June 14, 1960

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to commend the gentleman for his statement and his explanation of the resolution and the amendment which is provided in the resolution. In his remarks the gentleman referred to the 12th amendment, and it is also referred to in the body of the resolution itself. I should like to call to the attention of the gentleman from Ohio the following language which is a part of the first sentence of the 12th amendment:

The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves-.

The amendment with which we are dealing this afternoon is an amendment not pertaining to a State but to the seat of government, or to a district, as it is called, the District of Columbia. May I ask the gentleman if the restricting language contained in this first sentence, which states, "one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves," should be construed to apply to the electors af the District of Columbia, which itself is not a State.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I am of the opinion that the resolution before us if adopted would have no bearing on the question propounded by our colleague from Ohio. I am of the opinion, and we studied this question since the resolution was reported, that the President and Vice President would be limited so far as residences are required only and just as they have been limited in the past.

Mr. HENDERSON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MULTER].

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to support this resolution. If I gather the sentiment of the House, I would not be at all surprised that the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio, who preceded me, would be followed by the House with a unanimous vote in support of this resolution.

I cannot understand how anyone could be opposed to giving the right to vote, the privilege to vote, to the residents of the District of Columbia.

There is no doubt that this resolution is a step in the right direction, but I must emphasize that it is only one step. I hope that no one who supports this bill will pretend that by so doing he has done all that need be done for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The right to vote is only one element that makes up the right of self-government. Giving the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President of the United States is important, but it still does not give them the right to govern themselves within the District. It still does not give them the right to have an elective representative speak and vote for them in the Congress of the United States.

The right to representation in the Congress and the right to make local laws for their local self-government are encompassed within the home-rule bills before the House.

While it is safe to say that the sentiment for this measure now before us has been sparked and encouraged, at least in part, by the persistent action on the part of the sponsors of home rule, none who support this bill should assume that they have done their full duty by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Having voted for this resolution, each of the sponsors thereof should then resolve to bring before the House for its action the home rule bill which will give to the residents of the District the other two rights which are just as important to them as the right · to vote for President and Vice President, to wit, the right to be represented in the U.S. Congress and the right to make their local laws.

It is hard for me to understand how those who stand for States rights oppose home rule for the District. Although the District is not a State, States rights is merely a name for self-government. The State, or the Nation, is merely a fictional sovereign brought into being by the people as an instrumentality by which to govern themselves. To deny to the people of the District the right to govern themselves as to local matters, is to deny them the very rights which the supporters of States rights demand for themselves.

Let me call to your attention this inconsistency. There are seven discharge petitions at the desk. The di~~h a r g e p e­ tition for home rule needs 13 more signatures. On one or more of the other discharge petitions there are at least 30 signatures of Members of the House whose names do not appear on the discharge petition for home rule. I wonder how they can justify withholding their signatures from the home rule petition. To do one's full duty by themselves and their country, those Members should sign discharge petition No. 2 for home rule for the District.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT].

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Congress it is, of course, my privilege to be, you might say, on the city council or the State legislature of the District of Columbia. I own a house in the District of Columbia in which I live during sessions of Congress. I have neighbors who have lived in the District of Columbia for many years, some who have lived in the District for many generations. One of my immediate neighbors is the Marbury family which has been in this general area for, perhaps, 200 years.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Seventy-one Members are present, not a quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 130]

Addonizio Fulton Morris, Okla. Alexander Gallagher Moss Anfuso Garmatz Moulder Ashmore Gray O ' Neill Auchincloss Green, Pa. Osmers Ayres Hargis Patman Bailey Hebert Poage Baker Hemphill Powell Barden Holifield Quigley Beckworth Holtzman Rains Bennett, Mich. Ikard Riley Bentley Jackson Rivers , S.C. Blitch Jennings Roberts Boland Jensen Rogers, Tex. Brown, Mo. Jones, Ala. Shelley Buckley Jones, Mo. Short Burdick Kearns Smith, Miss. Burleson Keith Spence Cahill Kelly Springer Carnahan Kilburn Taylor Casey Kilday Teague, Tex. Daddario Kilgore Teller Diggs Kirwan Thomas Dingell Kl uczynsk1 Thompson. Tex. Dom, N.Y. Lafore Thornberry Dom, S.C. Lesinski Udall Dowdy Loser Wallhauser Durham McGovern Watts Elliott, Ala. McMillan Weis F i no Macdonald Withrow Fisher Magnuson Wright Flynt Mahon Young Fogarty May Forand Mitchell

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having resumed the chair, Mr. TRillllBLE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration House Joint Resolution 757 and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 332 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The cHAmMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT].

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of temporary residence in the District of Columbia during many sessions of Congress, living in a house I own, with my family here with me and my children of school age going to school; so I have a good deal of experience in living in the District of Columbia.

I know what my neighbors feel about this. I have my own feelings on it. I think this is only a matter of sheer justice that this mea.sure be enacted, and at the earliest possible moment.

