June 14, 1960

On January 8, 1867, a change was made in the charters of both Georgetown and Washington. This provided that male persons above the age of 21 years should have the right to vote at elections in the District of Columbia, without any distinction on account of color or race, and thus, established universal male suffrage. A law made on March 18, 1869, repealed the provisions of the charters of Georgetown and Washington which restricted to white persons the right to hold offi.ce.

In the early part of 1870 a movement began in favor of establishing a centralized government for the District of Columbia. This movement was successful, and by an act of February 21, 1871, the separate governments of the cities of washington and Georgetown were abolished, and a government for the District established, similar in organization to that provided for the territories of the United States. The executive power was vested in a Governor, appointed by the President of the United States with approval of the Senate for a term of 4 years. The Governor was given a veto upon all legislation, such veto to be overcome by the votes of two-thirds of all members of the Council and House of Delegates. Legislative power was vested in an assembly composed of a Council and a House of Delegates. There were 11 members in the council, all appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. The House of Delegates was composed of 22 members elected for a term of 1 year. Twenty-two districts were formed for the election of the members of the House of Delegates. Members of the two legislative bodies were to reside in the districts from which they were appointed or elected. The suffrage was exercised by all male citizens of the United States of the age of 21 years who had resided in the District for 1 year and the legislative assembly was forbidden to limit the right to vote in any way.

The voters qualified to elect members of the House of Delegates were authorized to choose a Delegate to the House of Representatives to serve 2 years with the same rights and privileges as Delegates from the territories.

The most important organ of the new government was the board of public works which consisted of the Governor as president and four persons appointed by the President of the United States with the approval of the Senate. The board had entire control of and power to make all regulations for keeping in repair the streets and sewers of the city, and such other works as entrusted to it by the legislative assembly or by the Congress. The board was limited and had no power to make contracts to bind the District to the payment of any sums of money except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. And not until after such appropriations had been made. Early in 1872, certain citizens of the District of Columbia charged the board of public works with extravagance, violation of law, and corruption. A congressional committee majority report found no evidence of corruption or illegality. However, on August 19, 1871, the Congress limited the debt of the District of Columbia to $10 million. The new government of the District had inherited a debt of nearly $4 million and by May 1872, had added nearly $5 million to the original amount. The board of public works in 1872 made improvements upon and around Government property and on January 8, 1873, Congress appropriated $1,241,920.92 to pay for such improvements. At the same time Congress forbade the board to incur further liabilities on behalf of the United States. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the board of public works on November 1, 1873, claimed an indebtedness of the U.S. Government to the District of over $4 million.

The arbitrary conduct of the board toward individuals, the rapidly increasing debt of the District, and the undeniable jobbery prevalent in the letting of contracts aroused the people to petition Congress for another investigation into the affairs of the District. A joint congressional committee found that the treasurer of the board was the sole disbursing offi.cer of the funds under its control and there was no check whatever upon his actions. He kept no cash account and the checks issued by him did not correspond with the amounts which he reported to have been paid. He had the power to draw his checks upon public moneys without the knowledge of any other member of the board. No record was made of audits by the board. The board itself had never verified the accounts of the offi.ces of treasurer and auditor. The original plan of improvement by the board was for $16 million. However, without further basis for making contracts they expended over $12 million in excess of this sum. These extensive obligations were contracted without legislative authority and in the face of legal prohibition. The joint committee found that an attempt had been made to accomplish an extensive and much needed system of improvements in too short a time. Because of this haste, contracts were often let before the details of engineering, work, plans, and estimates had been properly made, and defective plans added to the extension of the original estimates. Contracts were let without open competition at a fixed scale of prices and were sometimes awarded to persons who did not expect to fulfill them but who sold them to others at a profit.

The committee further found that the board of public works had done a tremendous amount of work within a short time. It had changed the whole appearance of the city of Washington. It had created a beautiful city out of a straggling, dirty, and mean looking town. However, by 1874, the District of Columbia was bankrupt. The joint committee recommended what was practically the appointment of receivers to conduct its affairs and to settle its financial obligations. On June 20, 1874, the existing government was abolished. Three Commissioners appointed by the President were vested with all powers formerly exercised by the Governor and board of public works. An offi.cer of the Engineer Corps of the U.S. Army was detailed to have control of all public improvements.

