that, you invite many problems, including a great problem of draftsmanship. I would rather see that dealt with in the report on this resolution, and have another resolution dealing with this specific problem.

Mr. TOLL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RODINO. May I ask one more question.

I have heard it stated by some of the people who are interested in home rule for the District that this would be the opening wedge, because once they would have the right to representation and have people who would be interested in a voice on the floor, then naturally you would have spokesmen who would urge this home rule.

Senator KEATING. I have heard that advanced. I have heard the argument advanced, and I have no doubt that the opposition to this resolution, which was less than a third of the Senate, had that in mind; because the same people who oppose that, by and large, oppose home rule for the District, although there are a good many who favor this approach who do not favor home rule.

I happen to favor both.

I don't think that that is a valid argument. I respect the views of those who say every person should have the right to vote for President and Vice President but that the District isn't ready, or there are complications and so on about home rule, complete home rule.

I don't agree with that argument, but I respect many who advance it and there are a good many who favor this approach who do not favor home rule.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

The District had home rule way back in 1870.

Senator KEATING. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. So the one really has no relationship to the other. Senator KEATING. No, because when they had home rule they didn't have the right to vote for national representation.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make clear for the record that I, too, favor home rule. I hope that if this is adopted, this resolution, that possibly this could be a [inaudible].

Senator KEATING. Again as a practical matter I would hate to have that argument made, because, after all, in order to pass a constitutional amendment you have to get a two-thirds vote. Two-thirds is sometimes not easy to come by.

I really think that the two matters are entirely separate and distinct. Mr. HOLTZMAN. Will the gentleman yield?"

Mr. RODINO. Yes.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Senator, you discussed Alaska and Hawaii, and pointed out that when Hawaii became a State practically automatically the pressure was on and therefore Alaska became a State.

Senator KEATING. I think it was the other way around, as I remember.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. In any case, statehood for one brought about statehood for the second. You sort of indicated that they were divisible items. And again I get back to what I asked, what the gentleman from New Jersey asked: Is it not a fact that we had a bill embodying statehood for both? Could we not have passed this bill with the same dispatch that we pass them individually, were it not for some intrasituation within the Congress?

Senator KEATING. There was a bill linking them together. But some of the opposition to that method of procedure was not by those who didn't favor statehood, but who didn't like that way of doing it.

If we can avoid it I wouldn't want to see this get into any hassle of that kind.

Mr. TOLL. As I understand it, you feel that due to the greater sentiment and the greater liklehood of the passage of this kind of a bill, this kind of an amendment, even though it might amount to a precedent for other similar actions later, that this should be kept separate from other complications.

Senator KEATING. Yes, I do. That is exactly right.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Senator, does your Senate resolution contain the same language as the House resolution with respect to the powers and duties of the delegates or representatives, that is, that these powers may be determined later by Congress?

Senator KEATING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In offering the resolution in the Senate, and in having it passed by the Senate, what is your intent or hope or aspiration? That they be voting representatives or that they be, as in the case of the territories, like Puerto Rico and so forth, nonvoting delegates?

Senator KEATING. I personally think they should be voting representatives. That is a personal opinion. There are many who favor this who do not favor at least as yet making them voting representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the reason why you phrased the resolution the way it is?

Senator KEATING. Yes, it was practical. I grant that. It was partly out of deference to the House of Representatives, because if they are to serve in that body, perhaps the House should act first on what their duties and responsibilities should be.

Mr. MILLER. Let me ask you this, from a purely practical standpoint: If it should be the census of opinion in the House that the delegates should be voting members, the easiest procedure would be to so specify in the resolution, rather than having a constitutional amendment and then having the Congress determine the question of whether or not the delegates will be voting or nonvoting. If in the House we prescribed in the resolution that the delegates were to have voting powers just as Representatives from the States, do you think this would possibly harm the chances of the resolution being passed in the Senate?

Senator KEATING. I do. I would favor just exactly what you have suggested there. But I would be fearful that it would cause complications in the Senate, and I am positive it would lead to lengthy discussion.

Mr. MILLER. Why should the Senate object if the House is willing to have the delegates within its own House have the right to vote? Why should that be a difficult thing for the Senate to swallow?

Senator KEATING. That is a fair question. But I think you will conclude that that would cause complications even in the House, and that it would be easier to get a majority vote later by statute, pre

54876-60-2

scribing their responsibilities and duties, than it would to get the twothirds vote necessary for the constitutional amendment, and that it would also possibly cause complications in getting three-fourths of the States to ratify.

That is, I think, a major consideration. On top of that, in answer to your precise question, the Senate does not alway follow what it is expected to, and those who oppose this whole procedure, even giving this much to the District, could use that as a vehicle for a very lengthy discussion which might kill the chances of passage. I would be very sympathetic to what you have advanced, but I would again place it in a category somewhat like these other proposals, although not as much so; as a practical matter I would hate to see it done.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to cut anybody off. But we have many witnesses this morning. Unless there are any further questions, we again thank you, Senator.

Senator KEATING. I certainly have enjoyed being here. I have always enjoyed my association with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee.

Mr. ROGERS. May I congratulate the Senator on his diligence in following this matter, and exploring with you further the possibility of having two nonvoting delegates on that side of the House.

Senator KEATING. I will explore the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is our distinguished Representative from the State of New York, and my colleague from Brooklyn, Congressman Abe Multer.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MULTER. I would be in favor of making Brooklyn a State. You would have my vote. It is always a pleasure to be here, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the invitation extended to me to give you my views on this important piece of legislation.