Since the speaker before me made some reference to home rule, I -should like to say that none of my neighbors favor "home · rule" as those words are defined by most people who agitate for this. It has been my experience that most people who · agitate for home rule are people far removed from the District of Columbia and - they · have theoretical ideas about what is proper for other people and have ideas as to what is of advantage to themselves for political, or other, reasons for becoming enthusiastic. In my opinion, it is not the desire of the majority of the people of the District of Columbia to have home rule. I find the majority of the people of the District of Columbia are very bitterly, violently, and vigorously opposed to the so-called home-rule provision; but they are in favor of the provision which is before us today. I hope it is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEADER]. ·

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, we are about to adopt a resolution which if ratified by three-fourths of the States within 7 years, or 38 States, will become the 23d amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I am a member of Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary, which held hearings on this and related resolutions. I attended all the hearings • and participated in the deliberations of the subcommittee and the full commit­

I regard the amendment of the Constitution of the United States as an extremely serious matter. I think we ought to pause and reflect that this remarkable document, the Constitution, has proved workable and flexible enough to permit our Nation to grow in the century and a half of its existence without serious change in the phraseology of our original charter. This consideration is one which should give us an pause when we are contemplating modifying that basic document.

We ought to reflect also that if we regard the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments, as an integral part of the Constitution itself, the Constitution has really been amended permanently only 10 times. The 18th amendment we found necessary to repeal by the 21st amendment. The 22d amendment, the Presidential tenure amendment, after less than 20 years, is now under attack. There is a great deal of sentiment for, and I believe the Senate even commenced hearings on, another constitutional amendment to repeal the 22d amendment.

We should also remember that only five additional resolutions have been presented by the Congress to the States and have failed of ratification. Thus, we realize that when we are proposing to add a 23d amendment to the Constitution we are taking a very serious step. For that reason, I approached this proposal with resistance, and probably with the least enthusiasm of any member of the subcommittee and of the full Judiciary Committee.

I should like to point out some of the aspects of this proposed constitutional amendment which the Members of the House should have in mind when they vote and which may contribute to the consideration by the several legislatures of this resolution, if it is passed by a two- thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.

First, I do not believe there is a Member of this body or the other "body who wants to deprive any legally qualified citizen of his right to participate in the selection of agents to express his will in their government. But this amendment does not cure that.

This amendment will merely enable the Congress to provide the means whereby electors for the District of Columbia could participate in the selection af President and Vice President. But, it does not do anything for a lot of other citizens of the United States-for the 2,300,000 Puerto Ricans who are citizens of the United States or for the peo p le of other territories such as Panama, the Canal Zone, Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam. They will not have their franchise granted to them by this amendment.

The resolution before us is piecemeal legislation and it is also compromised legislation. Even with respect to the residents of the District of Columbia, it does not provide for a full voice in the election of officials who will exercise governmental authority over them. They have no representation in the Congress of the United States and this amendment will not give it to them. They will have no representation in any territorial legislature or in any local unit of government. So this is only a partial franchise that you are granting to the . residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEADER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McCULLOCH. It is true, is it not, that there is no constitutional authority needed in our system of government to give the District of Columbia a delegate or several delegates in the House, if we so desire to do?

Mr. MEADER. The gentleman, I believe, is correct as far as the constitutional authority of the Congress is concerned. We have provided by statute for delegates or commissioners from the territories, and we have that authority under the Constitution without further amendment.

There is considerable doubt, however, that the Congress could grant voting rights to any such representative of the District of Columbia. He could be here in the same sense that the Commissioner of Puerto Rico is here or the delegates that we used to have from the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska.

But, voting representation in the Congress either in the House of Representatives or the Senate or both, probably, could be provided for the District of Columbia only by a constitutional amendment. Indeed, the original form of this resolution did contain such a provision which would enable the Congress to provide for the election of delegates to the House of Representatives with the privilege of voting. But, that was stricken in the committee consideration of the measure.

Let me also point out that my attitude was that if this desirable objective; namely, granting the franchise to District residents, could be attained without amending the Constitution of the United States, but by mere statutory enactment, that we ought to explore all such possibilities carefully, thoroughly, and fully before we take the unusual and important step of tampering with the Constitution of the United States.

Some questions were asked along that line during the hearings, and I just want to call them to the attention of my colleagues. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BRoYHILL], who spoke earlier in the afternoon on the rule and who has sponsored legislation of this type for a number of years, was a witness before our committee on April 6, 1960. At page 28 of the hearings, I asked Mr. BROYHILL these questions and I received these answers:

Mr. MEADER. Mr. BROYHILL, you represent the area in Virginia which was previously at one time-! guess before 1846 or some such year-a part of the District of Columbia, the 10-mile square.

Mr. 'BROYHILL. A portion of my district was originally a portion of the District of Columbia-that is, Arlington County and Alexandria.

Mr. MEADER. Have there been any adverse effects that have come to your attention from the fact that the Federal Government did, by statute, relinquish or retrocede that portion of the District of Columbia back to Virginia?

Mr. BROYHILL. Any--

Mr. MEADER. Adverse effects so far as the National Government is concerned?

Mr. BROYHILL. No, indeed. The fact of the matter is that if you tried to get it back, you would meet with some resistance from . people over there, I believe.

Some witnesses testified that retrocession was not popular either with the residents of the District or with the State of Maryland. I felt there should have been further exploration of the possibility of retrocession.

