions, for example, in the field of foreign relations, in which the House does not share, and in which, therefore, the District's population would have no voice, if senatorial representation were denied it.

3. Finally, if the District were a State, it would have two more electors for President and Vice President, corresponding to its Senators, than are accorded it by the proposal before you. In justice to the District, these additional electors should be allowed.

I will end with one comment.

As is clear from what I have said, the grant of national representation, in Congress and the electoral college, is no substitute for home rule or local self-government. Statements have sometimes been made to the effect that "True home rule" means representation in Congress. The untenability of this position is shown by consideration of the share the District would have in Congress-a vote of 2 or 3, or at most 5, in a total of 535 or more. This is approximately the share the District should have in the enactment of national legislation, applicable throughout the country. But when it comes to the District budget, District taxes, and other legislation applicable only in the District,

the District should have its own locally elected legislature, with full control subject only to the right of the Federal Government to intervene when it believes it to be necessary, and, therefore, we would expect, only if a national interest were threatened.

In other words, adoption of the proposed amendment will in no way make home rule or local self-government any the less important. Both are essential to do justice to the District, and both should be pushed as rapidly as possible, neither being dependent on the other

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hawes.

Our next witness is Mr. David Bress, attorney, of Washington.

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BRESS, ESQ., ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BRESS. Mr. Chairman, I am David G. Bress, a practicing lawyer in the District of Columbia. I came to the District of Columbia at a time when I had no right to vote in a State.

I have never had the opportunity of voting in my life. I have practiced here for 29 years. I am thrilled by the proposed legislation. think it is excellent.

I

I feel confident that I represent the views of the people of the city of Washington, that we would be happy with this legislation, pursued at this time, rather than to try to improve upon it by amendments which would provide for representation in the Senate and in other respects. As far as Congressman Meader's question about recession to the State of Maryland, I think that the people of Washington do not want that. I think Jiggs Donahue properly expressed the view of the people of Washington.

As to another comment I heard made today about there being a number of people in Washington who vote in other places, I do not think that affects the problem one iota.

We have approximately 100,000 residents in this city, some of whom are bona fide domiciliaries of the State in which they vote and they will continue to vote in those States.

But there are many--the exact percentage of which I do not know— who are not bona fide domiciliaries of those States but who are bona fide domiciliaries of the District of Columbia.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Bress, I asked that question because, if you permitted people to vote back home, in whatever State they may come from, but you also counted them as residents of the District of Columbia for the purpose of determining how many voting representatives you should have in Congress, they, in a sense, would have two voices: the Congressman that they elect in the State that they come from, and then they would be counted here, although they do not vote here, they would be counted in giving greater representation to the District of Columbia in the Congress than if you excluded those people who get their representation through their home State.

Mr. BRESS. Congressman Meader, I respectfully suggest that the problem is a simple mechanical one. Legislation by Congress will adequately take care of that. Those people who are domiciled in other States and who will vote in those States will be excluded in computing the representation.

My point, however, is that there are thousands who are voting away from Washington who will hereafter, when this proposed resolution becomes law, vote in the District of Columbia because this is their domicile.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this brief opportunity to state that I am confident the people of Washington want this constitutional amendment, and we want it as drawn, without amendment, in order to be sure we get it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bress.

Our next witness is Mr. É. K. Morris, president, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade.

STATEMENT OF E. K. MORRIS, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity, I would be very happy to file my statement and make a couple of remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

(The document is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF E. K. MORRIS, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 529

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am E. K. Morris, president of the Federal Storage Co., 1701 Florida Avenue, NW., residing at 4950 Hillbrook Lane, NW. I am currently the president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade on whose behalf I appear here today.

The board of trade was organized in 1889, has been an important community organization ever since and is today composed of approximately 7,000 business, professional, and civil leaders of this community.

Support of the principle of national representation was first voiced by our board of directors on April 24, 1916. Since that time, the board of trade has actively sought adoption of the type of resolution under consideration by this committee today. This objective has been reaffirmed countless times by our board of directors and a number of times through vote of the general membership. The board has been an active participating member of the Citizens' Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia since its organization.

To eliminate duplication and to conserve the time of the committee, I will refrain from making a lengthy statement which would necessarily repeat much of the material which has already been placed in the record by the chairman of the joint committee, Mr. F. Elwood Davis. I wish to wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Davis' complete statement and make it clear for the record that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade subscribes fully to the views of the joint committee.

We hope the committee will agree that the lack of voting representation in the Government of this Nation suffered by American citizens resident in the Capital City is in this day and age an indefensible contradiction of what we stand for in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world.

We urge the committee to accept the principle that residents of the District of Columbia who pay more in Federal taxes than do those of many States, who serve in the Armed Forces in great numbers and who are subject to all of the obligations of citizenship are entitled as a matter of right to participate in their National Government by voting for President and Vice President and for appropriate representation in Congress.

And finally on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade I urge the committee to favorably report House Joint Resolution 529.

Mr. MORRIS. I want to say that the board of trade is an old organization, having been established in 1889.

In 1916, for the first time, we came out in favor of a vote for President and Vice President and national representation, and on numerous occasions since we have fostered the same idea.

We have also been a participating member in the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia. I would be very happy wholeheartedly to endorse Mr. Elwood Davis' complete statement and make it clear for the record that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade subscribes fully to the views of the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

That certainly was brief.

We are appreciative of your comments.

The next witness is Mr. Theodore Prahinsky, president, Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia.

He does not answer.

Next, Miss Sally Butler, legislative chairman, General Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF SALLY BUTLER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Miss BUTLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a very brief statement, but I think I will submit it and make a few explanatory remarks, and very few.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I am Sally Butler, Director of Legislation for the General Federation of Women's Clubs. This organization was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1901 and today there are approximately 5 million members in the United States.

The general federation has endorsed and supports the principle of national representation for the District of Columbia. In 1935 by convention action the following resolution was passed and we reaffirmed this resolution in 1952. We still support this principle.

"NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (CONVENTION, 1935; REAFFIRMED, 1952)

"Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs endorses the principle that the Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District, constituting the seat of the Government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine; and further

"Resolved, That the Congress give prompt and favorable consideration to this proposal of simple justice and submit it to the States for ratification as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

We believe it is the inalienable right of every citizen to have representation in Congress. The situation is different today than it was when the District was etablished inasmuch as at that time everyone living in the District had a native State in which he could vote and have representation. Today there are thousands of people living in the District who were born here and as a result have no native State, hence no voice in congressional action. We believe every citizen is entitled to the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States.