AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Feedration of Labor and Congress of Industiral Organizations firmly supports the principal of representation for the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college, as proposed in House Joint Resolution 529. No evidence need be adduced to show that residents of the District of Columbia are denied a voice in their government, both local and national. In a nation which prides itself in its firm adherence to democratic principles and its successful experiment in democratic self-government, any continuance of this unconscionable situation would be intolerable. District residents presently bear the duties of citizenship; they pay their taxes and obey the laws. They should also be given the right to representation in the House of Representatives and the right to cast their votes in the election of the President. We urge favorable and speedy consideration by your committee of House Joint Resolution 529, and prompt approval by the Congress and the legislatures of the various States thereof. Please incorporate this statement in the record of the hearings. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, RESOLUTION BY PALISADES CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Whereas for the first time in history, a resolution for a constitutional amendment to give national representation to the District of Columbia has passed the Senate, and Whereas a similar proposal, House Joint Resolution 529, is now before the House of Representatives and a hearing will be held on it April 6 and 7 before the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Representative Emanuel Celler, of New York, and Whereas this constitutional amendment would enable citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President and to elect as many Representatives to the House as the District would be entitled to if it were a State, and Whereas the recent granting of statehood and full representation in Congress to Alaska and Hawaii makes it mandatory that the rights of national suffrage and representation in Congress be authorized for the District: Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Palisades Citizens Association, in regular meeting on April 5, 1960, hereby goes on record favoring representation for the District of Columbia in Congress and the right of District citizens to vote for President and Vice President; and be it further Resolved, That the officers of the association are authorized to notify Congressman Celler of our support, to attend and testify at the hearings, and to work for national suffrage in any other way. STATEMENT OF PATRICK T. GORI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOWNTOWN PARK & SHOP, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., ON THE BILL TO PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA My name is Patrick T. Gori. I am executive director of Downtown Park & Shop, Inc., a nonprofit organization composed of 230 business firms which provide free parking for customers and are actively working to bring about the resurgence of downtown Washington, D.C. I appear here today by direction of my executive board to testify in favor of the legislation now before this committee to secure for the citizens of the Nation's Capital the right to vote for President, Vice President, and representation in Congress. In the interest of saving the time of members of the House Judiciary Committee, I would like to state that this association is a member of the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia and that we are in complete agreement with the statement submitted by that committee. We strongly urge that this committee support this vitally needed legislation. RE House Joint Resolution 529, D.C. representation and vote. As a long-time resident of the District of Columbia, I am deeply interested in the matter of representation and voting rights for the people of the District. The denial of these rights throughout our entire history as a Nation has been a most glaring injustice. The District today is a far cry from what it was in 1800. The population has grown, until now it exceeds that of each of 15 States, and pays Federal taxes in excess of that paid by 25 States. In 1767, James Otis stood up in a Boston, Mass., courtroom and declared that "Taxation without representation is tyranny," and 9 years later Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." In all the years since, this Government has adhered to these principles― adhered, that is, to all but the seat of the government, the District of Columbia. As new States have been added to the Republic, the Congress has seen to it that they each have two Senators and at least one Representative in the Congress, regardless of population-and that they have the right to vote for President and Vice President. Just recently, two new States have been added : Alaska, at its nearest point separated from the State of Washinton by 750 miles of foreign territory; and Hawaii, a group of eight inhabited islands, situated 1,500 miles out in the Pacific Ocean. Yet each of these new States are represented in this Congress by two Senators and one Representative. According to the 1950 census, the following States had a population less than the District of Columbia: Alaska 128,643, Arizona 749,587, Delaware 318,085, Hawaii 499,794, Idaho 588,637, Montana 591,024, Nevada 160,083, New Hamp shire 533,242, New Mexico 681,187, North Dakota 619,636, Rhode Island 791,896, South Dakota 652,740, Utah 688,862, Vermont 377,747, Wyoming 290,529. The population of the District was 802,178. Why should Alaska, with only 128,643 people and Nevada with only 160,083 be represented in the Congress by two Senators and one Representative in the House, while the District, with nearly six times the population has no representation at all? In In 1958, the people of the District of Columbia paid in Federal taxes the sum of $363,210,489. This is more than was paid by any one of 25 States. I do not have the names of the States that paid less than the District in 1958, but I do have for the year 1940. The amount