When the government by Commissioners was created, it was considered merely a temporary expedient. A joint select committee was appointed by the Congress to prepare a suitable form of government for the District. On December 7, 1874, the committee reported an elaborate bill of over 200 pages. The bill was tabled by the Congress. The debate revealed that the appointed board of public works was the strongest organ of the territorial government and its abuse of power was the cause of the dissolution of that government. The defects of the territorial government did not arise from its elective portion. Finally, on June 11 , 1878, the organic law of the District of Columbia establishing the present Commission form of government was passed by the Congress. Under the Federal Constitution the Congress may grant and has granted to the Commissioners power to adopt local police, health, building, and other regulations. Congress can delegate only its powers which relate to purely local matters and must exercise directly its legislative powers with reference to subjects of general interest such as contracts, titles of real property, corporations, commerce, and marriage. Congress is and under the Constitution must remain the supreme legislative power of the District of Columbia. The Commissioners and other bodies exercising subordinate legislative power have only such powers as Congress may see fit to confer upon them. Under the Constitution, Congress cannot confer general powers of legislation upon the District. But it has not seen fit even to confer the full powers of a municipal legislature upon the present District Government . It now occupies toward the District of Columbia a twofold relation of a general legislature and municipal council. The legislative power of the Commissioners is largely negative in character. They may usually prevent legislation by the expression of their disapproval. The bills submitted by the Commissioners to the Congress are frequently not reported at all by the District committees, and if reported, are so amended as to defeat the objects which the Commissioners have in view.

Even when Congress does act, it often acts in an unsatisfactory manner. As an indication of the careless methods of legislation with reference to the District of Columbia, the compulsory education law of June 8, 1906, provided that inspectors under the child labor law should assist in the enforcements of its terms. No child labor law was enacted until May 28, 1908. The child labor law when enacted provided for two inspectors who should enforce its terms, but Congress made no appropriation for the payment of such inspectors.

Since 1949, home rule legislation · has been considered by the Congress on several occasions. Four previous times in the intervening years the Senate has passed home rule bills. This year for the fifth time, the Senate has acted favorably. A number of companion bills before the subcommittee provide for establishing the territorial form of government for the District of Columbia. H.R. 4633 is my bill. No doubt many Members will file statements rather than to appear personally. I hope the subcommittee ' s deliberations will be conducted with dispatch and that this public-interest legislation can be considered on the House floor before this session of the Congress adjourns. To this end, I introduced House Resolution 320 on July 16, 1959, to facilitate consideration by the House of the territorial government proposals in this 1st session of the 86th Congress.

I do not presume today to discuss with the subcommittee the fundamentals of American democratic theory. But I do think that this is an appropriate time to reconsider and reiterate what we , as citizens of the United States, ought all to agree on as basic principles of political life in a free society.

We have a dual concept in our political theory which recognizes the reciprocal relationship between civic rights and civic responsibility . The American citizen is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights in the conduct, policymaking, and management of his government. In exercising those rights he assumes a relatively large measure of civic responsibility to take an interest in the affairs of government and to participate actively in those affairs.

What civic rights do American citizens throughout the country have? They have the right to vote assuming they meet reasonable qualifications, for public officers of their own choosing, and to run for elective offices themselves if they wish to do so. Citizens of the United States are entitled, within the framework of wide discretion, to select for themselves the form and manner in which the government of their local affairs shall be conducted. They are entitled to participate in the election of local officials. They are protected by constitutional guarantees against arbitrary or unreasonable infringements of their political and civic rights.

Citizens of the United States, in exercising their civic rights, assume great responsibilities, far exceeding those assumed by citizens in an authoritarian dictatorship who are spoon-fed from a cafeteria of state directives over which they have absolutely no control. Our citizens are expected to inform themselves about governmental and political affairs, and to go to the polls to vote for candidates of their own choice. Our young people, through our schools and other educational activities, are taught and encouraged to learn how to be good citizens by taking an active part in politics. Our society endows our citizens with free civ i c and political rights, and it extracts from them a large measure of civic responsibility.

What of the citizen of the District of Columbia? In contrast to other Americans, he is not a citizen of any State , and thus does not, as all others do, hold dual c i tizens h ip. He is only a citizen of the United States. He lives in the United States, pays taxes to his Government, serves in the Armed Forces of his country. Yet, he is not entitled, through an act of Congress , to vote or to mana g e purely local affairs throu g h local selfg government. . His only r ig hts are solely those of the Constitution. From a legislative standpoint he can petition the Government for redress of grievances ; he c a n join volunt a ry assoc i ations for the advancement of goals through collective action; he has freedom of expression by speech or by writing. He has no effective civic rights. The Congress has imposed upon him telling civic obligations. He is, in effect , a serf who periodically does fealty to his masters in the Federal Government. What different status does he have from all the colonials of history? Very little, except the guarantees of the Constitution.