If the Maryland portion of the District, except for that portion which is now occupied by the principal Government buildings, the Federal Triangle, were retroceded to Maryland the residents of the District of Columbia would be given what? . A partial vote? No, complete voting rights. They would have the right to vote for the Governor of the State of Maryland, for Representatives in Congress, and Senators, and their local city government.

The metropolitan area of Washington would not be artificially restricted by the District lines, but might become a normal metropolitan city. That possibility, in my judgment, although it is commented on in the committee report, was not thoroughly explored; it was superficially referred to.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEADER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I want to congratulate the gentleman on his observations and to ask him a question. As the gentleman may know, I am a member of the much-criticized District of Columbia Committee. When we have hearings about home rule we always bring up the idea: Why do we not retrocede part of the District to Maryland, contracting the Federal City? The gentleman I am sure will be interested to know that we could find no enthusiasm whatseover for that point of view. I do want the gentleman to know, however, that that point of view has been thoroughly explored by the District Committee.

Mr. MEADER. I want to call attention to another important aspect of this resolution. The resolution before you, on page 2, section 1, starting in line 2, reads as follows: "The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct" anumber of electors, and so on. That language was adopted by the committee. The original resolution, and I want you to pay close attention to the distinction, read as follows: "The people of the District constituting the seat of 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 and electors. There is a very important distinction in the phraseology. I might say to the members of the committee that I suggested the language as it appears in the resolution before you because it follows precisely the language of the Constitution, article II, section 1, providing for the . electors for President and Vice Presi<~.ent. . .

Article II, section 1, clause 2, states "Each State shall appoint in such m~- ner .~ the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors •. and so forth. I want to call your attention to the fact that. the phrase I have quoted does not require popular election of electors for President a~d Vice President; the .Iegi~- lature Is give~ complete authority m article II! section 1, to determine how presidential electors ~~e to be selected. That IS . the s.ame position Congress Will be m If this resolution ~comes an amendment to the Constitution.

What does that mean? After 38 States college? have ratified this resolution and it ~- comes amendment ~o. ~3 of ~he Constitution, enabling legislation Will ~ int~o- duced to proVIde the manner m which residents of the District of Columbia shall select electors for President and Vice President. Do you have any idea where that bill will be referred? It probably will be referred to the District of Columbia Committee. I do not know whether we have accomplished very much or not if, having amended the Constitution, its implementation is referred to the District Committee which some have accused of being unfriendly to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEADER. I yield.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. You will concede that once this amendment is adopted by the 38 States the Congress then has the power to provide a method for the selection of electors, does it not?

Mr. MEADER. That is . what this amendment does; it authorizes Congress by legislation to provide for the selection of the presidential electors.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. There is nothing in this amendment that would authorize a so-called election for those electors; is that correct?

Mr. MEADER. It would be completely within the power of the Congress to decide m what manner these electors shall be appointed.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Does the gentleman think that Congress could itself elect the electors without referring it to the people?

Mr. MEADER. Let me ask the gentleman whether under article II, section 1, the State legislatures might elect the electors or appoint the electors, if they so decided?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Yes. I understand the gentleman's argument is that the State legislatures may now, if they so desire, provide the method of selection of the electors without referring it to a vote of the people; is that correct?

Mr. MEADER. I am simply reading the exact language of the Constitution. I do not intend to make any interpretation of it other than what the language imparts. I do not know whether the legislature of any State has ever provided for the selection of presidential electors or for the appointment, to use the constitutional phrase, of presidential electors in any other fashion than by a direct vote of the people. I know of no State where that has been done, and I ~o not. know whether there is any litigation involving the interpretation of article II, section 1, or not. I am assum.­ ing, however, that this resolution will give Congress the same authority with respect to the appointment of electors that the State legislatures have under article II section 1

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. once this is adopted and Congress fails to act in setting up machinery for the election of electors or their selection, then are they to be considered as a part of the electoral college and would they constitute one of the 538 that will be in that Mr. ·MEADER. I believe that the count would be 540, would it not?-437 Representatives, 100 Senators, then 3 additional for the District 0 f C 0 1 b'

Mr um 1a. · ROGERS . of Colorado. Except that whenever this census is over, as I understand It, we go back to the 535; that Is, after the last census. .

Mr .. MEADER. That is still to be determined.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. But if the Congress fails to take any action whatsoever, the people would not be permitte.d to vote in the District of Columbia?

Mr. MEADER. I think it would take affirmative action by the Congress before anyone could vote for electors in the District of Columbia. Does not the gentleman agree with me?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I agree it would take affirmative action, and that under the affirmative action the Congress could set the qualifications for electors or the voters.

Mr. MEADER. I believe that Congress could.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. For the District of Columbia and set up the method and qualifications of the electors; could it not?

Mr. MEADER. It could, subject to any provisions in the Constitution, governing the time and place of choosing electors.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. It could set up all of the election machinery if the selection is to be by an election?

Mr. MEADER. I believe that the Congress could.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MEADER. I have one other point. resolution. The District of Columbia being the seat of Government, a great proportion of the population is here only temporarily, being connected in one way or another with Government business. Many District residents actually exercise their franchise back home in States from which they come.