of taxes paid in 1958 was much larger than in 1940, but it is quite likely that the proportion is much the same. 1940 the following 27 States paid less than the District: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Are we to believe that "taxation without representation" was tyranny in 1767, but that it is quite all right in 1960? I am glad that this Congress is now making a serious effort to right this injustice, but the measures proposed in both House and Senate fall far short of what should be done. Neither of these resolutions give the District representation in the Senate, and both give little more than "spectators" in the House, for they would have only such powers as the Congress by law shall determine; and the Congress is not obligated to grant any powers-and even if full voting powers were given by one Congress, another could take away such powers, and relegate our "Delegates" to the House gallery, where they would be mere spectators. The sponsors of these resolutions would have us believe, apparently, that the Congress would promptly grant our Delegates seats on the House floor with the right to speak and vote the same as the Representatives from the States. If that is the thought, it should be so written into the amendment. It is a well known fact that verbal promises, in addition to a written contract have no validity. There is an old saying that you should not look a gift horse in the mouth, but I think that in this case we should take a good long look in its mouth-besides, this is not a "gift horse," we are paying for it-have been paying for it for 150 years. The Congress should face up to this thing honestly. Considering the population of the District and the amount of Federal taxes paid by the residents, nothing short of full voting representation in both House and Senate, on the same basis as the States would be enough. We are not asking that the District be made a State: we merely want our just civil rights as intelligent citizens of the Republic. Attached hereto is a draft of a joint resolution that embodies what, to my mind, the District should have. I sincerely hope the committee will substitute this for the pending resolution, or amend the pending resolution to include its provisions. Respectfully submitted. J. F. SHOEMAKER. P.S.-I neglected to state that if we are to merely have "spectators" in the House, we can get them for less than $22,500 a year that a real Congressman would cost. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., April 5, 1960. DEAR MR. CELLER: The League of Women Voters of the United States would like to file with your committee the enclosed statement in support of House Joint Resolution 529, proposing an amendment to the Constitution granting representation in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college to the District of Columbia. We had hoped that one of the members of our board of directors could read the statement before your committee, but find that the dates of the hearings conflict with a meeting in which they are engaged. Sincerely, Mrs. ROBERT J. PHILLIPS, President. STATEMENT BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL SUFFRAGE FOR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The League of Women Voters of the United States is celebrating its 40th anniversary this spring. For most of the 40 years of its existence, the league has been on record in favor of national representation for citizens of the District of Columbia. We wish to reaffirm this support today before your committee and urge that the Congress this year submit to the states a constitutional amendment giving the franchise in national elections to those citizens who live within the boundaries of the National Capital. The league is now organized in 1,080 local communities in all 50 States, with a total membership of 127,000. We believe that these members of our local leagues would enthusiastically work through their State legislatures for swift State ratification of the District of Columbia national suffrage amendment. Indeed, we can think of few issues which they would support with such good will and energy. The biennial convention is the governing body of the League of Women Voters. At the 1922 convention, held 6 months after all women citizens of the United States except those living in the District of Columbia became eligible to vote in a national election, the convention endorsed national representation for the District of Columbia. Other league conventions down through the years have endorsed the same principle. Our members outside the District, valuing as they do their own franchise and engaged in encouraging all citizens to cast informed votes when they go to the polls, have never had any trouble understanding the issues in volved here. What they cannot understand is why this injustice to District citizens has not been righted long ago. Carrie Chapman Catt, a leader whose name is connected with the long but finally successful battle for the vote for women, testified in favor of just such an amendment as that now before you, in 1926. Miss Belle Sherwin, as president of the national league, also testified before this same committee, for the same proposal, in the thirties. Miss Strauss, president of the league from 1946 to 1950, also appeared before you, asking for action. We hope this is the last time you will have to listen to the League of Women Voters urge you to pass this measure. The District of Columbia League of Women Voters has other comments to make on House Joint Resolution 529. The purpose of the appearance of the national league today is simply to assure you that our support is nationwide; that it is enthusiastic; and that our members in 50 States will work for quick ratification if the Congress permits them to do so. JOINT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY J. F. SHOEMAKER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the Senate and House of Representatives and in the electorial college to the District of Columbia. Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States 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 a part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years of the date of its submission by the Congress : The people of the District of Columbia shall elect in such manner and under such regulations as the Congress shall provide by law : 1. Two Senators and such number of Representatives as the District would be entitled to if a State, by reason of its population; provided that no person shall be a Senator or a Representative who does not possess the qualifications as to age and citizenship required by sections 2 and 3 of article I of the Constitution, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the District. 2. A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the District would be entitled if a State; such electors shall possess the qualifications required by article II of the Constitution; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, and they shall meet in the District and cast their ballots as provided by the XII article of amendment. 3. All duties, privileges and prohibitions enumerated in the Constitution as applying to the Senators and Representatives of the several States shall be considered as applying to those of the District of Columbia. STATEMENT OF OSCAR I. DODEK, PRESIDENT, MERCHANTS & MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION ON THE BILL TO PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA My name is Oscar I. Dodek, and I am president of the Merchants & Manufacturers Association. The association, now 40 years old, represents over 400 of the leading business firms of Washington. The board of governors of my association has unanimously supported the legislation now before you which would give the citizens of Washington the right to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States and which would also give those citizens representation in the Congress. I appear before you today at the direction of my board. My statement will be very brief because we are in complete agreement with the statement which has been presented by the Citizen's Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia and we do not want to take the time of this committee today to restate that organization's beliefs and policies. However, the brevity of this statement should not be construed to mean that this organization is not vitally interested in this legislation. We are completely in support of the bill before you today and strongly urge you to favorably report the measure and to support it when it comes before the House. Respectfully submitted. OSCAR I. DOBEK, President. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, there is an editorial in this morning's Washington Post dated April 6, entitled "Equal Votes for President, as well as a letter to the editor signed by a Mr. Victor R. Daly. I ask unanimous consent that these items be made a part of the record. I wish to observe the editorial points out that the best procedure to get national representation through the Congress is by adopting a resolution on the single subject of national representation and presidential vote. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is admitted. (The editorial and letter to the editor follows:) [From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Apr. 6, 1960] EQUAL VOTES FOR PRESIDENT As hearings begin today on the proposals to grant national suffrage to residents of the District of Columbia, two major questions await decision. Should the House Judiciary Subcommittee approve the Keating or the Celler resolution? Should this proposed amendment to the Constitution stand by itself or should it be submitted to the States as part of the larger package which already has Senate approval? The outcome of this important venture may well be determined by the answers that are forthcoming from Representative Celler's subcommittee. The first question should be resolved, in our opinion, in favor of the Keating resolution. In addition to having passed the Senate, where similar resolutions have so often been stalled, the Keating proposal is clearly more equitable. Both it and the Celler resolution would give the District Delegates in the House in accord with its standing among the States in the population tables. Both would also give the District representation in the electoral system for the choice of President and Vice President. The Celler resolution would limit the number of District electors to two or three, however, whereas the Keating resolution would fix the number of electors at four or five. In other words, Mr. Celler would make the number of the District's electors equal to its Delegates in the House; the Senate-approved resolution would add two additional electors (as if the District had representation in the Senate) so as to make votes here count for as much as they do in other parts of the Nation. Fairplay cries out for equal treatment of voters even though they may live in the Nation's Capital. As to the second question, we have hoped that the House would approve the entire Senate package, including, in addition to the District suffrage proposal, amendments to abolish the poll tax and to permit Governors to fill vacancies in the House in case of national disaster. Stiff opposition appears to have arisen, however. to the last two proposals. Apparently that is the chief reason why the Judiciary Subcommittee is confining its hearing to the proposed District suffrage amendment. Certainly District suffrage should not go down to defeat simply because it is linked with the other proposals. The best procedure is that which will give the national representation amendment the maximum chance for enactment. A VOICE FOR VOTES All my life I have wanted to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. As an American citizen it is my right to vote for these officials of Government. I have been denied this right because my adult life has been spent in the city of Washington. There are thousands of local citizens in the same category. A serious effort is now being made to remedy this defect in the democratic process. It requires a constitutional amendment. Every citizen of the District |