Citizens living in the District of Columbia pay their annual tribute to the Federal Government in taxes, though they are not represented in the levying of those tributes. And they pay more than most Americans. From 1929 until 1941, per capita personal income in the District of Columbia was higher than in any other State in the entire Nation. Since then the District has been in the top four or five among States in per capita personal income. In 1957, per capita personal income in the District of Columbia was fifth in the Nation, exceeded only by the States of Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and California. Per capita personal income among 5 hi g h ­ est States and the District of Col u m­ bi a , 1957

State:

Connecticut_ _____________ _ _______ $2, 821 Delaware__________ _ ______________ 2, 740 NewYork ________________________ 2 , 578 California______________ _ _________ 2 , 523 District of Columbia------------- 2, 514 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, "U.S. Income and Output," 1958, pp. 158- Such a high per capita income means that the resident of the District of Columbia pays, on a per capita, a higher proportion of Federal taxes than most Americans in other parts of the country. Yet the District citizen has no voice in the determination of how Federal funds appropriated for local purposes shall be allocated, and no voice in the management of government. Furthermore, in addition to personal income taxes, the District resident pays substantial personal property taxes, though he has no control over or voice in the allocation of or use of such funds. He is taxed, and pays far more than the average share, without being represented in any way. Our Founding Fathers believed that taxation without representation was the cruelest form of tyranny. The Congress has, since 1874, allowed this state of affairs to continue. It is respectfully submitted that in 1959, after 85 years of congealed citizenship, there should be a thaw. The rights of free people again should flow in the lives of the people of the District of Columbia. For these citizens of the United States deserve privileges as well as responsibilities.

In addition to dutifully paying his taxes on income and property to the Government, without representation, the citi z en of the District of Columbia is liable to service in the Armed Forces. In this respect District residents have made a n extraordinary contribution. In World War II, the District of Columbia contributed 105,000 young men and women to the Armed Forces, a greater number th a n that contributed by 14 of the States. An even higher proportion of District residents marched off to defend the freedom to which they were not themselves fully entitled during the Korean war, when 28,200 citizens of the District of Columbia entered the Armed Forces of the United States. This is a greater number than that contributed by 22 States of the Union. The record proves that the citizens of the District of Columbia are outstanding citizens of the United States.

The Congress in imposing burdensome obligations upon citizens of the District of Columbia has refused them a share in the determination of their own local affairs. This denial of fundamental civic rights which would create widespread public abhorrence if they were refused to Americans living elsewhere in the country. Those who support local selfgovernment-local integrity in the determination of purely local affairs-should, to be consistent with our traditional high principles, restore home rule for the District of Columbia. Restoring home rule would destroy the blighted area at the doorstep of the Capitol of freedom.

These residents of the District of columbia are; I think, the last remaining citizens of the United States who are wards of the COngress. We have made our political peace with the Indian tribes. Citizens living on Indian reservations have the right to participate in politics and, in large measure, manage their local affairs.

Eighty-five years of disuse normally would result in complete atrophy of civic interests by any citizens. Apathy, indifference result from lack of exercise. But any indifference of the residents of the District of Columbia toward their governmental affairs, and their political life, is far exceeded by basic disinterest by most of past Congresses toward their political fate. And congressional indifference toward District affairs and District problems is not a recent development. Walter F. Dodd 50 years ago wrote in 1909 that-

The system of congressional legislation works badly in great measure because of the wa.nt of interest in District a.ffa.irs upon the pa.rt of the great body of Senators a.nd Representatives. Important legislation to which there is no particular objection often falls simply because the pressures of other business which a.ffects more closely the interests of the Members of Congress. (From "the Government of the District of Columbia: A Study in Federal and Municipal Administration," 1909, p. 66.) · The absence of civic rights for citizens of the District of Columbia has, in my opinion, the further consequence of stultifying the development of responsible municipal leadership and the active interest of citizens in their own fatea kind of political nihilism has been forced upon these citizens of the United States.

The present three commissioner form of government was created by act of Congress, approved June 11, 1878. From 1879 through 1920, the Federal Government made what is called the Federal payment to the District of Columbia on the basis of 50 percent of the general fund appropriation. Thus, the local District of Columbia taxpayer paid 50 cents of each dollar appropriated to operate and maintain the District with the remaining 50 cents being paid by the Federal Government. The primary purpose of this Federal payment is to compensate for the fact that the Federal Government, as the principal employer and land user in the District, 1s tax In exempt, thus depriving the city of major sources of tax revenue common to other cities.

The practice of paying 50 percent of the cost of operating the District government was discontinued by the Congress in 1921. Since that time, the percentage of costs borne by the United States has fluctuated from a high of 39.5 percent in 1924 to a low of 8.5 percent in 1954. Since 1956, the Federal payment has been slightly over 12 percent. It is significant that during all this time, that is from 1879 to date, the Federal Government has maintained 100-percent control over the lawmaking power for the District of Columbia.