On that point I call the attention of the committee to page 34, Mr. McLaughlin's testimony, where he estimated the population of the District as 850,000 or so; but over 100,000 are estimated to have voted by absentee ballots in States from which they come.

In that connection I remind the committee that in the recent primary in the District of Columbia there was something less than 30,000 votes cast in the presidential preference primary.

I call attention also to the fact that the census statistics seem to indicate that the total number of persons 21 and over at the present time is estimated to be 553,000, of which a substantial number maintain voting residence in a State.

In that connection I call attention to the language of the report, and I must defer to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCULLOCH] on this matter; that is, the committee inserted language which indicated in future censuses the committee does not intend to have those persons counted for the purpose of establishing the number of electors who maintain their domicile and their voting residence in other States and vote there. That matter can be taken care of by Congress under its control over the census laws.

Mr. WHITENER . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose that one of the most important duties that confronts one is when we are considering changing the basic document under which this country is governed. This decision as embodied in House Joint Resolution 757, will not only face the Members of the House and the Members of the other body. If two-thirds of the membership of the two bodies of the Congress approve this resolution, the general assemblies and legislatures of 50 States will within the next 7 years consider this change in the Constitution of the United States.

We have heard a great deal today about the provisions of this resolution. At the risk of boring some of my colleagues who have been so patient today I shall repeat what has been said in outlining the provisions of the resolution. It merely proposes an amendment to our Constitution empowering Congress later to provide for presidential and vice presidential electors for the District of Columbia, not to exceed the number of electors to which the least populous State in the Union may be now or hereafter entitled. This resolution should not be confused with the home rule agitation which has been so prevalent around the Capitol in recent days and for some time prior to the 86th Congress.

I think that as we consider this proposition we may, for the purpose of the record, consider some of the problems which will confront someone in the future in connection with this very simple It has been pointed out in the committee hearings that there is some doubt as to what the actual population situation is in the District as compared to a sovereign State, by reason of some factors which are well known to all of us. In testimony before the committee the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Mr. McLaughlin, testified that according to his best information-! believe that is on page 34 of the hearingS--Some 100,000 residents of the District participated in the last general election through the medium of absentee ballots in their respective States. Of course, Mr. McLaughlin and the other witnesses would not undertake to say how many nonparticipating voters there were in the District who were eligible to participate in elections back home under the laws of their States.

In North Carolina, my home State, there is a specific statutory provision which preserves the voting eligibility of a · North Carolinian who is here in Washington, residing here and working for the Government. I would presume that the same is true in other States. So, when we talk about the eligible voting population of the District of Columbia we are dealing with a rather illusory matter.

In our committee report we said on page 4 that-

It is the committee's intention regarding fU!ture enabling legislation to ca.rry out the provisions of this constitutional amendment, that no District inhabitants (including minor dependents) who maintain legal domiciles or voting residences elsewhere, be included in the censua computation insofar a.s determining the number of electors is concerned.

So we are faced with this practical problem, that the District of Columbia must of necessity, if the intent of the committee is carried out, become a favorite child in the census reports of the future and there will be a practical problem which seems to me to be insurmountable.

I think that points out the wisdom of this provision in the resolution-to which some opposition has been expressedthat the District should be limited to the number of electors enjoyed by the least populous State. In doing that we will in effect attempt to bar persons from having the right to vote both here and elsewhere and having them counted in the District as eligible people in determining the number of electors.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHI'I'ENER,, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MASON. In the regular elections between 50 and 60 percent of the regular voters or the legal voters of a State vote, and that is about all. Judging from that ratio if 100,000 voted from the District, that would mean that at least 180,000 or 190,000 had the right to vote in their own States. if they wanted to.

Mr. WHITENER. I may say to the gentleman that, of course, we are dealing in a rather imponderable realm when we talk of the population and the eligible population here in the District and its fictional characters who, some would say, are being taxed without representation. The District Commission President in testifying before the committee just a few short weeks ago testified that he estimated the population of the District of Columbia to be between 830,000 and 850,000. As I am informed, just this week the Census Bureau has reported that the population was some 747,000. So when we have this limitation it is a very salutary one, and one which I think makes it possible for those of us who approach this proposal somewhat hesitantly to go along with it. I express the hope that a sufficient number of our colleagues will support it to make it possible to submit it to the several States for ratification.

Without that limitation, the so-called Cramer amendment, I would have serious doubt as to whether it would be the proper thing to let someone go around the city of Washington and count heads and say that therefore the District of Columbia would be entitled to have so many electors, because some of these that are counted are heads of people who are participating in political activity in their own States for both of the major political parties, and who desire to preserve their legal residence in North Carolina, nlinois, or some other State. It would not be proper, I think, to count them twice.

There is a great history about this constitutional provision. Some say it was an oversight on the part of the Founding Fathers that they did not provide for election of electors for President and Vice President within the District of columbia. From the research I have been able to make, I do not believe that was an oversight because it seems to have been contemplated that this territory known as the seat of the Government, not to exceed, as the Constitution says, an area 10 miles square would be sort of a no-man's land, and that no one could interfere with its administration other than the elected Representatives of the people who serve in the Congress of the United States.