May I say at the outset that I appreciate the statement made by the chairman with reference to the home rule discharge petition, which, incidentally, happens to be my petition No. 2 at the desk, and at the same time take issue with the statement that has been made here that the two problems are different problems.

They are the identical problem, even though it is essential that they be treated differently, because of the legislative technicalities involved. The greater weight of legal opinion seems to be that the only way we can give to the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, and the right to representation in the Congress, is by constitutional amendment. On the other hand, none seem to deny but that home rule can be granted to the District of Columbia by legislative enactment through the usual procedure of a bill being passed by both Houses and the President affixing his signature to it.

When it comes to the further technicality of whether or not we can muster two-thirds in support of the constitutional amendment, let me indicate to you that the platforms of 1956, of both parties, urge representation for the residents of the District of Columbia, both by

home rule and by representation in the Congress, and by the right to vote for President and Vice President.

That points up the fact that I think all will agree that at least in the free countries of the world, those that believe in democracy with the small "d" and the republican form of government, with the small "r," as we subscribe to it and advance it, will agree that government is not set up to govern people, but is set up by people so that they can govern themselves. And if we start with that premise we necessarily subscribe to the principle that brought this country into being as a free country; that taxation without representation is tyranny.

May I most kindly call the attention of this committee to the political facts of life? And if they sound partisan, please understand they are not of my making, because I have done my best and will continue to do my best to see that both home rule for the District and representation in the Congress, and the right to vote for President and Vice President, will remain on a bipartisan basis with bipartisan support.

But when we hear the argument that you may not be able to muster a two-thirds vote of the Congress in support of this very fundamental principle, I am constrained to call your attention to the fact that although it is in both national political platforms alike, Republican and Democratic platforms of 1956, and I am sure if the legislation is not enacted at this Congress they will be in both in 1960-they will be in both 1960 platforms.

The CHAIRMAN. The trouble is that a platform is nothing to step on. It is something to get in on, as I understand it.

Mr. MULTER. I appreciate the humor with which the chairman makes that statement. From my long experience with him I know that he doesn't subscribe to that. I hope most of the members of this committee do not. And I know that the American public is very fast getting educated and getting to the time when they are going to point their finger, and do more than point a finger, at the politician or statesman or the man who runs for public office on a promise which he forgets the day he takes his oath of office.

I think this is the year when many people will be called to account for not having fulfilled their promises. And this is one of the platform pledges that I think people are going to call Members of the Congress to account for if they don't implement it.

In that connection, as I started to say, if we take the home rule petition on the House desk

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that the member restrict his remarks to this resolution instead of the home rule bill, because we certainly have a lot of witnesses and it will only complicate the issues if we have too much testimony on home rule.

The CHAIRMAN. I am in favor of home rule, and a good many members of the committee are. I do hope that the gentleman will confine himself to the resolution before us.

Mr. MULTER. I intend to, and it will not complicate the issue to call the attention of this committee, and to all concerned, that of the 187 signatures on the petition for home rule, only 26 percent of the Republicans have signed it and 80 percent of the Democrats have signed it. Now, that is the practical side of the situation.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, of course, there has been a great deal of talk down through the years about Members of Congress signing petitions to discharge committees of further consideration of bills that may be before them. I have had a long legislative service at both the State and National level. At the State level, I served as the minority leader of my party, and as speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio, longer than any man who ever served in that position.

By reason of that experience, and by reason of certain other fundamental convictions that I have, I do not sign petitions to discharge committees of further consideration of bills, whether they be bills which I have introduced and sponsored, or whether they be bills introduced and sponsored by others. I am sure the chairman and the members of this committee know that that was my position on the civil rights bill which I sponsored along with the chairman and which left this committee on August 20, 1959, but which did not have a rule until late February or early March of 1960.

I just want the record to show that there are many people with long legislative experience who do not follow the practice of signing petitions to discharge committees of further consideration of bills.

The CHAIRMAN. However, I don't want to let the impression to go forth that signing of a discharge petition is something unorthodox. It is prescribed in the rules. It is a deliberate method by which a bill can be pried loose from the Committee on Rules. Since it is in the rules, it was the result of great deliberations on the part of the House itself. There is no stigma attached to anybody signing a discharge petition because it is in the regular performance of his duties, and he has the right and sometimes he may have the duty, if his conscience so dictates, to sign that discharge petition.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that the gentleman from New York has seen fit to inject partisan politics into this issue as far as the District of Columbia is concerned. I, of course, support your resolution, Mr. Chairman, and in addition thereto I am in full accord with your statement. There is nothing unorthodox, nothing unusual, about signing a discharge petition. I just happen also to agree with my minority leader, Mr. McCulloch, that as a matter of practice I don't sign discharge petitions. That is not the important point. The important point is that the same argument could be made about the signatures which were attached to the civil rights discharge petition. And yet, when the civil rights bill passed the House, it passed the House with a vote of over 90 percent of the Republicans, and you can't say the same about the Democrats.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Mr. MILLER. So I think that when this resolution passes the House it will pass with a greater majority of Republican votes, percentagewise, than Democrats. So we won't talk about the discharge petition, I hope, from now on.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's forget about that and get down to business. Mr. MILLER. Let's talk about the resolution. I agree.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I think I have touched upon a spot that is quite sore and vulnerable to some of our colleagues. Again I say it is not of my making. If the only way that we are going to get members of both parties on the record to show whether or not they are