The most recently authorized annual payment by the Federal Government to the District is $32 million. However, the Congress has never appropriated the full in authorized amount. In 1958, the Federal Government appropriated only $20 EXECUTIVE 8. 659: Bible bill, Territorial H.R. 1379: Wier bill, Mayor and Council Governor, $21,000 and $2,500:

A. Appointed by President. A. Elected by people. B. 4years. B. 4-year term. LEGISLATIVE I. Legislative Assembly: I. Council:

A. 15 members. A. 9 members. B. $10,000. B. $3,000. C. $12,000 (for Ch airma n). C. $5,000 (for Chairman). D. 2-year term. D. 2- year term. E. Elected. E. Elected. II. District delegate: II. Board of Education:

A. 2-year term . A. 9 members.

B. Elected by people. B. $29 a meeting.

C. 2-year term.

D. Elected by people.

ill. District delegate:

A. Elected 2 years. It is hoped and expected that the 86th Congress will adopt a home rule measure. The territorial bill has the broadest base of political support and appears to have the best chance of adoption.

Within the past year the most significant governmental development concerning Washington and the surrounding areas was the establishment by Congress of the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Affairs. This committee is made up of three SenatorsSenator BIBLE.., of Neyada; Senator MoRSE, of Oregon; Senator BEALL, of Maryland-and three CongressmenMr. McMILLAN, of South Carolina; Mr. SMITH, of Virginia; and Mr. BROYHILL, of Virginia. During 1958, the staff of the joint committee developed significant reports on water supply, sewage disposal, and economic forecasts for the Washington metropolitan area. The area encompassed by the studies includes the District of Columbia; Arlington County and Fairfax County, Va.; Montgomery County and Prince Georges County,Md.

The most significant decision made by the joint committee was the unanimous proposal submitted to Congress on Jan- By million of the authorized $32 million . . this regard, the most important legislative proposal submitted by the Commissioners in their 1959 state of the Nation's Capital report to the Congress was a request for the creation of a territorial form of government. The drive for home rule for the District of Columbia has developed strong impetus in recent years with a broad base of support regardless of political party affiliation. In the present Congress, three separate proposals have been submitted. These are S. 659, the Bible bill, providing for a territorial form of government; H.R. 1379, the Wier bill, providing for a mayor and a council form of government; and H.R. 2321, the Auchincloss bill, providing for a commission form of government. A comparision of the significant differences in these bills is set forth below. It is important to keep mind that the territorial and the mayor-council bills are identical except for the differences noted below:

H.R. 2321: Auchincloss, Commission

Mayor,$15,000and$2,500expenses : Mayor, $19,000 and $2,500:

A. Elected by Commission.

B. 1-year term.

I. Commission:

A. 5 members.

B. $19,000.

C. President elected among Commission.

D. Seccetary appointed. E. 1 commission elected by people annually.

F. 5-year term. Title IV: A. Each act deposited with Congress. B. After 30 days, sent to President and if no congressional joint resolution approving, President can approve uary 31, 1959. The joint COilllll.ittee favors the establishment of two governmental bodies, one Federal in naturethe other locally constituted. The Federal agency is the Regional Planning Council. This would be a nine member body; three representatives from the District of Columbia, one from each of the four counties, and two "at large" representatives, one from Maryland and one from Virginia. These members would be appointed, by the President of the United States. The council would . assume the functions of the National Capital Planning Commission with no authority over zoning. It would be financed with Federal funds. The establishment of this council would manifest a strong Federal interest in the entire metropolitan area. This Federal interest to date has been limited solely to the District of Columbia territorial boundaries. The manifestation of this Federal interest is justified by the great growth in population in the area since World War II. A strong community of social, economic, and political interest exists among the citizens of the four counties and the District of Columbia. way of example, many, if not most. of the persons who live in Montgomery County are employed either in the District of Columbia or Virginia. Though the increased Federal interest in the ent tire area is justified and should be made manifest, it is important to emphasize that this go v ernmental structure would not impinge upon the local autonomy of the four counties in the two States.

The second governmental agency reco m mended by the joint committee is the Washington Metropolitan Regional Confe re nce. Membership on this conference would be by election conducted by the counties. The conference would establish general policy on regional projects involving transportation, water supply, and sewage disposal. It would take steps to establish such projects. Financing for the conference would be by way of taxes collected by each county and transmitted to the conference. At the outset there would be a small Federal appropriation to establish the conference.