Madison presented the matter with a proposed constitutional provision. Pinckney of South Carolina, my neighboring State, presented another proposition. Out of these came the present provision, clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution. According to the recorded history this provision was very severely criticized in many States, including my own State of North Carolina. The great James Iredell, who later served on the Supreme Court of the United States, in the ratifying body of North Carolina satisfied the people of my State that we should not have the situation of conflicting authority as to the administration of the affairs of what was known as the seat of Government.

I say to you in conclusion that I think too many persons in our country today under the false contention of liberalism would strike down constitutional principles which were carefully thought out, and which are not outmoded. Today as we deal with this measure we can pass it and amend our Constitution in the orderly manner provided in article V of the Constitution.

But we should not confuse it with home rule. In my judgment we should never engraft on the statute books or the Constitution so-called home rule for this area, which is now and should eternally be the seat of the Government, regulated and controlled solely by those who are elected to serve in the two bodies of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Eighty-one Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 131]

Addonizio Fisher Mahon Alexander Flynt Mitchell Anfuso Fogarty Morris, Okla. Ashmore Forand Moss Auchincloss Fulton Moulder Ayres Gallagher Patman Bailey Garmatz Poage Baker Gray Powell Barden Green, Pa. Preston Bass, Tenn. Hargis Quigley Beckworth Hebert Rivers, S.C. Bennett, Mich. Hemphill Roberts Bentley Herlong Rogers, Tex. Blitch Holifield Shelley Boland Holtzman Short Boy kin Ikard Smith, Miss. Brown, Mo. Jackson Spence Buckley Jennings Springer Burdick Jensen Steed Burleson Jones, Ala. Taber Cahill Jones , Mo. Taylor Carnahan Judd Teague, Tex. Casey Kearns Teller Celler Kelly Thompson, N . J. Daddario Kilburn Thompson, Tex. Daniels Kilday Thornberry Davis, Tenn. Kilgore Vinson Dent Kluczynski Watts Diggs Lafore Weis Dorn, N . Y. Landrum Wharton Dorn, S . C. Loser Willis Dowdy McGovern Winstead Durham McMillan Withrow Elliott, Ala. Macdonald Wolf Feighan Machrowicz Wright P1no Magnuson Young

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having resumed the chair, Mr. TRIMBLE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution House Joint Resolution 757, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 325 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, it will not be my intention to be repetitious, but rather to discuss principally my amendment which was offered in and approved by the committee and which appears on page 2, line 8 of the resolution and reads "but in no event more than the least populous State."

That means that the residents of the District of Columbia would have a right to a number of electors equal to those of the least populous State in the Union. If the bill had been voted out as presented by the subcommittee without this amendment, it would have meant that the District of Columbia, not having the status of a State in this Union, would in effect have a larger number, unquestionably, of electors, meaning three, four, or five. If it were 5 it would have a larger number of electors than 13 States in the Union today. If it were three it would have an equal number of electors to four States in the Union. If it were 4, a number equal to 13 States and more than 4. It was likely under the anticipated population of the District (800,000) that it would at least have four electors as the subcommittee initially voted the bill out without my amendment. The District of Columbia would have a larger representation in determining who the President and Vice President of the United States should be than any one of the following States, and this is the reason it was thought as the bill came out of the subcommittee it was not really fair to those States that have full State status. For instance, Delaware has three, Nevada three, Vermont and Wyoming three. The following States have four. The District of Columbia under the initial bill would have had four and possibly five, so that the District voters would have more to say about presidential and vice-presidential electors than the four States I have named and at least an equal number of electors and an equal voice in saying who should be President and Vice President of the United States as the following States: Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah. Obviously, it is understood that the number of electors is determined by two for the U.S. Senators and one for each Representative in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, the feeling of many of us was that the District of Columbia would have a disproportionate voice in determining who the President and Vice President of the United States should be, and thus would possibly have an even greater say-so in those all-important offices than some 13 States, and assuredly equal to some 13 States in the Nation, depending on whether, under the subcommittee proposal the District would get four or five electors.

On the bill itself, let me say that this bill deals only with the question of the President and Vice President as chosen by the electoral college. This is not a home rule bill. I have not seen a home rule bill which I personally feel I could support. This is not a bill dealing with the question of Representatives in Congress. It has been agreed that the Congress has power to determine that issue by legislation without constitutional amendment any time in the future it sees fit to do so.

It also requires 7 years for ratification by three-fourths of the States. This is necessary legislation because the Constitution itself in article II, section 1, deals with this question of choosing the electors and only refers to the "States." Therefore the District of Columbia not being a State is in a no-man's land in a sense. Therefore a constitutional amendment is needed in order to permit the District of Columbia, in effect for this purpose alone under the Constitution, to choose electors.