The joint committee thus has recommended the establishment of a combined Federal and local bicameral regional organization to coordinate development projects in the Washington metropolitan area. It should be emphasized, however, that the establishment of these two agencies would not break down the present balance of political power between the Federal and local governments.

A further important recommendation of the committee is the establishment of the office of Coordinator of National Capital Affairs. The Coordinator would be the Presidential aide in the White House advising the President on matters pertaining to the District of Columbia and the metropolitan area.

There is a very strong likelihood that the recommendation of the joint committee will be accepted by the Congress and these two agencies will be established within the next 2 years.

Finally, some mention should be made of the existing District of Columbia Committee for the House of Representatives. This committee, which now is an important factor in the enactment of all laws pertaining to the District of Columbia, consists of 25 Members of the House of Representatives. There are 16 Democrats and 9 Republicans. The committee is subdivided into four subcommittees: No. 1 deals with fiscal affairs; No. 2 with judiciary, insurance, and public utility matters; No. 3 with police, fire, traffic, streets, crime, and court matters; and No. 4 with health, education, recreation, and banking matters. Any citizen of the District of Columbia today can feel free, under the existing system, to contact any one of the members of the committees on any matters pertaining to roads, streets, sidewalks, retirement pay, taxes, and everything that any citizen would take up with a city council. To free Congressmen and Senators for national problems, home rule legislation is feasible and necessary.

Section 8, clause 17 of article I of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:

Congress shall have power-

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever , over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts , magazines, arsen a ls , dockyards, and other needful buildings.

And while the Founding Fathers of our Republic may not . have foreseen all the needs of our District citizens, they certainly had no intention of disenfranchising them and relegating them to the unfortunate status of wards of the State. James Madison wrote in No . 43 of the Federalist Papers of the Federal District that "as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cess i on; as they will have had their voice in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them" then they will agree willingly to reside in the special Federal District acquired for the purpose of establishing a National Capitol. The Founding Fathers assumed that no Congress would, under the Constitution, deny citizens living in the Federal District the ordinary and widely respected rights of self-government.

I respectfully urge the Congress to restore local representative government to the District of Columbia. It is perhaps the most significant domestic political anomaly of all time that our Nation which properly proclaims to the world its belief in the democratic process of self-government through congressional action abrogated representative institutions at the seat of our Government.

I have cosponsored the so-called territorial home rule bill because I believe it is the legislation which is most compatible with the unique place the Capitol of freedom occupies in the world while providing constitutional representative local government. It has the support of the administration, the District Commissioners, and of citizens' groups in the District of Columbia who are fighting for their civic life. Home rule for the citizens of the District of Columbia should be provided as well as the right to vote for President and Vice President.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield [Mr. MATTHEWS]. 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [ Mr. ToLL].

Mr. TOLL. Mr. Chairman , this is really a great occasion, because for the fourth time this Congress, this great 86th Congress, is recognizing the universal right of suffrage.

First, in 1959, we recognized and extended through the leadership of the Congress the introduction of Alaska as a State, then it was extended to the introduction of Hawaii as a State , then in extending the right of franchise to all possible disfranchised people in the Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was extended so that all the people of the country would be given the right to vote.

Now, for the great glory of the 86th Congress, we are going to extend that same privilege to the people who live in the District of Columbia.

This is the greatest Congress in the history of America, and I congratulate its Members . on having this opportunity to vote for the extension of this privilege to the people of the District of Columbia .

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. HECHLER].

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a mild resolution which should win the overwhelming support of all Members of this Congress. However, I wish that it went even further than it does. I concur in what the gentleman from New York , Mr. LINDSAY, said, that there is an unfortunate limitation on page 2 with reference to the number of electors. I do believe we should go much further and grant home rule and self-government and representation to the people of the District of Columbia. Here in the Nation ' s Capital we really ought to be the sho w case of democracy for the free world.

Someone during this debate referred to those supporting home rule for the District of Columbia as agitators, with theoretical ideas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be called an agitator and am proud to wear that label. We would not be sitting here today were it not for some agitators at Bunker Hill and Valley Forge and those who wrote the Declaration of Independence. I love the theoretical ideas so boldly set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Selfgovernment is a revolutionary principle for which I will keep right on being an agitator.

Nevertheless, I concur with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary that we must take one step at a time; therefore, I hope that this resolution will . win the overwhelming support of the Members of this House.

In passing this resolution, it is most appropriate and fitting that we take this action-the first step in amending the Constitution-to allow citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President on this particular day, Flag Day. I am honored to join in this minor piece of agitation to extend democracy in the shadow of the Nation's Capitol.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, like others, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this measure before us. I certainly intend to vote for it. But I do want to take this time, Mr. Chairman, to point out some observations that perhaps have not been brought before the committee in some time.

We have talked considerably this afternoon and at various times about home rule for the District of Columbia. I certainly do not want my vote for this very worthwhile resolution to be considered as a vote for so-called home rule, and I say "so-called home rule" because the better term is "Capitol rule." I hold to the position just as sincerely as I can that a Federal city, reserved especially for the Capitol of the United States, is a responsibility of all the representatives of the United States and we cannot abrogate that responsibility. Some this afternoon have talked about the political serfs in the District of Columbia, because they have been denied the right to vote for what we might call city government. May I remind you that if · we abrogate our responsibility there will be literally thousands of political slaves behind an iron curtain who will not have any voice in government because there are literally tens of thousands of people all over America who have their legal residence in your State and mine who, because of their position, live in the District, who can never become bona fide c i tizens of the District. And yet we are suggesting that we take away from them the right of representation.

The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WHITENER] mentioned a few minutes ago, if I recall correctly, the fact that there were 100 , 000 people, approximately, who voted in a presidential election here in the District several years ago. I take it then that these people voted by absentee ballot and I pause to yield to the gentleman to ask if the figure I gave is approximately correct.

Mr. WHITENER. I will say to the gentleman that that was the testimony of the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia as will appear on page 34 of the hearings. Mr. MATrHEWS. I shall assume that for every adult there probably is at least one other person who is not an adult, in the same situation, living in the District but with legal residence elsewhere. And I should assume, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON] pointed out, that there are many thousands of people who are legal residents of States back home who live in the District who could have voted in this presidential election, to which I have referred, and who did not. So I suggest to y-ou that the total number of people in the District of Columbia who have legal residence in the various States probably amounts to hundreds of thousands. You talk about political serfdom. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that you will have political slavery behind an iron curtain for many thousands of citizens if you give so-called home rule, such as has been envisioned by many of my colleagues-and I respect them and I love them and I admire them. But I cannot abrogate my responsibility for the Capital City because this city is different. Its problems are different. It is the seat of the National Government. Its many beautiful and ornate public buildings were built by taxpayers' funds from all over the United States. Just the other day in one of our appropriation bills as I recall, between one-third and one-half of all the money appropriated for public buildings-tax money of your constituents and mine, was spent in the Dist r ict of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we ever stop to think of how many thousands of people live in the District of Columbia who are employed by the Federal Government. There are the great problems of mass transit which will cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars, which problems cannot be solved by the District of · Columbia alone. They must be solved also by you and me. And — I intend to do my part in trying to solve these problems.

The pollution of the Potomac River: MAN]. whose responsibility is it? It must be the responsibility of the whole Nation, I say to you. And so I could go on and on and on. So there are two points of view; one, the District of Columbia, a great city, belongs to all the people of America. And there is the o t her point of view; the District of Columbia would have its responsibilities divided between a sort of a Capital-rule type of government on the one hand and an acceptance of some responsibility on the part of the Federal Congress on the other.

I know not what course you may take, but as for me, I say sincerely and humbly , I shall always continue to look upon this beautiful Federal city as our Capital City. I am a member of the Committee on the District of Columb i a now. I do not expect to be a member of it too much longer. I think that is a responsibility all of my colleagues ought to enjoy. But so long as I am on that committee, I shall take the responsibility of making decisions on the basis of what I think is best for all of this great beloved Nation of ours.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr . Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEADER], as I recall, referred to the committee report on page 4 with respect to future enabling legislation if this resolution is adopted by the House and ratified by three-fourths of the States. He did not have time to read the language g e to which he referred but, by reason of its importance, I take that time now and I quote from page 4 of the report:

It is the committee's inten t ion, regard i ng future enabling legislation to carry out the provisions of this constitutional amendment, that no District inhabitants (including minor dependents) who maintain legal domiciles or voting residence elsewhere . be included in the census comput a t i on insofar as determining the number of electors is concerned.

M r . Chairman, I a m happy to repeat that which I said at the beginning of t h e debate on this important proposal. It is a step forward, a historic step forward. It would serve a useful purpose if this resolution were unanimously adopted by the House.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairm a n, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I y i eld to the disti ng uished majority leader.