At present the electoral college is s et up with 537. It is anticipated it will be set up due to statehood of Alaska and Hawaii with 2 new Members in the House and 4 in the Senate for the 1960 election, adding 6 new electors over the previous 531 figure. It is expected the number this year for President and Vice President will be 537. If this proposal were effective, once it is ratified by the needed number of States, the District of Columbia would have 3 in addition to those 537. After 1960, it is probable that the number will go back to 535, depending on what Congress does in the future with regard to 2 Representatives from Hawaii and Alaska and the number of Members in the House of Representatives, which of course is a decision only Congress can make after the census is determined . But assuming the number remained at 537, then this bill would add 3 new electors. It would not diminish the number of electors the States presently have, which is the case in the event the Congress fixed the number of Representatives in the House, that is, that the District of Columbia would have three additional electors and there would not be three taken a way from the States themselves.

That is the effect of the bill. With regard to the amendment itself again, the reason why this amendment was proposed, I having the privilege of offering it in committee, was that we were concerned about the District of Columbia having a greater status than the States in determining the number of electors and who should be the President and Vice President of the United States.

An additional reason is, it is to some extent a flexible formula. In other words, if the smallest State at any time should have in excess of three, which I might add is highly improbable, then, of course, the District of Columbia likewise would be entitled to that larger number. If the smallest State had a larger number, it does, and I think necessarily so, relate the question of new electors to relative electoral strength of the States themselves and the population of those States, and relates to the say-so that those States have at the present time and in the future as to who should be President. I do not think we can separate the question of the District of Columbia's right to make that determination from the rights the States have, and cannot afford to give it greater say-so than the States themselves have.

Also, I think it is a minimal number, but again it is no more than any of the smallest individual States would have.

For instance, as an example of the problem the committee had in reaching a decision, the State of Florida has 10 and has an anticipated expected population at the end of the census of 4,870,000 people, or an increase of 90 percent in population. This would, without this amendment, give the District of Columbia half as many electors as the State of Plorida. This would result in disproportionate voice of the 800,000 estimated people in the District, many of whom are not "residents," as compared to Plorida as well as all other States. My amendment guards against this disproportionate District vote.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CURTIN].

Mr. CURTIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 757, providing for legislation which is long overdue.

This resolution provides that an amendment be added to our Federal Constitution which will permit the residents of the District of Columbia to vote in presidential elections for their choice for President and Vice President.

One of the fundamental concepts of our Founding Fathers was that the new Government was to be a government by representation. Such representation, of course, should not be and was not intended to be restricted to certain electors, and that others should not participate just because they happen to reside in a certain locality. The recent civil rights bill was passed to insure the free right of suffrage to certain of our citizens who, it had been claimed, were being denied that privilege.

There is a group of our citizens, however, who are still being denied this fundamental right. I refer, of course, to those of our citizens who have their permanent home here in the District of Columbia, the Capital City of this great Nation, and, as such, the place where our Federal laws are made, which, among other responsibilities, are to guarantee and protect the rights of all of our citizens.

There seems to be no logical reason why these citizens should not have this Federal franchise. Certainly they are as interested in who is to be their President and Vice President as any other citizen. The denial of their right to vote for these offices seems to be more a matter of neglect than of intent. There is certainly no justification for this disenfranchisement of these good people.

Let us now pass this resolution, to start on its way an amendment that, when passed by the necessary three-fourths of the several States, will correct this oversight and give to the citizens of the District of Columbia this fundamental American right.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from California [Mr. BALD­

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 757. In my opinion, this constitutional amendment is very much needed and is long overdue. I feel very strongly that the citizens in the District of Columbia should have the right to vote for President and Vice President. These citizens are taxpayers and are subject to our Federal laws. They should have the right to participate in the selection of a President and Vice President to govern them.

This is only one of several needed steps. I hope that Congress will also soon recognize the need for granting home rule to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY].

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I sup­ point. port House Joint Resolution 757. This resolution, proposing an amendment to the Constitution, will grant representation in the electoral college to the District of Columbia. Simply stated, the resolution, if adopted by us and subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the States, would permit the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President. The bill is not perfect, because it contains one glaring shortcoming, which I shall discuss further in a moment. Nevertheless, I support it.

At times it is difficult to realize that the citizens of this great city are unable to express their preference at the ballot box for the office of President or Vice President. The people of the District are no different than those in the cities you and I represent. The Treasury consumes their tax dollar in the same fashion as they do any other revenue. No boy was disqualified from serving in the Armed Forces because he was a resident of the District of Columbia. The District has a population equal to or larger than several States and the tax revenues from it exceed that of 25 States.

The vitality of this city stems from its residents regardless of the fact that the principal industry of this city is government. Our concern is with these residents who are American citizens. As such they deserve the rights and privileges of Americans, and among them certainly the opportunity to vote in presidential elections.

Now, what is the shortcoming in this bill? The bill gives the District of Columbia "a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State." It is this "but" clause-this limitation upon the number of electors-­ that is bad. It serves no useful purpose, it violates logic, and it smacks of spite. If there is merit and worth in the general proposal, why must it be done in such a manner as to impose, by constitutional language, a permanent inferior status upon the District's participation in the electoral college? It is no argument that there is a shifting population in the District, or that a census is not a true count of the voting population because there are residents of the District who vote by absentee ballot in the States. This same argument is applicable to a great many areas. In my own congressional district in Manhattan, for example, there are many residents who vote elsewhere-in Connecticut, in New Jersey, in upstate New York, and in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

The bill comes to us under a closed rule which permits no amendments. Therefore, an amendment to strike out the limitation would be out of order. This is indeed unfortunate, and I fear we have written in language that we will one day regret. Perhaps a closed rule is necessary, as a practical matter, to get this bill enacted, bearing in mind that a two-thirds vote is required. But I fear we have overcompromised on this one This bill of course does not grant home rule to the District of Columbia. That is another subject, but no less important. It is unfortunate that the home rule bill is not also before us for action. Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HENDERSON].