Mr. McCORMACK. All Congress e s are very important and , as we know, very important legislation comes up in each Congress. It has in the last Congress, in t he present Congress, and it will in future Congresses. But there are some Congresses that go down in history because of ce r tain happenings that are historic in nature. The 86th Congress will be a historic Congress not for one historic event but for two: First, the admission of Hawaii as a State of the Union, and the other resolution now under consideration amending the Constitution. I join thoroughly with theremarks of my friend from Ohio in urging the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horr- F F­

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman who said this was the greatest Congress the country has ever h a d, and shortly the r eafter the majority l e ader said substantially the same thing, I will have to buy a new hat in the morning. It may be that because it has been and is my privilege to be a Member of this Congress. We are a great Congress. · No doubt about that. Certainly we have had more inefficiency and wa s te ; if w e believe what we see in the RECORD and the press this Congress is the grea t est in some respects within the m e mory of anybody here . We have established a record of spending, of the use of counterpa r t funds, and, if the press has the rec or d correct, other public money for our o w n per s onal advantage over any prev io us Congress. Sure, we are a great Congress. Our tax levies, our spending, our public debt has never been exceeded. We are leaving a legacy to coming generations that has never been approached. Future generations will certainly remember u s ­ but with what thoughts?

It is easy to give away the money exacted from others-or use it as our o w n . What does the Good Book say about pride?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution should not be changed except by the amendment procedure specified in the Constitution itself. The zeal w e display today for preserving the Constitution is commendable. At the mom e nt we are all constitutionalists. We prai s e the flexibility of the Constitution which has lived through the years, almost unchanged. The truth is, that we have already stretched the Constitution out of all recognizable shape and that today we are displaying our constitutional concern only on a noncontroversial matter, , the granting to residents of the District of Columbia of the right to vote for President and Vice President. Yet , over the years we have adopted laws of dubious constitutionality without raising the constitutional question; and wi t h f e w qualms about the oath taken every 2 years by Members of Congress. U sin g the general welfare clause and the in t e r ­ state commerce provision we ha v e justified many such measures if and when we felt justification was necessary.

As to specific laws which are unco n ­ s t itu t ional as I see it, let me name a few: The present income tax, under which up to 91 percent of an individual's earnings may be seized-effective confiscationand employers are compelled to act a s tax collectors and bookkeepe r s for the Government without compensation; the social security program, which has been sold to the public and within the Congress as an insurance program, but justified before the courts as another outand-out tax program; the farm programs, under which free Americans may be told how much of what crops they may raise on how many acres of their own land; the minimum wage law and the Davis-Bacon Act, which empower the Federal Government to establish wage rates in areas of commerce quite remote _ , from any subject to proper Federal jurisdiction; foreign economic aid programs, under which money seized from Americans is redistributed abroad in social welfare schemes whose relation to our national defense is a little hard to grasp; and Government dabbling in business enterprises either directly or through subsidies with the taxpayers' money as in the fields of public housing and power development.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, "As the District of Columbia goes, so goes the Nation" could very easily become the new political slogan.

The only reservation I had with respect to House Joint Resolution 757 was that if the District of Columbia is granted the privilege of voting for President and Vice President and the election returns were broadcast while the polls were still open in the States to the west, the outcome of the election could very easily be affected. With the difference in time from here to Hawaii and the fact that the majority of people go to the polls in the late afternoon and evening, the returns of a presidential election in the Capital of the Nation-the Federal city-could have a tremendous psychological effect upon the results elsewhere in the Nation. To those people who have never been in Washington and know nothing about its citizens or the compact nature of its population, together with their attitude of hostility toward the occupant of the White House regardless of his political affiliation, the vote in the District could be controlling. This unprecedented situation should be desired by no one.

A study of the resolution, together with the committee report and the explanation by the able chairman, plus the colloquy between the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WHITENER], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. RoGERS], both members of the Judiciary Committee and able lawyers, have resolved this question to my complete satisfaction. The debate this afternoon has made it clear that Congress would have the power to prohibit the counting of the ballots or the totaling of them on voting machines until after the polls had closed in our most western State. It is also clear that Congress would have such power and authority to determine when the results of a presidential election in the District of Columbia would be made pubNo doubt House Joint Resolution 757 will receive early approval by the Congress and will be signed by the President. The critical hurdle will be to secure the approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures on the proposed amendment within the 7 -year period.

Many State legislators might very well oppose the adoption of the amendment were they not cognizant of the fact that the Congress could postpone the release of the District of Columbia returns until the last American had cast his ballot. The debate this afternoon should resolve all doubt as to the congressional power in this regard.

The Committee on the Judiciary and its great and sincere chairman deserve much credit for the measure now about to be approved by the House, and the rapidity with which House Joint Resolution 757 was brought to the floor for consideration. The distinguished chairman and the members of the Rules Committee are to be commended for their expeditious consideration.

The prompt action by these two outstanding committees, composed of members from different sections of the country and of different psychological viewpoints, demonstrates the desire and purpose of this body that no American should be denied the right to vote for the two highest offices in the land.

I am sure the vote in both bodies, Mr. Chairman, will be practically unanimous, and I join with my fellow Members in hoping that the requisite number of States act within the prescribed time.

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Joint Resolution 757 which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia by granting representation in the electoral college.

Mr. Chairman, the framers of the Constitution did a magnificent job in providing guidelines and protecting individual rights of the citizens of this great Republic. It is a true charter for free men living with one another in peace and harmony. No other constitution has stood such rigid tests or served as well so many men. This Constitution has served this Nation throughout its history with few major amendments. It has been used as a model by our many States and many independent countries. Therefore, I have no criticism to o:ffer about the work of · our Founding Fathers in the drafting of this important document. It is possible that the failure to provide a vote for the residents of the District of Columbia was an oversight but it is also possible that the Founding Fathers assumed that anyone working in the Federal city would have permanent residence in some other State. Regardless of the reason for this omission it is time that we take affirmative action in granting the right to vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the proposed constitutional amendment and hope that favorable action will be taken before this Congress adjourns.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, the adoption by the Senate and now the House of Senate Joint Resolution 39, proposing a constitutional amendment that would permit residents of the District of Columbia to vote in national elections is a most commendable step forward. I believe that the entire Nation welcomes this measure that would provide for three votes in the electoral college for the District of Columbia.

Those who have long been observers of the national political process will at last become participants when the amendment is ratified by the required 38 States.

Pleased as we all are with the adoption of the amendment by both Houses of Congress, it is somewhat disappointing that the second so-called District provision in the original Senate version of the resolution was not included in the final measure. This would have provided the District with two House Delegates in Congress to represent the views of the more than 750,000 residents of the Nation's Capital. I surely hope that the Congress will consider this feature next year.

Another vital measure that should be brought before Congress for consideration is the so-called home-rule bill. We have broken through the barrier and opened a way for democracy to flow into the District. But, it is only a beginning, since the privilege of the vote has still to be extended to include the election of local government officials and representatives in Congress.

The fact that the District is a "Federal city’ in which all the citizens of the country have an interest is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for denying to its inhabitants control over their local problems, matters in which the people neither of New York nor California could possibly have any concern.

Those of us who have supported the constitutional amendment cannot assume that our task is finished. Selfgovernment has always been the bulwark of our Federal system and any supporter of States rights should ardently favor the same prerogatives of local rule for the citizens of the District.

The home-rule bill discharge petition before the House requires just a few more signatures to bring the measure to the floor for debate. Action this session by the House can send a bill to the President for enactment into law. I urge that the bill be cleared and that we maintain our momentum to bring to the residents of the District the privileges of democracy.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the joint resolution is considered as read and open to amendment. Also, under the rule, no amendments are in order except those offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Are there any amendments?

Mr. CELLER. There are no amendments, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAffiMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

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 (H.J. Res. 757) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the electoral college to the District of Columbia, pursuant to House Resolution 554, he reported the joint resolution back to the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.

The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution C S.J. Res. 39) proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives, to abolish tax and property qualifications for electors in Federal elections, and to enfranchise the people of the District of Columbia.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following articles are hereby proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and any one of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only 1f ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress :

"ARTICLE-

"On any date that the total number of vacancies in the House of Representatives exceeds half of the authorized membership thereof, and for a period of sixty days thereafter, the executive authority of each State shall have power to make temporary appointments to fill any vacancies, including those happening during such period, in the representation from his State in the House of Representatives. Any person temporarily appointed to fill any such vacancy shall serve until the people fill the vacancy by election as provided for by article I, section 2, of the Constitution.

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax or to meet any property qualification.

"SEC. 2. Nothing in this article shall be construed to invalidate any provision of law denying the right to vote to paupers or persons supported at public expense or by charitable institutions.

"SEC. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"ARTICLE-

"The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall elect, in such manner and under such regulations as the Congress shall provide bylaw-

"a number of Delegates to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Representatives to which they would be entitled if the District were a State with such powers as the Congress, by law, shall determine; and

"a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State; such electors shall possess the qualifications required by article II of this Constitution; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and cast their ballots as provided by the twelfth article of amendment."

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker , I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: Strike out all after the enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 39 and insert the provisions of House Joint Resolution 757 as p as sed, as follows: "That the following article is hereby propo se d as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to an intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the d ate of its submission by the Congress:

"'ARTICLE-

" ‘SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the Uni te d States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

"'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; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment.

"'SEc. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation'."

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.

The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution was passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting representation in the electoral college to the District of Columbia."

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

House Joint Resolution 757 was laid on the table.