NU·. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I favor the resolution which will set in motion machinery which will permit the people of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President. This resolution is brought to the consideration of the House today after many weeks of detailed study by a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary and by the full Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution presents one issue, namely, should American citizens who are residents of the District of Columbia be permitted to vote for President and Vice President as are other American citizens? Other issues such as statehood with the accompanying right to representation in the Congress and the principle of local self-government are not being considered in this legislation. I know of no reason why this legislation should not receive the wholehearted approval of all of my colleagues. The language is clear. It is brief and unambiguous. I would like to point to the language of the resolution, and to the fact that in drafting it the committee has been very careful to follow the parallel language of other portions of the Constitution.

So that there cannot be any question about the meaning of the language, so that there cannot be any new issues raised that have not already been considered by the courts of the land, brevity in the drafting of legislation, brevity in drafting constitutional provisions is of paramount importance; because, as you increase the number of words you also proportionately increase the number of opportunities for misunderstanding and consequent lawsuits.

Congress as the legislative authority over the District of Columbia will determine the exact details of exercising the vote.

I want to emphasize that this is a constitutional amendment, not mere legislation upon which we are voting. It must be approved by the House by a twothirds vote, by the Senate in similar fashion, and finally ratified by threefourths of the States before it is a part of the law of the land.

I do not feel that this action is premature; rather, it is long overdue. If arguments should be advanced that it is unwise or premature the fact that it will be subjected to the scrutiny of many people for many months will afford ample opportunity for consideration and weighing of all factors. I want to request that my colleagues in the House give their earnest consideration and approval to this very worthwhile and longneeded amendment.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].

Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Judiciary Committee for bringing this very important piece of legislation to the floor. I think it will be recalled that during debate on the civil rights bill I offered an amendment to accomplish this same purpose. At that time the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], said a bill would be brought in providing this constitutional amendment, and I am delighted it is here. I shall support it.

I am disappointed that the District of Columbia will not have representation in the House of Representatives. The more I sit on committees having to consider the affairs of the District the more I am convinced that the people of the District should have some representation here to present their arguments and their position to the committees of Congress.

When we say we are giving the right to vote to the people of the District of Columbia we are, in fact, giving back to the people the right to vote, for the Federal city in my opinion is different than Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone that have been spoken of. The area now occupied by the District of Columbia was at one time part of the States, and the people resident therein had the right to vote, had all the rights of citizenship, the right to elect Members of Congress. When we took from those States the original area of the District of Columbia we took away from the residents thereof their constitutional rights to vote for President, Vice President, Senators and Members of the House. We are now in fact giving back part of those things we took from them, and I hope that later we will give back to them more in the way of representation. I believe under the Constitution the House cannot grant home rule, but I do believe that this is a step forward. I hope the bill now pending will pass and I hope the 38 States will soon ratify this action of the great Judiciary Committee. I shall urge the State of Ohio to ratify as soon as possible.

May I say further that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCuLLOCH] has done outstanding work on this bill as he has on the civil rights bill and all other legislation before his committee.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. FOLEY].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 757 and urge unanimous passage by the Members of the Committee.

This is truly historic legislation. And today is a great day for the citizens of the District of Columbia. It is, also, a great day for the Members of the House of Representatives. For on this day, June 14, 1960, the House sets in motion the enfranchisement of the last primitive pioneer colonial, political dependents in the United States.

Closing this last voting gap in our citizenry has taken 160 years. Since 1800, the democratic ideals from our fountain of justice for the rights of individual persons, of responsibility by individual citizens for the nature and conduct of their own government, and of responsiveness by elected Government officials to the problems of the citizens served, have all :flowed inexorably through the corridor of time to the peoples in the farthest reaches on earth. They have flowed to most everyone save those persons occupying the doorstep of the citadel of democracy. These are the citizens who more than any of our citizens have gazed daily and longingly upon the U.S. Capitol, holding forth as it does the Statue of Freedom.

This symbol has meant to the District of Columbia citizens freedom in every respect but freedom to participate in the elective representative government process. Lacking this essential freedom has meant that the District of Columbia citizens until now have been the most free political serfs in the world. They have not, for the past 160 years, been fullfledged American citizens.

Since the end of World War II, over 755 million persons have established their own independent governments. These are new nations :flying for the first time the :flag of freedom. True, they are underdeveloped economically, politically youthful, socially emergent, taking firm first steps on their own to combat illiteracy, disease, and poverty. But they are free people. They can determine and participate in the conduct of their governments. They are now outside the Communist bloc. We must continue to help them remain free and independent. Thus there is, in addition to all others, an immediate and timely reason to pass House Joint Resolution 757. By enfranchising the citizens of the District of Columbia, we will, on this Flag Day in 1960, be completing our firm fabric of freedom. The Statue of Freedom fully embellished will glisten and gleam with a luster, new and fresh, having lost its last tarnish, the unsightly spot before its eyes of District of Columbia citizens prohibited from voting.

This freedom light inspires and will continue to inspire all free persons, confirming them in their entitlement. This light will keep alive the noble aspirations of all those hoping to be free.

I urge passage of House Joint Resolution 757, and having extended these rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia, Congress should provide home rule to them to make them full-bodied American citizens.

The definitive work on the subject of home rule is "Government of the District of Columbia," by W. J. Dodd. The following historical facts are related there.

On the first Monday in December 1800 the seat of the U.S. Government was transferred from Philadelphia to the Federal District on the banks of the Potomac. In a letter to Maj. Pierre Charles L'Enfant on September 9, 1791, the three Commissioners were appointed by President George Washington to lay out and survey, purchase or accept such lands as the President deemed proper - for the use of the U.S. Government and to provide suitable buildings for the Congress, the President, and the public officers of the Government. In discharging their responsibilities the Commissioners stated to Major L'Enfant that "We have agreed that the Federal District shall be called the Territory of Columbia and the Federal city the city of Washington.”

Between 1790 and 1801 the laws of the States of Maryland and Virginia re- - mained in force in the parts of the territory ceded by these States as a seat of the Federal Capital. On February 27, 1801, the Congress provided that the laws of Virginia should remain in force in that part of the District of Columbia ceded by that State, and the laws of Maryland should remain in force in that part ceded by Maryland. The District of Columbia was erected into two counties; one lying east of the Potomac called the county of Washington, the other lying west of the Potomac called the county of Alexandria. The incorporation of the city of Washington by Congress on May 3, 1802, increased the number of governing bodies in the District of Columbia to five: First, the county of Alexandria; second, the town of Alexandria; third, the county of Washington; fourth, the town of Georgetown; fifth, the city of Washington.

As time passed the Federal Government did not find occasion to use the territories ceded by Virginia as a site for public buildings. The people of the town and county of Alexandria were from the first dissatisfied because of their failure to reap any advantages from their inclusion within the Federal District. No benefits accrued to them from the connection, but on the other hand they were subject to the hardship of disfranchisement except with reference to their local affairs, and because Congress had not had time to give to a systematic revision of their laws, they were still subject to the somewhat antiquated laws which were enforced in Virginia in 1800. In the early part of 1846 petitions were presented to Congress asking that the town and county of Alexandria be retroceded to Virginia. On July 9, 1846, Congress retroceded to Virginia all that part of the District lying west of the Potomac River, the question of retrocession being first submitted to a vote of the citizens of that territory. By Presidential proclamation of September 7, 1846, the town and county of Alexandria ceased to form a part of the District of Columbia.

The county of Washington was governed as a county under the laws of Maryland until 1812. In that year Congress, by law, provided that the governing body, a levY court, should be composed of seven members designated by the President from among the justices of the peace of the county. This form of government continued substantially the same until 1871.

The town of Georgetown was governed under the laws of Maryland until 1805. That year Congress provided that a board of common councilmen of 11 members was to be annually elected by the free white male citizens of full age who had resided within the town for 12 months and had paid a tax to the corporation and 5 persons were elected by the same voters to serve as aldermen for a term of 2 years. These offi.cials annually by joint ballot chose a mayor and a recorder. In 1830 Congress provided that the mayor should be biennially elected by the citizens qualified to vote for aldermen and common councilmen. In 1856, Congress authorized the town of Georgetown to levY an annual poll tax of $1 for school purposes and granted the right to vote to every free white male citizen who had attained the age of 21 years and resided within the limits of the town for 1 year and had paid the school tax for the year preceding the one in which he desired to vote.

On May 3, 18{)2, the city of Washington was divided into three wards. A council of 12 members was created, elected annually by ballot on a general ticket by the free white male inhabitants of full age who had resided in that city for 12 months and who had paid taxes therein within the year preceding the election. The councilors chose from among themselves five members to form a second chamber. The mayor of the city was annually appointed by the President of the United States. Ordinances passed by the council were submitted to the mayor for his approval, but if he should veto them they might be reconsidered and passed by votes of threefourths of the two branches of the city council. In 1804 Congress provided that each chamber of the city council should consist of nine members, to be chosen annually on separate ballots. In 1812 Congress provided that the board of aldermen should consist of eight members, elected for a term of 2 years, two from each of the four wards into which the city was now divided. The board of common council was composed of 12 members, 3 being from each ward, for a term of 1 year. The mayor was annually elected by joint ballot of the common council and board of aldermen. The elective franchise continued to be restricted to white males who paid taxes. The mayor was required to be 30 years of age and a resident of the city for the 2 years immediately preceding his election. In 1820 the mayor became elective biannually by the people qualified to vote for members of the common council and board of aldermen. In 1848 the offi.cers of assessor, register, collector, and surveyor of the city were made elective and the suffrage was extended to all free white males of 21 years of age who were subject to the school tax of $1 per annum and who had paid such tax and all other taxes.